INTERNET-DRAFT Sami Boutros
Intended Status: Standard Track VMware
Ali Sajassi
Samer Salam
Cisco Systems
John Drake
Juniper Networks
J. Rabadan
Nokia
Expires: August 25, 2017 February 21, 2017
VPWS support in EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-09.txt
Abstract
This document describes how EVPN can be used to support Virtual
Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN enables the
following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well as all-
active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates the
need for traditional way of PW signaling, and provides fast
protection convergence upon node or link failure.
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
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
Copyright (c) 2017 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Service interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 Single-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Multi-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
1 Introduction
This document describes how EVPN can be used to support Virtual
Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. The use of EVPN
mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS) brings the benefits of EVPN to p2p
services. These benefits include single-active redundancy as well as
all-active redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore,
the use of EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for traditional way of
PW signaling for p2p Ethernet services, as described in section 4.
[RFC7432] has the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a given
customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any MAC lookup. This
capability is ideal in providing p2p services (aka VPWS services).
[MEF] defines Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service as p2p
service between a pair of ACs (designated by VLANs) and Ethernet
Private Line (EPL) service, in which all traffic flows are between a
single pair of ports, that in EVPN terminology would mean a single
pair of Ethernet Segments ES(es). EVPL can be considered as a VPWS
with only two ACs. In delivering an EVPL service, the traffic
forwarding capability of EVPN based on the exchange of a pair of
Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes is used; whereas, for more
general VPWS as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding capability of EVPN
based on the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD routes (one Ethernet
AD route per AC/ES) is used. In a VPWS service, the traffic from an
originating Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to a single
destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed and the
MPLS label associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI) Ethernet A-D
route can be used in forwarding user traffic to the destination AC.
For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is
identified by a pair of per EVI Ethernet A-D routes which together
identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service
instance. In the control plane the VPWS service instance is
identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by
each PE and in the data plane the value of the MPLS label advertised
by one PE is used by the other PE to send traffic for that VPWS
service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS
service instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance.
Unlike EVPN where Ethernet Tag ID in EVPN routes are set to zero for
Port-based, vlan-based, and vlan-bundle interface mode and it is set
to non-zero Ethernet tag ID for vlan-aware bundle mode, in EVPN-VPWS,
for all the four interface modes, Ethernet tag ID in the Ethernet A-D
route MUST be set to a non-zero value in all the service interface
types.
In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN-
VPWS resembles the vlan-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
a PE advertises per EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance
serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet tag ID. The value of the MPLS
label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service
instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the
disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the lookup of the MPLS
label alone and perform any required tag translation. For EVPL
service, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network
SHOULD remain tagged with the originating Vlan-ID (VID) and any VID
translation MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service,
the Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not
altered.
The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the
VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VxLAN encap, and this VNI may have
a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be made equal to
the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route.
The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per EVI
route is not used to identify the service, however it can be used for
flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per
[RFC7432] baseline.
As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per ES route is used for fast
convergence upon link or node failure and the Ethernet Segment route
is used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed
CE and to synchronize state between them.
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].
MAC: Media Access Control
MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching.
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance.
PE: Provide Edge Node.
CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch.
EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line.
EPL: Ethernet Private Line.
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN.
EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN.
S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier.
C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier.
VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service.
EVI: EVPN Instance.
ES: Ethernet Segment on a PE refers to the link attached to it, this
link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs in multi
homed cases, or could be a single link in single homed cases.
ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier.
Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multi-homed to two
or more PEs and when only a single PE in such redundancy group can
forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given
VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single-
Active".
All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when
all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the
multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or
redundancy is referred to as "All-Active".
VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service
labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream
assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D
per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the
disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only
one VPWS service identifier.
2 Service interface
2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface
With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds
to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a
one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS
service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect
functionality between MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service
instance identifier and a specific <port,VLAN>. If the VLAN is
represented by different VIDs on different PEs. (e.g., a different
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE needs to perform VID
translation for frames destined to its Ethernet segment. In such
scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network
SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a VID translation
MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be performed on the
disposition PE.
2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface
With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier
corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE
provides the cross-connect functionality between MPLS label
identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of
VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN
is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is
allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label
alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross connect
traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label.
The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating
VID.
2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface
This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service
interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same
VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to
those described in Section 2.2.
2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface
Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to VLAN-
based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this
service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one
tries to define data-plane and control plane behavior for this
service interface, he would realize that it is the same as that of
VLAN-based service.
3. BGP Extensions
This document specifies the use of the per EVI Ethernet A-D route to
signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to
the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to
the VPWS service instance identifier value. For both EPL and EVPL
services, for a given VPWS service instance the pair of PEs
instantiating that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per
EVI Ethernet A-D route with its VPWS service instance identifier and
will each be configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
identifier. When each PE has received the other PE's per EVI Ethernet
A-D route the VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be
noted that the same VPWS service instance identifier may be
configured on both PEs.
The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per EVI
Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which
the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice
as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a
given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be
configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi-
point services.
3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
This draft proposes a new extended community, defined below as per
[RFC7432] in addition to the values specified in [RFC4360], to be
included with the per EVI Ethernet A-D route. This attribute is
mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
+------------------------------------+
| Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)|
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| L2 MTU (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags
The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining
bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when
receiving this community.
Name Meaning
P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it
indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE.
MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
all active PE(s).
B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it
indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE.
C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
when sending EVPN packets to this PE.
L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the
MTU in bytes.
A received L2 MTU=0 means no MTU checking against local MTU is
needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and
if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as
the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance.
The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its
usage in [RFC7432], i.e. the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the
ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all-
active redundancy is used for this ES.
In multihoming scenarios, both B and P flags MUST NOT be both set. A
PE that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the
route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P
unset, it MUST discard the received route from the sender PE.
In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election, and
all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic
to/from the CE will set the P Flag to 1. A remote PE will do per-flow
load balancing to the PEs that send P=1 for the same Ethernet Tag and
ESI. B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming
all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving PE(s) if set.
In multihoming single-active scenario, for a given VPWS service
instance, in steady state, as result of DF election, the Primary
elected PE for the VPWS service instance should signal P=1,B=0, the
Backup elected PE should signal P=0,B=1, and the rest of the PEs in
the same ES should signal P=0,B=0. When the primary PE/ES fails, the
primary PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the
VPWS service instance from the remote PE, the remote PEs should then
send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF
re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there
will be a new elected primary PE and new elected backup PE that will
signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD receive P=1
from only one Primary PE and a B-1 from only one Backup PE. However
during transient situations, a remote PE receiving P=1 from more than
one PE will select the last advertising PE as the primary PE when
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
forwarding traffic. A remote PE receiving B=1 from more than one PE
will select only one backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P=1 from at
least one PE before forwarding traffic.
If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST
NOT be set to 1 and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN-
encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP.
4 Operation
The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with
EVPN.
Ethernet Ethernet
Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native
Service | | Service
(AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC)
| V V V V V V |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| |
| CE1| | | |CE2 |
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| |
+----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+
^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^
| Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 |
| | |
| | |
| EVPN Inter-provider point |
| |
|<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->|
Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model
iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3,
possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are
established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are
established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4.
All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per EVI
Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter-
AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with NEXT_HOP
attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link
between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface,
as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two
nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs,
one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID
used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to
identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS
label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is
needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service.
For single-homed CE, in an advertised per EVI Ethernet A-D route the
ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS
service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service.
For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per EVI Ethernet A-D route the
ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to
the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value
on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE to perform
flow-based load-balancing of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached
to that ES. In all cases traffic follows the transport paths, which
may be asymmetric.
The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID
in an advertised per EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique
across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the
per EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS
to the other AS.
Per ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw
all per EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site
on a given PE.
5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling
In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done
concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label
signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either
through manual provisioning or through BGP.
In existing implementation of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), redundancy
is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN implementation of
VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy modes can be
supported.
In existing implementation with PWs, backup PWs are not used to carry
traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among
different PEs multi-homed to a single CE.
Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the
withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL
services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence
requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to
deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
the group of backup PWs associated with the access link.
Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms
not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local
AC down) using the label advertised in the per EVI Ethernet A-D route
by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to backup
PE.
6 Failure Scenarios
On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single
and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the
associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the
failed port or link.
6.1 Single-Homed CEs
Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements
for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port
failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw
the associated per EVI Ethernet A-D routes.
6.2 Multi-Homed CEs
For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single-
Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, mass withdraw technique
is used. A PE previously advertising a per ES Ethernet A-D route, can
withdraw this route signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the
VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the
backup PE
7 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin
Singh, Senthil Sathappan and Vinod Prabhu for their feedback and
contributions to this document.
8 Security Considerations
The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in
[RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally
applicable.
This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support
data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432]
and in [ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable.
9 IANA Considerations
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type:
SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference
0x04 EVPN Layer 2 attributes [RFCXXXX]
This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 attributes
Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC
Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226].
Initial registrations are as follows:
P Advertising PE is the Primary PE.
B Advertising PE is the Backup PE.
C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
10 References
10.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March
1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks",
RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L.
Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
10.2 Informative References
[MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase
2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008,
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__www.mef.net_Assets_Technical-5FSpecifications_PDF_MEF-
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
5F6.1.pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-
2K-LV98&m=GH5FIfqtBUACPwx-LVV2v5zPrGcNzhCEjfj8-0-
R2OI&s=5b19ceQDqdsz0TepqsV7daJoYm9uDMyco7BZ4NeICWU&e=
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[ietf-evpn-overlay] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07.txt,
work in progress, December, 2016
Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have also contributed to this document:
Daniel Voyer Bell Canada
Authors' Addresses
Sami Boutros
VMware, Inc.
Email: sboutros@vmware.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Samer Salam
Cisco
Email: ssalam@cisco.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Email: dws@steinbergnet.net
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN February 21, 2017
Patrice Brissette
Cisco
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Thomas Beckhaus
Deutsche Telecom
Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Ryan Bickhart
Juniper Networks
Email: rbickhart@juniper.net
Boutros Expires August 25, 2017 [Page 14]
