BIER Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft A. Przygienda
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: June 10, 2022 A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems
J. Rabadan
Nokia
December 7, 2021
EVPN BUM Using BIER
draft-ietf-bier-evpn-05
Abstract
This document specifies protocols and procedures for forwarding
broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic of Ethernet
VPNs (EVPN) using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
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.
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 June 10, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
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
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. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IP Based Tunnel and BIER PHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. MPLS Label in PTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Multihoming Split Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . . 10
4.2. Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. At a BFER that is an Egress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[RFC7432] and [RFC8365] specify the protocols and procedures for
Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs). For broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast
(BUM) traffic, provider/underlay tunnels (referred to as P-tunnels)
are used to carry the BUM traffic. Several kinds of tunnel
technologies can be used, as specified in [RFC7432].
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) ([RFC8279]) is an architecture
that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "multicast
domain", without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-
flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building protocol. The
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
purpose of this document is to specify the protocols and procedures
to transport EVPN BUM traffic using BIER.
The EVPN BUM procedures specified in [RFC7432] and extended in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates],
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], and
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements] are much aligned with
MVPN procedures. As such, this document is also very much aligned
with [RFC8556]. For terseness, some background, terms and concepts
are not repeated here. Additionally, some text is borrowed verbatim
from [RFC8556].
1.1. Terminologies
o BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.
o BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.
o BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router.
o BFR-Prefix: An IP address that uniquely identifies a BFR and is
routeable in a BIER domain.
o C-S: A multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
located at a VPN customer site.
o C-G: A multicast group address used by a VPN customer.
o C-flow: A customer multicast flow. Each C-flow is identified by
the ordered pair (source address, group address), where each
address is in the customer's address space. The identifier of a
particular C-flow is usually written as (C-S,C-G). Sets of
C-flows can be identified by the use of the "C-*" wildcard (see
[RFC6625]), e.g., (C-*,C-G).
o P-tunnel. A multicast tunnel through the network of one or more
SPs. P-tunnels are used to transport MVPN multicast data
o IMET Route: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Auto-Discovery route.
Carried in BGP Update messages, these routes are used to advertise
the "default" P-tunnel for a particular broadcast domain.
o SMET Route: Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag Auto-Discovery route.
Carried in BGP Update messages, these routes are used to advertise
the C-flows that the advertising PE is interested in.
o S-PMSI A-D route: Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface
Auto-Discovery route. Carried in BGP Update messages, these
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
routes are used to advertise the fact that particular C-flows are
bound to (i.e., are traveling through) particular P-tunnels.
o PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA). This BGP attribute carried is used
to identify a particular P-tunnel. When C-flows of multiple VPNs
are carried in a single P-tunnel, this attribute also carries the
information needed to multiplex and demultiplex the C-flows.
2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
[RFC7432] specifies that Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET)
routes carry a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) to identify the particular
P-tunnel to which one or more BUM flows are being assigned, the same
as specified in [RFC6514] for MVPN. [RFC8556] specifies the encoding
of PTA for use of BIER with MVPN. Much of that specification is
reused for use of BIER with EVPN and much of the text below is
borrowed verbatim from [RFC8556].
The PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) contains the following fields:
o "Tunnel Type". The same codepoint 0x0B that IANA has assigned for
[RFC8556] for the new tunnel type "BIER" is used for EVPN as well.
o "Tunnel Identifier". When the "tunnel type" field is "BIER", this
field contains two subfields. The text below is exactly as in
[RFC8556].
1 The first subfield is a single octet, containing the sub-
domain-id of the sub-domain to which the BFIR will assign the
packets that it transmits on the PMSI identified by the NLRI of
the IMET, S-PMSI A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route that
contains this PTA. How that sub-domain is chosen is outside
the scope of this document.
2 The second subfield is a two-octet field containing the BFR-id,
in the sub-domain identified in the first subfield, of the
router that is constructing the PTA.
3 The third subfield is the BFR-Prefix (see [RFC8279]) of the
originator of the route that is carrying this PTA. This will
either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address. Whether
the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the total
length of the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
The BFR-prefix need not be the same IP address that is carried
in any other field of the x-PMSI A-D route, even if the BFIR is
the originating router of the x-PMSI A-D route.
o "MPLS label". For EVPN-MPLS [RFC7432], this field contains an
upstream-assigned MPLS label. It is assigned by the BFIR.
Constraints on the way in which the originating router selects
this label are discussed in Section 2.3. For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/
GENEVE [RFC8365], this field is a 24-bit VNI/VSID of global
significance.
o "Flags". When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the flags in the
PTA Flags field are meaningful. Details about the use of these
flags can be found in Section 2.2.
* "Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)" [RFC8534]
* "Leaf Info Required Bit (LIR)"
Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an IMET, S-PMSI
A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be
distributed beyond the boundaries of a BIER domain. That is, any
routers that receive the route must be in the same BIER domain as the
originator of the route. If the originator is in more than one BIER
domain, the route must be distributed only within the BIER domain in
which the BFR-Prefix in the PTA uniquely identifies the originator.
As with all MVPN routes, distribution of these routes is controlled
by the provisioning of Route Targets.
2.1. IP Based Tunnel and BIER PHP
When VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE is used for EVPN, by default the outer IP
header (and UDP header in case of VXLAN/GENVE) is not included in the
BIER payload, except when it is known apriori that BIER PHP [I-
D.ietf-bier-php] is used in the BIER domain and the encapsulation
(after BIER header is popped) between the BIER Penultimate Hop and
the egress PE does not have a way to indicate the next header is
VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE. In that case the full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE
encapsulation with an IP header MUST be included in the BIER payload.
A well-known IP multicast address (to be assigned by IANA) is used as
the destination address and the egress PEs MUST be set up to receive
and process packets addressed to the address. The address is used
for all BDs, and the inner VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be used to
identify BDs.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
2.2. Explicit Tracking
When using BIER to transport an EVPN BUM data packet through a BIER
domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [RFC8279]). The BFIR
must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
delivered. This can be done in either of two ways in the following
two sections.
2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET routes
Both IMET and SMET (Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]) routes provide explicit tracking
functionality.
For an inclusive PMSI, the set of BFERs to deliver traffic to
includes the originators of all IMET routes for a broadcast domain.
For a selective PMSI, the set of BFERs to deliver traffic to includes
the originators of corresponding SMET routes.
The SMET routes do not carry a PTA. When an ingress PE sends traffic
on a selective tunnel using BIER, it uses the upstream assigned label
that is advertised in its IMET route.
Only when selectively forwarding is for all flows without tunnel
segmentation, SMET routes are used without the need for S-PMSI A-D
routes. Otherwise, the procedures in the following section apply.
2.2.2. Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes
There are two cases where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are used as
discussed in the following two sections.
2.2.2.1. Selective Forwarding Only for Some Flows
With the SMET procedure, a PE advertises an SMET route for each
(C-S,C-G) or (C-*,C-G) state that it learns on its ACs, and each SMET
route is tracked by every PE in the same broadcast domain. It may be
desired that SMET routes are not used to reduce the burden of
explicit tracking.
In this case, most multicast traffic will follow the I-PMSI
(advertised via IMET route) and only some flows follow S-PMSIs. To
achieve that, S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes can be used, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates].
The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2 of [RFC8556]
apply.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
2.2.2.2. Tunnel Segmentation
Another case where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are necessary is tunnel
segmentation, which is also specified in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates], and further clarified in
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements] for segmentation with
SMET routes. This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS.
The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 of [RFC8556] apply.
Section 2.2.2 of [RFC8556] do not apply, because similar to MVPN, the
LIR-pF flag cannot be used with segmentation.
2.2.2.3. Applicability of Additional MVPN Sepcifications
As with the MVPN case, Section "3. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
in Leaf A-D routes" of [RFC8556] apply.
Notice that, [RFC8556] refers to procedures specified in [RFC6625]
and [RFC8534]. Those two documents were specified for MVPN but are
actually applicable to IP multicast payload in EVPN as well.
2.3. MPLS Label in PTA
Rules in section 2.1 of [RFC8556] apply, EXCEPT the following three
bullets (they do NOT apply to EVPN) in that section:
o If the two routes do not have the same Address Family Identifier
(AFI) value, then their respective PTAs MUST contain different
MPLS label values. This ensures that when an egress PE receives a
data packet with the given label, the egress PE can infer from the
label whether the payload is an IPv4 packet or an IPv6 packet.
o If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting MVPN extranet ([RFC7900])
functionality, and if the two routes originate from different VRFs
on this ingress PE, then the respective PTAs of the two routes
MUST contain different MPLS label values.
o If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting the "Extranet Separation"
feature of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [RFC7900]), and if
one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended
community but the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the
two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.
3. Multihoming Split Horizon
For EVPN-MPLS, [RFC7432] specifies the use of ESI labels to identify
the ES from which a BUM packet originates. A PE receiving that
packet from the core side will not forward it to the same ES. The
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
procedure works for both Ingress Replication (IR) and RSVP-TE/mLDP
P2MP tunnels, using downstream- and upstream-assigned ESI labels
respectively. For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, [RFC8365] specifies
local-bias procedures, with which a PE receiving a BUM packet from
the core side knows from encapsulation the ingress PE so it does not
forward the packet to any multihoming ESes that the ingress PE is on,
because the ingress PE already forwarded the packet to those ESes,
regardless of whether the ingress PE is a DF for those ESes.
With BIER, the local-bias procedure still applies for EVPN-
VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE as the BFIR-id in the BIER header identifies the
ingress PE. For EVPN-MPLS, ESI label procedures also still apply
though two upstream assigned labels will be used (one for identifying
the broadcast domain and one for identifying the ES) - the same as in
the case of using a single P2MP tunnel for multiple broadcast
domains. The BFIR-id in the BIER header identifies the ingress PE
that assigned those two labels.
4. Data Plane
Similar to MVPN, the EVPN application plays the role of the
"multicast flow overlay" as described in [RFC8279].
4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission
A BFIR could be either an ingress PE or a P-tunnel segmentation
point. The procedures are slightly different as described below.
4.1.1. At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE
To transmit a BUM data packet, an ingress PE first determines the
route matched for transmission and routes for tracking leaves
according to the following rules.
1. If selective forwarding is not used, or it is not an IP Multicast
packet after the ethernet header, the IMET route originated for
the BD by the ingress PE is the route matched for transmission.
Leaf tracking routes are all other received IMET routes for the
BD.
2. Otherwise, if selective forwarding is used for all IP Multicast
traffic based on SMET routes, the IMET route originated for the
BD by the ingress PE is the route matched for transmisssion.
Received SMET routes for the BD that best match the source and
destination IP adddress are leaf tracking routes.
3. Otherwise, route matched for transmission is the S-PMSI A-D route
originated by the ingress PE for the BD, that best matches the
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
packet's source and destination IP address and has a PTA
specifying a valid tunnel type that is not "no tunnel info".
Leaf tracking routes are determined as following:
1) If the match for transmission route carries a PTA that has
the LIR flag set but does not have the LIR-pF flag set, the
routes matched for tracking are Leaf A-D routes whose "route
key" field is identical to the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D route.
2) If the match for transmission route carries a PTA that has
the LIR-pF flag, the leaf tracking routes are Leaf A-D routes
whose "route key" field is derived from the NLRI of the
S-PMSI A-D route according to the procedures described in
Section 5.2 of [RFC8534].
Note that in both cases, SMET routes may be used in lieu of Leaf
A-D routes, as a PE may omit the Leaf A-D route in response to an
S-PMSI A-D route with LIR or LIR-pF bit set, if an SMET route
with the corresponding Tag, Source and Group fields is already
originated [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates]. In
particular, in the second case above, even though the SMET route
does not have a PTA attached, it is still considered as a Leaf
A-D route in response to a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route with the
LIR-pF bit set.
4. Otherwise, route matched for transmission and leaf tracking
routes are determined as in rule 1.
If no route is matched for transmission, the packet is not forwarded
onto a p-tunnel. If the tunnel that the ingress determines to use
based on the route matched for transmission (and considering
interworking with PEs that do not support certain tunnel types per
procedures in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]) requires leaf
tracking (e.g. Ingress Replication, RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel, or BIER)
but there are no leaf tracking routes, the packet will not be
forwarded onto a p-tunnel either.
The following text assumes that BIER is the determined tunnel type.
The ingress PE pushes an upstream assigned ESI label per [RFC7432] if
the following conditions are all met:
o The packet is received on a multihomed ES.
o It's EVPN-MPLS.
o ESI label procedure is used for split-horizon.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
The MPLS label from the PTA of the route matched for transmission is
then pushed onto the packet's label stack for EVPN-MPLS. For EVPN-
VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, a VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is prepended to the
packet with the VNI/VSID set to the value in the PTA's label field,
and then an IP/UDP header is prepended if needed (e.g. for PHP
purpose).
Then the packet is encapsulated in a BIER header and forwarded,
according to the procedures of [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. See
especially Section 4, "Imposing and Processing the BIER
Encapsulation", of [RFC8296]. The "Proto" field in the BIER header
is set to 2 in case of EVPN-MPLS, or a value to be assigned in case
of EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (Section 5) when IP header is not used, or
4/6 if IP header is used for EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE.
In order to create the proper BIER header for a given packet, the
BFIR must know all the BFERs that need to receive that packet. This
is determined from the set of leaf tracking routes.
4.1.2. At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point
In this case, the encapsulation for upstream segment of the p-tunnel
includes (among other things) a label that identifies the x-PMSI or
IMET A-D route that is the match for reception on the upstream
segment. The segmentation point re-advertised the route into one or
more downstream regions. Each instance of the re-advertised route
for a downstream region has a PTA that specify tunnel information
that is the same as or different from that of the route for a
different region. For any particular downstream region, the route
matched for transmission is the re-advertised route, and the leaf
tracking routes are determined as following if needed for the tunnel
type:
o If the route matched for transmission is an x-PMSI route, it must
have the LIR flag set in its PTA and the leaf tracking routes are
all the matching Leaf A-D and SMET routes received in the
downstream region.
o If the route matched for transmission is an IMET route, the leaf
tracking routes are all the IMET routes for the same BD received
in the downtream region.
If the downtream region uses BIER, the packet is forwarded as
following: the upstream segmentation's encapsulation is removed and
the above mentioned label is swapped to the upstream-assigned label
in the PTA of the route matched for transmission, and then a BIER
header is imposed as in Section 4.1.1.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
4.2. Disposition
The same procedures in section 4.2 of [RFC8556] are followed for
EVPN-MPLS, except some EVPN specifics discussed in the following two
sub-sections in this document.
For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, the only difference is that the payload
is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (with or without an IP header) and the VNI/VSID
field in the VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is used to determine the
corresponding mac VRF or broadcast domain.
4.2.1. At a BFER that is an Egress PE
Once the corresponding mac VRF or broadcast domain is determined from
the upstream assigned label or VNI/VSID, EVPN forwarding procedures
per [RFC7432] or [RFC8365] are followed. In case of EVPN-MPLS, if
there is an inner label in the label stack following the BIER header,
that inner label is considered as the upstream assigned ESI label for
split horizon purpose.
4.2.2. At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point
This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS. The same procedures in
Section 4.2.2 of [RFC8556] are followed, subject to multihoming
procedures specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates].
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests two assignments in "BIER Next Protocol
Identifiers" registry, with the following two recommended values:
o 7: Payload is VXLAN encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)
o 8: Payload is NVGRE encapsulated (no IP header)
o 9: Payload is GENEVE encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)
This document requests one assignment of a multicast address for the
case discussed in Section 2.1. Preferrably this is assigned from the
Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24).
6. Security Considerations
To be updated.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Eric Rosen for his review and suggestions.
Additionally, much of the text is borrowed verbatim from [RFC8556].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates]
Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A.
Sajassi, "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-14 (work in progress),
November 2021.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Mishra, M., Drake, J., and W.
Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-
igmp-mld-proxy-14 (work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir]
Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Katiyar, M., and A.
Sajassi, "Optimized Ingress Replication Solution for
Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-11
(work in progress), November 2021.
[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>.
[RFC6625] Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.
[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>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8317] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Drake, J., Uttaro, J.,
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree)
Support in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone
Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 8317, DOI 10.17487/RFC8317,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8317>.
[RFC8534] Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., Ed., and Z. Zhang,
"Explicit Tracking with Wildcard Routes in Multicast VPN",
RFC 8534, DOI 10.17487/RFC8534, February 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8534>.
[RFC8556] Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S.,
and A. Dolganow, "Multicast VPN Using Bit Index Explicit
Replication (BIER)", RFC 8556, DOI 10.17487/RFC8556, April
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8556>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.boutros-bess-evpn-geneve]
Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., and S.
Aldrin, "EVPN control plane for Geneve", draft-boutros-
bess-evpn-geneve-04 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bier-php]
Zhang, Z., "BIER Penultimate Hop Popping", draft-ietf-
bier-php-06 (work in progress), August 2020.
[I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub]
Patel, K., Sajassi, A., Drake, J. E., Zhang, Z., and W.
Henderickx, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs", draft-
keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02 (work in progress),
September 2019.
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft bier-evpn December 2021
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements]
Zhang, Z., Kebler, R., Lin, W., and E. Rosen, "MVPN/EVPN
C-Multicast Routes Enhancements", draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-
evpn-cmcast-enhancements-01 (work in progress), March
2019.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
Antoni Przygienda
Juniper Networks
EMail: prz@juniper.net
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
EMail: sajassi@cisco.com
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
EMail: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Zhang, et al. Expires June 10, 2022 [Page 14]
