BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan
Internet Draft S. Sathappan
Intended status: Standards Track W. Henderickx
S. Palislamovic
R. Shekhar Nokia
A. Lohiya
J. Drake
Juniper A. Sajassi
D. Cai
Cisco
Expires: January 8, 2017 July 7, 2016
Interconnect Solution for EVPN Overlay networks
draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-03
Abstract
This document describes how Network Virtualization Overlay networks
(NVO) can be connected to a Wide Area Network (WAN) in order to
extend the layer-2 connectivity required for some tenants. The
solution analyzes the interaction between NVO networks running EVPN
and other L2VPN technologies used in the WAN, such as VPLS/PBB-VPLS
or EVPN/PBB-EVPN, and proposes a solution for the interworking
between both.
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), 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
2. Decoupled Interconnect solution for EVPN overlay networks . . . 3
2.1. Interconnect requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. VLAN-based hand-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. PW-based (Pseudowire-based) hand-off . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Multi-homing solution on the GWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Gateway Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5.1. MAC Address Advertisement Control . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5.2. ARP flooding control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5.3. Handling failures between GW and WAN Edge routers . . . 7
3. Integrated Interconnect solution for EVPN overlay networks . . 8
3.1. Interconnect requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. VPLS Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Control/Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs . . . . 9
3.2.2. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. PBB-VPLS Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Control/Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs . . . . 10
3.3.2. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. EVPN-MPLS Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks . . . . . 11
3.4.1. Control Plane setup procedures on the GWs . . . . . . . 11
3.4.2. Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.3. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.4. Impact on MAC Mobility procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.5. Gateway optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.6. Benefits of the EVPN-MPLS Interconnect solution . . . . 16
3.5. PBB-EVPN Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks . . . . . . 16
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
3.5.1. Control/Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs . . . . 17
3.5.2. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5.3. Impact on MAC Mobility procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5.4. Gateway optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6. EVPN-VXLAN Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks . . . . . 18
3.6.1. Globally unique VNIs in the Interconnect network . . . 18
3.6.2. Downstream assigned VNIs in the Interconnect network . 19
5. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
[EVPN-Overlays] discusses the use of EVPN as the control plane for
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks, where VXLAN, NVGRE or
MPLS over GRE can be used as possible data plane encapsulation
options.
While this model provides a scalable and efficient multi-tenant
solution within the Data Center, it might not be easily extended to
the WAN in some cases due to the requirements and existing deployed
technologies. For instance, a Service Provider might have an already
deployed (PBB-)VPLS or (PBB-)EVPN network that must be used to
interconnect Data Centers and WAN VPN users. A Gateway (GW) function
is required in these cases.
This document describes a Interconnect solution for EVPN overlay
networks, assuming that the NVO Gateway (GW) and the WAN Edge
functions can be decoupled in two separate systems or integrated into
the same system. The former option will be referred as "Decoupled
Interconnect solution" throughout the document, whereas the latter
one will be referred as "Integrated Interconnect solution".
2. Decoupled Interconnect solution for EVPN overlay networks
This section describes the interconnect solution when the GW and WAN
Edge functions are implemented in different systems. Figure 1 depicts
the reference model described in this section.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
+--+
|CE|
+--+
|
+----+
+----| PE |----+
+---------+ | +----+ | +---------+
+----+ | +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ | +----+
|NVE1|--| | | |WAN | |WAN | | | |--|NVE3|
+----+ | |GW1|--|Edge| |Edge|--|GW3| | +----+
| +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ |
| NVO-1 | | WAN | | NVO-2 |
| +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ |
| | | |WAN | |WAN | | | |
+----+ | |GW2|--|Edge| |Edge|--|GW4| | +----+
|NVE2|--| +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ |--|NVE4|
+----+ +---------+ | | +---------+ +----+
+--------------+
|<-EVPN-Overlay-->|<-VLAN->|<-WAN L2VPN->|<--PW-->|<--EVPN-Overlay->|
hand-off hand-off
Figure 1 Decoupled Interconnect model
The following section describes the interconnect requirements for
this model.
2.1. Interconnect requirements
This proposed Interconnect architecture will be normally deployed in
networks where the EVPN-Overlay and WAN providers are different
entities and a clear demarcation is needed. The solution must observe
the following requirements:
o A simple connectivity hand-off must be provided between the EVPN-
Overlay network provider and the WAN provider so that QoS and
security enforcement are easily accomplished.
o The solution must be independent of the L2VPN technology deployed
in the WAN.
o Multi-homing between GW and WAN Edge routers is required. Per-
service load balancing MUST be supported. Per-flow load balancing
MAY be supported but it is not a strong requirement since a
deterministic path per service is usually required for an easy QoS
and security enforcement.
o Ethernet OAM and Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) functions must
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
be supported between the EVPN-Overlay network and the WAN network.
o The following optimizations MAY be supported at the GW:
+ Flooding reduction of unknown unicast traffic sourced from the DC
Network Virtualization Edge devices (NVEs).
+ Control of the WAN MAC addresses advertised to the DC.
+ ARP flooding control for the requests coming from the WAN.
2.2. VLAN-based hand-off
In this option, the hand-off between the GWs and the WAN Edge routers
is based on 802.1Q VLANs. This is illustrated in Figure 1 (between
the GWs in NVO-1 and the WAN Edge routers). Each MAC-VRF in the GW is
connected to a different VSI/MAC-VRF instance in the WAN Edge router
by using a different C-TAG VLAN ID or a different combination of
S/C-TAG VLAN IDs that matches at both sides.
This option provides the best possible demarcation between the DC and
WAN providers and it does not require control plane interaction
between both providers. The disadvantage of this model is the
provisioning overhead since the service must be mapped to a S/C-TAG
VLAN ID combination at both, GW and WAN Edge routers.
In this model, the GW acts as a regular Network Virtualization Edge
(NVE) towards the DC. Its control plane, data plane procedures and
interactions are described in [EVPN-Overlays].
The WAN Edge router acts as a (PBB-)VPLS or (PBB-)EVPN PE with
attachment circuits (ACs) to the GWs. Its functions are described in
[RFC4761][RFC4762][RFC6074] or [RFC7432][PBB-EVPN].
2.3. PW-based (Pseudowire-based) hand-off
If MPLS can be enabled between the GW and the WAN Edge router, a PW-
based Interconnect solution can be deployed. In this option the
hand-off between both routers is based on FEC128-based PWs or FEC129-
based PWs (for a greater level of network automation). Note that this
model still provides a clear demarcation boundary between DC and WAN,
and security/QoS policies may be applied on a per PW basis. This
model provides better scalability than a C-TAG based hand-off and
less provisioning overhead than a combined C/S-TAG hand-off. The
PW-based hand-off interconnect is illustrated in Figure 1 (between
the NVO-2 GWs and the WAN Edge routers).
In this model, besides the usual MPLS procedures between GW and WAN
Edge router, the GW MUST support an interworking function in each
MAC-VRF that requires extension to the WAN:
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
o If a FEC128-based PW is used between the MAC-VRF (GW) and the VSI
(WAN Edge), the provisioning of the VCID for such PW MUST be
supported on the MAC-VRF and must match the VCID used in the peer
VSI at the WAN Edge router.
o If BGP Auto-discovery [RFC6074] and FEC129-based PWs are used
between the GW MAC-VRF and the WAN Edge VSI, the provisioning of
the VPLS-ID MUST be supported on the MAC-VRF and must match the
VPLS-ID used in the WAN Edge VSI.
2.4. Multi-homing solution on the GWs
As already discussed, single-active multi-homing, i.e. per-service
load-balancing multi-homing MUST be supported in this type of
interconnect. All-active multi-homing may be considered in future
revisions of this document.
The GWs will be provisioned with a unique ESI per WAN interconnect
and the hand-off attachment circuits or PWs between the GW and the
WAN Edge router will be assigned to such ESI. The ESI will be
administratively configured on the GWs according to the procedures in
[RFC7432]. This Interconnect ESI will be referred as "I-ESI"
hereafter.
The solution (on the GWs) MUST follow the single-active multi-homing
procedures as described in [EVPN-Overlays] for the provisioned I-ESI,
i.e. Ethernet A-D routes per ESI and per EVI will be advertised to
the DC NVEs. The MAC addresses learned (in the data plane) on the
hand-off links will be advertised with the I-ESI encoded in the ESI
field.
2.5. Gateway Optimizations
The following features MAY be supported on the GW in order to
optimize the control plane and data plane in the DC.
2.5.1. MAC Address Advertisement Control
The use of EVPN in the NVO networks brings a significant number of
benefits as described in [EVPN-Overlays]. However, if multiple DCs
are interconnected into a single EVI, each DC will have to import all
of the MAC addresses from each of the other DCs.
Even if optimized BGP techniques like RT-constraint are used, the
number of MAC addresses to advertise or withdraw (in case of failure)
by the GWs of a given DC could overwhelm the NVEs within that DC,
particularly when the NVEs reside in the hypervisors.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
The solution specified in this document uses the 'Unknown MAC' route
which is advertised into a given DC by each of the DC's GWs. This
route is a regular EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route in which the MAC
Address Length is set to 48, the MAC address is set to
00:00:00:00:00:00, the IP length is set to 0, and the ESI field is
set to the DC GW's I-ESI.
An NVE within that DC that understands the Unknown MAC route will
send (unicast) a packet with an unknown unicast MAC address to one of
the DCs GWs which will then forward that packet to the correct egress
PE. I.e., because the ESI is set to the DC GW's I-ESI, all-active
multi-homing can be applied to unknown unicast MAC addresses.
This document proposes that administrative policy determines whether
and which external MAC addresses and/or the Unknown MAC route are to
be advertised into a given DC. E.g., when all the DC MAC addresses
are learned in the control/management plane, it may be appropriate to
advertise the Unknown MAC route.
2.5.2. ARP flooding control
Another optimization mechanism, naturally provided by EVPN in the
GWs, is the Proxy ARP/ND function. The GWs SHOULD build a Proxy
ARP/ND cache table as per [RFC7432]. When the active GW receives an
ARP/ND request/solicitation coming from the WAN, the GW does a Proxy
ARP/ND table lookup and replies as long as the information is
available in its table.
This mechanism is especially recommended on the GWs since it protects
the DC network from external ARP/ND-flooding storms.
2.5.3. Handling failures between GW and WAN Edge routers
Link/PE failures MUST be handled on the GWs as specified in
[RFC7432]. The GW detecting the failure will withdraw the EVPN routes
as per [RFC7432].
Individual AC/PW failures should be detected by OAM mechanisms. For
instance:
o If the Interconnect solution is based on a VLAN hand-off,
802.1ag/Y.1731 Ethernet-CFM MAY be used to detect individual AC
failures on both, the GW and WAN Edge router. An individual AC
failure will trigger the withdrawal of the corresponding A-D per
EVI route as well as the MACs learned on that AC.
o If the Interconnect solution is based on a PW hand-off, the LDP PW
Status bits TLV MAY be used to detect individual PW failures on
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
both, the GW and WAN Edge router.
3. Integrated Interconnect solution for EVPN overlay networks
When the DC and the WAN are operated by the same administrative
entity, the Service Provider can decide to integrate the GW and WAN
Edge PE functions in the same router for obvious CAPEX and OPEX
saving reasons. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Note that this model
does not provide an explicit demarcation link between DC and WAN
anymore.
+--+
|CE|
+--+
|
+----+
+----| PE |----+
+---------+ | +----+ | +---------+
+----+ | +---+ +---+ | +----+
|NVE1|--| | | | | |--|NVE3|
+----+ | |GW1| |GW3| | +----+
| +---+ +---+ |
| NVO-1 | WAN | NVO-2 |
| +---+ +---+ |
| | | | | |
+----+ | |GW2| |GW4| | +----+
|NVE2|--| +---+ +---+ |--|NVE4|
+----+ +---------+ | | +---------+ +----+
+--------------+
|<--EVPN-Overlay--->|<-----VPLS--->|<---EVPN-Overlay-->|
|<--PBB-VPLS-->|
Interconnect -> |<-EVPN-MPLS-->|
options |<--EVPN-Ovl-->|
|<--PBB-EVPN-->|
Figure 2 Integrated Interconnect model
3.1. Interconnect requirements
The solution must observe the following requirements:
o The GW function must provide control plane and data plane
interworking between the EVPN-overlay network and the L2VPN
technology supported in the WAN, i.e. (PBB-)VPLS or (PBB-)EVPN, as
depicted in Figure 2.
o Multi-homing MUST be supported. Single-active multi-homing with
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
per-service load balancing MUST be implemented. All-active multi-
homing, i.e. per-flow load-balancing, MUST be implemented as long
as the technology deployed in the WAN supports it.
o If EVPN is deployed in the WAN, the MAC Mobility, Static MAC
protection and other procedures (e.g. proxy-arp) described in
[RFC7432] must be supported end-to-end.
o Any type of inclusive multicast tree MUST be independently
supported in the WAN as per [RFC7432], and in the DC as per [EVPN-
Overlays].
3.2. VPLS Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks
3.2.1. Control/Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs
Regular MPLS tunnels and TLDP/BGP sessions will be setup to the WAN
PEs and RRs as per [RFC4761][RFC4762][RFC6074] and overlay tunnels
and EVPN will be setup as per [EVPN-Overlays]. Note that different
route-targets for the DC and for the WAN are normally required. A
single type-1 RD per service may be used.
In order to support multi-homing, the GWs will be provisioned with an
I-ESI (see section 2.4), that will be unique per interconnection. All
the [RFC7432] procedures are still followed for the I-ESI, e.g. any
MAC address learned from the WAN will be advertised to the DC with
the I-ESI in the ESI field.
A MAC-VRF per EVI will be created in each GW. The MAC-VRF will have
two different types of tunnel bindings instantiated in two different
split-horizon-groups:
o VPLS PWs will be instantiated in the "WAN split-horizon-group".
o Overlay tunnel bindings (e.g. VXLAN, NVGRE) will be instantiated
in the "DC split-horizon-group".
Attachment circuits are also supported on the same MAC-VRF, but they
will not be part of any of the above split-horizon-groups.
Traffic received in a given split-horizon-group will never be
forwarded to a member of the same split-horizon-group.
As far as BUM flooding is concerned, a flooding list will be created
with the sub-list created by the inclusive multicast routes and the
sub-list created for VPLS in the WAN. BUM frames received from a
local attachment circuit will be flooded to both sub-lists. BUM
frames received from the DC or the WAN will be forwarded to the
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
flooding list observing the split-horizon-group rule described above.
Note that the GWs are not allowed to have an EVPN binding and a PW to
the same far-end within the same MAC-VRF in order to avoid loops and
packet duplication. This is described in [EVPN-VPLS-INTEGRATION].
The optimizations procedures described in section 2.5 can also be
applied to this model.
3.2.2. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs
Single-active multi-homing MUST be supported on the GWs. All-active
multi-homing is not supported by VPLS.
All the single-active multi-homing procedures as described by [EVPN-
Overlays] will be followed for the I-ESI.
The non-DF GW for the I-ESI will block the transmission and reception
of all the bindings in the "WAN split-horizon-group" for BUM and
unicast traffic.
3.3. PBB-VPLS Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks
3.3.1. Control/Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs
In this case, there is no impact on the procedures described in
[RFC7041] for the B-component. However the I-component instances
become EVI instances with EVPN-Overlay bindings and potentially local
attachment circuits. M MAC-VRF instances can be multiplexed into the
same B-component instance. This option provides significant savings
in terms of PWs to be maintained in the WAN.
The I-ESI concept described in section 3.2.1 will also be used for
the PBB-VPLS-based Interconnect.
B-component PWs and I-component EVPN-overlay bindings established to
the same far-end will be compared. The following rules will be
observed:
o Attempts to setup a PW between the two GWs within the B-
component context will never be blocked.
o If a PW exists between two GWs for the B-component and an
attempt is made to setup an EVPN binding on an I-component linked
to that B-component, the EVPN binding will be kept operationally
down. Note that the BGP EVPN routes will still be valid but not
used.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
o The EVPN binding will only be up and used as long as there is no
PW to the same far-end in the corresponding B-component. The EVPN
bindings in the I-components will be brought down before the PW in
the B-component is brought up.
The optimizations procedures described in section 2.5 can also be
applied to this Interconnect option.
3.3.2. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs
Single-active multi-homing MUST be supported on the GWs.
All the single-active multi-homing procedures as described by [EVPN-
Overlays] will be followed for the I-ESI for each EVI instance
connected to B-component.
3.4. EVPN-MPLS Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks
If EVPN for MPLS tunnels, EVPN-MPLS hereafter, is supported in the
WAN, an end-to-end EVPN solution can be deployed. The following
sections describe the proposed solution as well as the impact
required on the [RFC7432] procedures.
3.4.1. Control Plane setup procedures on the GWs
The GWs MUST establish separate BGP sessions for sending/receiving
EVPN routes to/from the DC and to/from the WAN. Normally each GW will
setup one (two) BGP EVPN session(s) to the DC RR(s) and one(two)
session(s) to the WAN RR(s).
In order to facilitate separate BGP processes for DC and WAN, EVPN
routes sent to the WAN SHOULD carry a different route-distinguisher
(RD) than the EVPN routes sent to the DC. In addition, although
reusing the same value is possible, different route-targets are
expected to be handled for the same EVI in the WAN and the DC. Note
that the EVPN service routes sent to the DC RRs will normally include
a [RFC5512] BGP encapsulation extended community with a different
tunnel type than the one sent to the WAN RRs.
As in the other discussed options, an I-ESI will be configured on the
GWs for multi-homing. This I-ESI represents the WAN to the DC but
also the DC to the WAN. Optionally, different I-ESI values MAY be
configured for representing the WAN and the DC, as long as the I-ESI
values are consistently configured on the redundant GWs and the same
GW becomes DF for both I-ESIs.
Received EVPN routes will never be reflected on the GWs but consumed
and re-advertised (if needed):
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
o Ethernet A-D routes, ES routes and Inclusive Multicast routes
are consumed by the GWs and processed locally for the
corresponding [RFC7432] procedures.
o MAC/IP advertisement routes will be received, imported and if
they become active in the MAC-VRF MAC FIB, the information will
be re-advertised as new routes with the following fields:
+ The RD will be the GW's RD for the MAC-VRF.
+ The ESI will be set to the I-ESI.
+ The Ethernet-tag value will be kept from the received NLRI.
+ The MAC length, MAC address, IP Length and IP address values
will be kept from the received NLRI.
+ The MPLS label will be a local 20-bit value (when sent to the
WAN) or a DC-global 24-bit value (when sent to the DC).
+ The appropriate Route-Targets (RTs) and [RFC5512] BGP
Encapsulation extended community will be used according to
[EVPN-Overlays].
The GWs will also generate the following local EVPN routes that will
be sent to the DC and WAN, with their corresponding RTs and [RFC5512]
BGP Encapsulation extended community values:
o ES route for the I-ESI.
o Ethernet A-D routes per ESI and EVI for the I-ESI. The A-D per-
EVI routes sent to the WAN and the DC will have a consistent
Ethernet-Tag values.
o Inclusive Multicast routes with independent tunnel type value
for the WAN and DC. E.g. a P2MP LSP may be used in the WAN
whereas ingress replication may be used in the DC. The routes
sent to the WAN and the DC will have a consistent Ethernet-Tag.
o MAC/IP advertisement routes for MAC addresses learned in local
attachment circuits. Note that these routes will not include the
I-ESI, but ESI=0 or different from 0 for local Ethernet Segments
(ES). The routes sent to the WAN and the DC will have a
consistent Ethernet-Tag.
Assuming GW1 and GW2 are peer GWs of the same DC, each GW will
generate two sets of local service routes: Set-DC will be sent to the
DC RRs and will include A-D per EVI, Inclusive Multicast and MAC/IP
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
routes for the DC encapsulation and RT. Set-WAN will be sent to the
WAN RRs and will include the same routes but using the WAN RT and
encapsulation. GW1 and GW2 will receive each other's set-DC and set-
WAN. This is the expected behavior on GW1 and GW2 for locally
generated routes:
o Inclusive multicast routes: when setting up the flooding lists
for a given MAC-VRF, each GW will include its DC peer GW only in
the EVPN-overlay flooding list (by default) and not the EVPN-
MPLS flooding list. That is, GW2 will import two Inclusive
Multicast routes from GW1 (from set-DC and set-WAN) but will
only consider one of the two, having the set-DC route higher
priority. An administrative option MAY change this preference so
that the set-WAN route is selected first.
o MAC/IP advertisement routes for local attachment circuits: as
above, the GW will select only one, having the route from the
set-DC a higher priority. As for the Inclusive multicast routes,
an administrative option MAY change this priority.
Note that, irrespective of the encapsulation, EVPN routes always have
higher priority than VPLS AD routes as per [EVPN-VPLS-INTEGRATION].
3.4.2. Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs
The procedure explained at the end of the previous section will make
sure there are no loops or packet duplication between the GWs of the
same DC (for frames generated from local ACs) since only one EVPN
binding per EVI will be setup in the data plane between the two
nodes. That binding will by default be added to the EVPN-overlay
flooding list.
As for the rest of the EVPN tunnel bindings, they will be added to
one of the two flooding lists that each GW sets up for the same MAC-
VRF:
o EVPN-overlay flooding list (composed of bindings to the remote
NVEs or multicast tunnel to the NVEs).
o EVPN-MPLS flooding list (composed of MP2P or LSM tunnel to the
remote PEs)
Each flooding list will be part of a separate split-horizon-group:
the WAN split-horizon-group or the DC split-horizon-group. Traffic
generated from a local AC can be flooded to both
split-horizon-groups. Traffic from a binding of a split-horizon-group
can be flooded to the other split-horizon-group and local ACs, but
never to a member of its own split-horizon-group.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
When either GW1 or GW2 receive a BUM frame on an overlay tunnel, they
will perform a tunnel IP SA lookup to determine if the packet's
origin is the peer DC GW, i.e. GW2 or GW1 respectively. If the packet
is coming from the peer DC GW, it MUST only be flooded to local
attachment circuits and not to the WAN split-horizon-group (the
assumption is that the peer GW would have sent the BUM packet to the
WAN directly).
3.4.3. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs
Single-active as well as all-active multi-homing MUST be supported.
All the multi-homing procedures as described by [RFC7432] will be
followed for the DF election for I-ESI, as well as the backup-path
(single-active) and aliasing (all-active) procedures on the remote
PEs/NVEs. The following changes are required at the GW with respect
to the I-ESI:
o Single-active multi-homing; assuming a WAN split-horizon-group,
a DC split-horizon-group and local ACs on the GWs:
+ Forwarding behavior on the non-DF: the non-DF MUST NOT forward
BUM or unicast traffic received from a given split-horizon-
group to a member of its own split-horizon-group or to the
other split-horizon-group. Only forwarding to local ACs is
allowed (as long as they are not part of an ES for which the
node is non-DF).
+ Forwarding behavior on the DF: the DF MUST NOT forward BUM or
unicast traffic received from a given split-horizon-group to a
member of his own split-horizon group or to the non-DF.
Forwarding to the other split-horizon-group (except the non-
DF) and local ACs is allowed (as long as the ACs are not part
of an ES for which the node is non-DF).
o All-active multi-homing; assuming a WAN split-horizon-group, a
DC split-horizon-group and local ACs on the GWs:
+ Forwarding behavior on the non-DF: the non-DF follows the same
behavior as the non-DF in the single-active case but only for
BUM traffic. Unicast traffic received from a split-horizon-
group MUST NOT be forwarded to a member of its own split-
horizon-group but can be forwarded normally to the other
split-horizon-group and local ACs. If a known unicast packet
is identified as a "flooded" packet, the procedures for BUM
traffic MUST be followed.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
+ Forwarding behavior on the DF: the DF follows the same
behavior as the DF in the single-active case but only for BUM
traffic. Unicast traffic received from a split-horizon-group
MUST NOT be forwarded to a member of its own split-horizon-
group but can be forwarded normally to the other split-
horizon-group and local ACs. If a known unicast packet is
identified as a "flooded" packet, the procedures for BUM
traffic MUST be followed.
o No ESI label is required to be signaled for I-ESI for its use by
the non-DF in the data path. This is possible because the non-DF
and the DF will never forward BUM traffic (coming from a split-
horizon-group) to each other.
3.4.4. Impact on MAC Mobility procedures
MAC Mobility procedures described in [RFC7432] are not modified by
this document.
Note that an intra-DC MAC move still leaves the MAC attached to the
same I-ESI, so under the rules of [RFC7432] this is not considered a
MAC mobility event. Only when the MAC moves from the WAN domain to
the DC domain (or from one DC to another) the MAC will be learned
from a different ES and the MAC Mobility procedures will kick in.
The sticky bit indication in the MAC Mobility extended community MUST
be propagated between domains.
3.4.5. Gateway optimizations
All the Gateway optimizations described in section 2.5 MAY be applied
to the GWs when the Interconnect is based on EVPN-MPLS.
In particular, the use of the Unknown MAC route, as described in
section 2.5.1, solves some transient packet duplication issues in
cases of all-active multi-homing, as explained below.
Consider the diagram in Figure 2 for EVPN-MPLS Interconnect and all-
active multi-homing, and the following sequence:
a) MAC Address M1 is advertised from NVE3 in EVI-1.
b) GW3 and GW4 learn M1 for EVI-1 and re-advertise M1 to the WAN
with I-ESI-2 in the ESI field.
c) GW1 and GW2 learn M1 and install GW3/GW4 as next-hops following
the EVPN aliasing procedures.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
d) Before NVE1 learns M1, a packet arrives at NVE1 with
destination M1. If the Unknown MAC route had not been
advertised into the DC, NVE1 would have flooded the packet
throughout the DC, in particular to both GW1 and GW2. If the
same VNI/VSID is used for both known unicast and BUM traffic,
as is typically the case, there is no indication in the packet
that it is a BUM packet and both GW1 and GW2 would have
forwarded it. However, because the Unknown MAC route had been
advertised into the DC, NVE1 will unicast the packet to either
GW1 or GW2.
e) Since both GW1 and GW2 know M1, the GW receiving the packet
will forward it to either GW3 or GW4.
3.4.6. Benefits of the EVPN-MPLS Interconnect solution
Besides retaining the EVPN attributes between Data Centers and
throughout the WAN, the EVPN-MPLS Interconnect solution on the GWs
has some benefits compared to pure BGP EVPN RR or Inter-AS model B
solutions without a gateway:
o The solution supports the connectivity of local attachment
circuits on the GWs.
o Different data plane encapsulations can be supported in the DC
and the WAN.
o Optimized multicast solution, with independent inclusive
multicast trees in DC and WAN.
o MPLS Label aggregation: for the case where MPLS labels are
signaled from the NVEs for MAC/IP Advertisement routes, this
solution provides label aggregation. A remote PE MAY receive a
single label per GW MAC-VRF as opposed to a label per NVE/MAC-
VRF connected to the GW MAC-VRF. For instance, in Figure 2, PE
would receive only one label for all the routes advertised for a
given MAC-VRF from GW1, as opposed to a label per NVE/MAC-VRF.
o The GW will not propagate MAC mobility for the MACs moving
within a DC. Mobility intra-DC is solved by all the NVEs in the
DC. The MAC Mobility procedures on the GWs are only required in
case of mobility across DCs.
o Proxy-ARP/ND function on the DC GWs can be leveraged to reduce
ARP/ND flooding in the DC or/and in the WAN.
3.5. PBB-EVPN Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
[PBB-EVPN] is yet another Interconnect option. It requires the use of
GWs where I-components and associated B-components are EVI
instances.
3.5.1. Control/Data Plane setup procedures on the GWs
EVPN will run independently in both components, the I-component MAC-
VRF and B-component MAC-VRF. Compared to [PBB-EVPN], the DC C-MACs
are no longer learned in the data plane on the GW but in the control
plane through EVPN running on the I-component. Remote C-MACs coming
from remote PEs are still learned in the data plane. B-MACs in the B-
component will be assigned and advertised following the procedures
described in [PBB-EVPN].
An I-ESI will be configured on the GWs for multi-homing, but it will
only be used in the EVPN control plane for the I-component EVI. No
non-reserved ESIs will be used in the control plane of the B-
component EVI as per [PBB-EVPN].
The rest of the control plane procedures will follow [RFC7432] for
the I-component EVI and [PBB-EVPN] for the B-component EVI.
From the data plane perspective, the I-component and B-component EVPN
bindings established to the same far-end will be compared and the I-
component EVPN-overlay binding will be kept down following the rules
described in section 3.3.1.
3.5.2. Multi-homing procedures on the GWs
Single-active as well as all-active multi-homing MUST be supported.
The forwarding behavior of the DF and non-DF will be changed based on
the description outlined in section 3.4.3, only replacing the "WAN
split-horizon-group" for the B-component.
3.5.3. Impact on MAC Mobility procedures
C-MACs learned from the B-component will be advertised in EVPN within
the I-component EVI scope. If the C-MAC was previously known in the
I-component database, EVPN would advertise the C-MAC with a higher
sequence number, as per [RFC7432]. From a Mobility perspective and
the related procedures described in [RFC7432], the C-MACs learned
from the B-component are considered local.
3.5.4. Gateway optimizations
All the considerations explained in section 3.4.5 are applicable to
the PBB-EVPN Interconnect option.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
3.6. EVPN-VXLAN Interconnect for EVPN-Overlay networks
If EVPN for Overlay tunnels is supported in the WAN and a GW function
is required, an end-to-end EVPN solution can be deployed. This
section focuses on the specific case of EVPN for VXLAN (EVPN-VXLAN
hereafter) and the impact on the [RFC7432] procedures.
This use-case assumes that NVEs need to use the VNIs or VSIDs as a
globally unique identifiers within a data center, and a Gateway needs
to be employed at the edge of the data center network to translate
the VNI or VSID when crossing the network boundaries. This GW
function provides VNI and tunnel IP address translation. The use-case
in which local downstream assigned VNIs or VSIDs can be used (like
MPLS labels) is described by [EVPN-Overlays].
While VNIs are globally significant within each DC, there are two
possibilities in the Interconnect network:
a) Globally unique VNIs in the Interconnect network:
In this case, the GWs and PEs in the Interconnect network will
agree on a common VNI for a given EVI. The RT to be used in the
Interconnect network can be auto-derived from the agreed
Interconnect VNI. The VNI used inside each DC MAY be the same
as the Interconnect VNI.
b) Downstream assigned VNIs in the Interconnect network.
In this case, the GWs and PEs MUST use the proper RTs to
import/export the EVPN routes. Note that even if the VNI is
downstream assigned in the Interconnect network, and unlike
option B, it only identifies the <Ethernet Tag, GW> pair and
not the <Ethernet Tag, egress PE> pair. The VNI used inside
each DC MAY be the same as the Interconnect VNI. GWs SHOULD
support multiple VNI spaces per EVI (one per Interconnect
network they are connected to).
In both options, NVEs inside a DC only have to be aware of a single
VNI space, and only GWs will handle the complexity of managing
multiple VNI spaces. In addition to VNI translation above, the GWs
will provide translation of the tunnel source IP for the packets
generated from the NVEs, using their own IP address. GWs will use
that IP address as the BGP next-hop in all the EVPN updates to the
Interconnect network.
The following sections provide more details about these two options.
3.6.1. Globally unique VNIs in the Interconnect network
Considering Figure 2, if a host H1 in NVO-1 needs to communicate with
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
a host H2 in NVO-2, and assuming that different VNIs are used in each
DC for the same EVI, e.g. VNI-10 in NVO-1 and VNI-20 in NVO-2, then
the VNIs must be translated to a common Interconnect VNI (e.g. VNI-
100) on the GWs. Each GW is provisioned with a VNI translation
mapping so that it can translate the VNI in the control plane when
sending BGP EVPN route updates to the Interconnect network. In other
words, GW1 and GW2 must be configured to map VNI-10 to VNI-100 in the
BGP update messages for H1's MAC route. This mapping is also used to
translate the VNI in the data plane in both directions, that is, VNI-
10 to VNI-100 when the packet is received from NVO-1 and the reverse
mapping from VNI-100 to VNI-10 when the packet is received from the
remote NVO-2 network and needs to be forwarded to NVO-1.
The procedures described in section 3.4 will be followed, considering
that the VNIs advertised/received by the GWs will be translated
accordingly.
3.6.2. Downstream assigned VNIs in the Interconnect network
In this case, if a host H1 in NVO-1 needs to communicate with a host
H2 in NVO-2, and assuming that different VNIs are used in each DC for
the same EVI, e.g. VNI-10 in NVO-1 and VNI-20 in NVO-2, then the VNIs
must be translated as in section 3.6.1. However, in this case, there
is no need to translate to a common Interconnect VNI on the GWs. Each
GW can translate the VNI received in an EVPN update to a locally
assigned VNI advertised to the Interconnect network. Each GW can use
a different Interconnect VNI, hence this VNI does not need to be
agreed on all the GWs and PEs of the Interconnect network.
The procedures described in section 3.4 will be followed, taking the
considerations above for the VNI translation.
5. Conventions and 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].
AC: Attachment Circuit
BUM: it refers to the Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast
traffic
DF: Designated Forwarder
GW: Gateway or Data Center Gateway
DCI: Data Center Interconnect
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
ES: Ethernet Segment
ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier
I-ESI: Interconnect ESI defined on the GWs for multi-homing to/from
the WAN
EVI: EVPN Instance
MAC-VRF: it refers to an EVI instance in a particular node
NVE: Network Virtualization Edge
PW: Pseudowire
RD: Route-Distinguisher
RT: Route-Target
TOR: Top-Of-Rack switch
VNI/VSID: refers to VXLAN/NVGRE virtual identifiers
VSI: Virtual Switch Instance or VPLS instance in a particular PE
6. Security Considerations
This section will be completed in future versions.
7. IANA Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4761]Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC 4761,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762]Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
[RFC6074]Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074, DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[RFC7041]Balus, F., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., and N. Bitar, Ed.,
"Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider Edge
(PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging", RFC 7041, DOI
10.17487/RFC7041, November 2013, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7041>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi et al., "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, September, 2015, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
8.2. Informative References
[EVPN-Overlays] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02.txt,
work in progress, October, 2015
[EVPN-VPLS-INTEGRATION] Sajassi et al., "(PBB-)EVPN Seamless
Integration with (PBB-)VPLS", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-integration-
00.txt, work in progress, February, 2015
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Neil Hart for their valuable comments
and feedback.
10. Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have also contributed to this document:
Florin Balus
Wen Lin
11. Authors' Addresses
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Interconnect for EVPN-Overlays July 7, 2016
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Senthil Sathappan
Nokia
Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Senad Palislamovic
Nokia
Email: senad.palislamovic@nokia.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Ravi Shekhar
Juniper
Email: rshekhar@juniper.net
Anil Lohiya
Juniper
Email: alohiya@juniper.net
Dennis Cai
Cisco Systems
Email: dcai@cisco.com
John Drake
Juniper
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Rabadan et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 22]
