BESS Workgroup A. Sajassi
INTERNET-DRAFT P. Brissette
Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco
J. Uttaro
ATT
J. Drake
W. Lin
Juniper
S. Boutros
VMWare
J. Rabadan
Nokia
Expires: August 26, 2018 February 26, 2018
EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt
Abstract
This document describes a new EVPN VPWS service type specifically for
multiplexing multiple attachment circuits across different Ethernet
Segments and physical interfaces into a single EVPN VPWS service
tunnel and still providing Single-Active and All-Active multi-homing.
This new service is referred to as flexible cross-connect service. It
also describes the rational for this new service type as well as a
solution to deliver such service.
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
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Flexible Xconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1 Local Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 EVPN VPWS service Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2 Attachment Circuit Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3 PE Port Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4 PE Node Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
1 Introduction
[RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver P2P services using BGP
constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this P2P service between
a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC can designate on a
PE, a port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a port. It also
leverages multi-homing and fast convergence capabilities of [RFC7432]
in delivering these VPWS services. Multi-homing capabilities include
the support of single-active and all-active redundancy mode and fast
convergence is provided using "mass withdraw" message in control-
plane and fast protection switching using prefix independent
convergence in data-plane upon node or link failure [BGP-PIC].
Furthermore, the use of EVPN BGP constructs eliminates the need for
multi-segment PW auto-discovery and signaling if the VPWS service
need to span across multiple ASes.
Some service providers have very large number of ACs (in millions)
that need to be back hauled across their MPLS/IP network. These ACs
may or may not require tag manipulation (e.g., VLAN translation).
These service providers want to multiplex a large number of ACs
across several physical interfaces spread across one or more PEs
(e.g., several Ethernet Segments) onto a single VPWS service tunnel
in order to a) reduce number of EVPN service labels associated with
EVPN-VPWS service tunnels and thus the associated OAM monitoring, and
b) reduce EVPN BGP signaling (e.g., not to signal each AC as it is
the case in [RFC8214]).
These service provider want the above functionality without
scarifying any of the capabilities of [RFC8214] including single-
active and all-active multi-homing, and fast convergence.
This document presents a solution based on extensions to [RFC8214] to
meet the above requirements.
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
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch
EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line
EPL: Ethernet Private Line
ES: Ethernet Segment
VPWS: Virtual private wire service
EVI: EVPN Instance
VPWS Service Tunnel: 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 tunnel can be associated with many
VPWS service identifiers for VLAN-signaled VPWS service where each
identifier is a normalized VID.
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".
2 Requirements
Two of the main motivations for service providers seeking a new
solution are: 1) to reduce number of VPWS service tunnels by
multiplexing large number of ACs across different physical interfaces
instead of having one VPWS service tunnel per AC, and 2) to reduce
the signaling of ACs as much as possible. Besides these two
requirements, they also want multi-homing and fast convergence
capabilities of [RFC8214].
In [RFC8214], a PE signals an AC indirectly by first associating that
AC to a VPWS service tunnel (e.g., a VPWS service instance) and then
signaling the VPWS service tunnel via a per-EVI Ethernet AD route
with Ethernet Tag field set to a 24-bit VPWS service instance
identifier (which is unique within the EVI) and ESI field set to a
10-octet identifier of the Ethernet Segment corresponding to that AC.
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
Therefore, a PE device that receives such EVPN routes, can associate
the VPWS service tunnel to the remote Ethernet Segment, and when the
remote ES fails and the PE receives the "mass withdraw" message
associated with the failed ES per [RFC7432], it can update its BGP
path list for that VPWS service tunnel quickly and achieve fast
convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even if fast convergence were
not needed, there would still be a need for signaling each AC failure
(via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) associated with the
failed ES, so that the BGP path list for each of them gets updated
accordingly and the packets are sent to backup PE (in case of single-
active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the redundancy group (in case
of all-active multi-homing). In absence of updating the BGP path
list, the traffic for that VPWS service tunnel will be black-holed.
When a single VPWS service tunnel multiplexes many ACs across number
of Ethernet Segments (number of physical interfaces) and the ACs are
not signaled via EVPN BGP to remote PE devices, then the remote PE
devices neither know the association of the received Ethernet Segment
to these ACs (and in turn to their local ACs) nor they know the
association of the VPWS service tunnel (e.g., EVPN service label) to
the far-end ACs - i.e, the remote PEs only know the association of
their local ACs to the VPWS service tunnel but not the far-end ACs.
Thus upon a connectivity failure to the ES, they don't know how to
redirect traffic via another multi-homing PE to that ES. In other
words, even if an ES failure is signaled via EVPN to the remote PE
devices, they don't know what to do with such message because they
don't know the association among the remote ES, the remote ACs, and
the VPWS service tunnel.
In order to address this issue when multiplexing large number of ACs
onto a single VPWS service tunnel, two mechanisms are devised: one to
support VPWS services between two single-homed endpoints and another
one to support VPWS services where one of the endpoints is multi-
homed. An endpoint can be an AC, MAC-VRF, IP-VRF, global table, or
etc.
For single-homed endpoints, it is OK not to signal each AC in BGP
because upon connection failure to the ES, there is no alternative
path to that endpoint. However, the ramification for not signaling an
AC failure is that the traffic destined to the failed AC, is sent
over MPLS/IP core and then gets discarded at the destination PE -
i.e., it can waste network resources. However, when there is a
connection failure, the application layer will eventually stop
sending traffic and thus this wastage of network resources should be
transient. Section 4.1 describes a solution for such single-homing
VPWS service.
For VPWS services where one of the endpoints is multi-homed, there
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
are two options:
1) to signal each AC via BGP so that the path list can be updated
upon a failure that impacts those ACs. This solution is described in
section 4.2 and it is called VLAN-signaled flexible cross-connect
service.
2) to bundle several ACs on an ES together per destination end-point
(e.g., ES, MAC-VRF, etc.) and associated such bundle to a single VPWS
service tunnel. This is similar to VLAN-bundle service interface
described in [RFC8214]. This solution is described in section 4.3.
4 Solution
This section describes a solution for providing a new VPWS service
between two PE devices where a large number of ACs (e.g., VLANs) that
span across many Ethernet Segments (i.e., physical interfaces) on
each PE are multiplex onto a single P2P EVPN service tunnel. Since
multiplexing is done across several physical interfaces, there can be
overlapping VLAN IDs across these interfaces; therefore, in such
scenarios, the VLAN IDs (VIDs) MUST be translated into unique VIDs to
avoid collision. Furthermore, if the number of VLANs that are getting
multiplex onto a single VPWS service tunnel, exceed 4K, then a single
tag to double tag translation MUST be performed. This translation of
VIDs into unique VIDs (either single or double) is referred to as
"VID normalization". When single normalized VID is used, the lower
12-bit of Ethernet tag field in EVPN routes is set to that VID and
when double normalized VID is used, the lower 12-bit of Ethernet tag
field is set to inner VID and the higher 12-bit is set to the outer
VID.
Since there is only a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel associated with
many normalized VIDs (either single or double) across multiple
physical interfaces, MPLS lookup at the disposition PE is no longer
sufficient to forward the packet to the right egress
endpoint/interface. Therefore, in addition to an EVPN label lookup
corresponding to the VPWS service tunnel, a VID lookup (either single
or double) is also required. On the disposition PE, one can think of
the lookup of EVPN label results in identification of a VID-VRF, and
the lookup of normalized VID(s) in that table, results in
identification of egress endpoint/interface. The tag manipulation
(translation from normalized VID(s) to local VID) can be performed
either as part of the VID table lookup or at the egress interface
itself.
Since VID lookup (single or double) needs to be performed at the
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
disposition PE, then VID normalization MUST be performed prior to the
MPLS encapsulation on the ingress PE. This requires that both
imposition and disposition PE devices be capable of VLAN tag
manipulation, such as re-write (single or double), addition, deletion
(single or double) at their endpoints (e.g., their ES's, MAC-VRFs,
IP-VRFs, etc.).
4.1 Flexible Xconnect
In this mode of operation, many ACs across several Ethernet Segments
are multiplex into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel represented by a
single VPWS service ID. This is the default mode of operation for FXC
and the participating PEs do not need to signal the VLANs (normalized
VIDs) in EVPN BGP.
With respect to the data-plane aspects of the solution, both
imposition and disposition PEs are aware of the VLANs as the
imposition PE performs VID normalization and the disposition PE does
VID lookup and translation. In this solution, there is only a single
P2P EVPN VPWS service tunnel between a pair of PEs for a set of ACs.
As discussed previously, since the EVPN VPWS service tunnel is used
to multiplex ACs across different ES's (e.g., physical interfaces),
the EVPN label alone is not sufficient for proper forwarding of the
received packets (over MPLS/IP network) to egress interfaces.
Therefore, normalized VID lookup is required in the disposition
direction to forward packets to their proper egress end-points -
i.e., the EVPN label lookup identifies a VID-VRF and subsequently,
the normalized VID lookup in that table, identifies the egress
interface.
This mode of operation is only suitable for single-homing because in
multi-homing the association between EVPN VPWS service tunnel and
remote AC changes during the failure and therefore the VLANs
(normalized VIDs) need to be signaled.
In this solution, on each PE, the single-homing ACs represented by
their normalized VIDs are associated with a single EVPN VPWS service
tunnel (in a given EVI). The EVPN route that gets generated is an
EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route with ESI=0, Ethernet Tag field set to
VPWS service instance ID, MPLS label field set to dynamically
generated EVPN service label representing the EVPN VPWS service
tunnel. This route is sent with an RT representing the EVI. This RT
can be auto-generated from the EVI per section 5.1.2.1 of [EVPN-
Overlay]. Furthermore, this route is sent with the EVPN Layer-2
Extended Community defined in section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new
flags (defined in section 5) that indicate: 1) this VPWS service
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
tunnel is for default Flexible Cross-Connect, and 2) normalized VID
type (single versus double). The receiving PE uses these new flags
for consistency check and MAY generate an alarm if it detects
inconsistency but doesn't bring down the VPWS service.
It should be noted that in this mode of operation, a single Ethernet
AD per EVI route is sent upon configuration of the first AC (ie,
normalized VID). Later, when additional ACs are configured and
associated with this EVPN VPWS service tunnel, the PE does not
advertise any additional EVPN BGP routes. The PE only associates
locally these ACs with the already created VPWS service tunnel.
The default FXC mode can be used for multi-homing. In this mode, a
group of normalized VIDs (ACs) on a single Ethernet segment that are
destined to a single endpoint are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS
service tunnel represented by a single VPWS service ID. When the
default FXC mode is used for multi-homing, instead of a single EVPN
VPWS service tunnel, there can be many service tunnels per pair of
PEs - i.e, there is one tunnel per group of VIDs per pair of PEs and
there can be many groups between a pair of PEs, thus resulting in
many EVPN service tunnels.
4.2 VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect
In this mode of operation, just as the default FXC mode in section
4.1, many normalized VIDs (ACs) across several different
ES's/interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS service
tunnel; however, this single tunnel is represented by many VPWS
service IDs (one per normalized VID) and these normalized VIDs are
signaled using EVPN BGP.
In this solution, on each PE, the multi-homing ACs represented by
their normalized VIDs are configured with a single EVI. There is no
need to configure VPWS service instance ID in here as it is the same
as the normalized VID. For each normalized VID on each ES, the PE
generates an EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route where ESI field
represents the ES ID, the Ethernet Tag field is set to the normalized
VID, MPLS label field is set to dynamically generated EVPN label
representing the P2P EVPN service tunnel and it is the same label for
all the ACs that are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS service
tunnel. This route is sent with an RT representing the EVI. As
before, this RT can be auto-generated from the EVI per section
5.1.2.1 of [EVPN-Overlay]. Furthermore, this route is sent with the
EVPN Layer-2 Extended Community defined in section 3.1 of [RFC8214]
with two new flags (defined in section 5) that indicate: 1) this VPWS
service tunnel is for VLAN-signaled Flexible Cross-Connect, and 2)
normalized VID type (single versus double). The receiving PE uses
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
these new flags for consistency check and MAY generate an alarm if it
detects inconsistency but doesn't bring down the VPWS service.
It should be noted that in this mode of operation, the PE sends a
single Ethernet AD route for each AC that is configured - i.e., each
normalized VID that is configured per ES results in generation of an
EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI.
This mode of operation provides automatic cross checking of
normalized VIDs used for EVPL services because these VIDs are
signaled in EVPN BGP. For example, if the same normalized VID is
configured on three PE devices (instead of two) for the same EVI,
then when a PE receives the second EVPN EAD per-EVI route, it
generates an error message unless the two EVPN EAD per-EVI routes
include the same ESI. Such cross-checking is not feasible in default
FXC mode because the normalized VIDs are not signaled.
4.2.1 Local Switching
When cross-connection is between two ACs belonging to two multi-homed
Ethernet Segments on the same set of multi-homing PEs, then
forwarding between the two ACs MUST be performed locally during
normal operation (e.g., in absence of a local link failure) - i.e.,
the traffic between the two ACs MUST be locally switched within the
PE.
In terms of control plane processing, this means that when the
receiving PE receives an Ethernet A-D per-EVI route whose ESI is a
local ESI, the PE does not alter its forwarding state based on the
received route. This ensures that the local switching takes
precedence over forwarding via MPLS/IP network. This scheme of
locally switched preference is consistent with baseline EVPN [RFC
7432] where it describes the locally switched preference for MAC/IP
routes.
In such scenarios, the Ethernet A-D per EVI route should be
advertised with the MPLS label either associated with the destination
Attachment Circuit or with the destination Ethernet Segment in order
to avoid any ambiguity in forwarding. In other words, the MPLS label
cannot represent the same VID-VRF used in section 4.2 because the
same normalized VID can be reachable via two Ethernet Segments. In
case of using MPLS label per destination AC, then this same solution
can be used for VLAN-based VPWS or VLAN-bundle VPWS services per
[RFC8214].
5. BGP Extensions
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
This draft uses the EVPN Layer-2 attribute extended community defined
in [RFC8214] with two additional flags added to this EC as described
below. This EC is to be advertised with Ethernet A-D per EVI route
per section 4.
+------------------------------------+
| Type(0x06)/Sub-type(TBD)(2 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| L2 MTU (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ | V | M |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
B,P,C per definition in [RFC8214]
M 00 mode of operation as defined in [RFC8214]
01 VLAN-Signaled FXC
10 Default FXC
V 00 operating per [RFC8214]
01 single-VID normalization
10 double-VID normalization
The M and V fields are OPTIONAL on transmission and ignored at
reception for forwarding purposes. They are used for error
notifications.
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
6 Failure Scenarios
Two examples will be used as an example to analyze the failure
scenarios.
The first scenario is depicted in Figure 1 and shows the VLAN-
signaled FXC mode with Multi-Homing. In this example:
- CE1 is connected to PE1 and PE2 via (port,vid)=(p1,1) and (p3,3)
respectively. CE1's VIDs are normalized to value 1 on both PEs, and
CE1 is Xconnected to CE3's VID 1 at the remote end.
- CE2 is connected to PE1 and PE2 via ports p2 and p4 respectively:
o (p2,1) and (p4,3) identify the ACs that are used to Xconnect
CE2 to CE4's VID 2, and are normalized to value 2.
o (p2,2) and (p4,4) identify the ACs that are used to Xconnect
CE2 to CE5's VID 3, and are normalized to value 3.
In this scenario, PE1 and PE2 advertise an AD per-EVI route per
normalized VID (values 1, 2 and 3), however only two VPWS Service
Tunnels are needed: VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) between PE1's FXC
service and PE3's FXC, and VPWS Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2) between
PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC.
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
N.VID 1,2,3 +---------------------+
PE1 | |
+---------+ IP/MPLS |
+-----+ VID1 p1 | +-----+ | +
| CE1 |------------| FXC | | sv.T1 PE3 +-----+
| | /\ | | |=======+ +----------+ +--| CE3 |
+-----+\ +||---| | | \ | | 1/ | |
VID3\ / ||---| | | \ | +-----+ | / +-----+
\ / /\/ | +-----+ | +=====| FXC |----+
\ / p2 +---------+ | | | | 2 +-----+
/\ | | |----------| CE4 |
/ /\ +---------+ +======| | | | |
/ / \p3 | +-----+ | / | | | | +-----+
VIDs1,2 / +----| FXC | / | | |---+
+-----+ / /\ | | |======+ | +-----+ |\3 +-----+
| CE2 |-----||-----| | | sv.T2 | | \ | CE5 |
| |-----||-----| | | +----------+ +---| |
+-----+ \/ | +-----+ | | +-----+
VIDs3,4 p4 +---------+ |
PE2 | |
N.VID 1,2,3 +------------------+
Figure 1 VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect
The second scenario is a default Flexible Xconnect with Multi- Homing
solution and it is depicted in Figure 2. In this case, the same VID
Normalization as in the previous example is performed, however there
is not an individual AD per-EVI route per normalized VID, but per
bundle of ACs on an ES. That is, PE1 will advertise two AD per-EVI
routes: the first one will identify the ACs on p1's ES and the second
one will identify the AC2 in p2's ES. Similarly, PE2 will advertise
two AD per-EVI routes.
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
N.VID 1,2,3 +---------------------+
PE1 | |
+---------+ IP/MPLS |
+-----+ VID1 p1 | +-----+ | sv.T1 +
| CE1 |-------------| FXC |======+ PE3 +-----+
| | /\ | | | | \ +----------+ +--| CE3 |
+-----+\ +||---| | sv.T2 \ | | 1/ | |
VID3\ / ||---| |=====+ \ | +-----+ | / +-----+
\ // \/ | +-----+ | \ +====| FXC |----+
\ / p2 +---------+ +======| | | 2 +-----+
/\ | | |----------| CE4 |
/ /\ +---------+ +=====| | | | |
/ / \p3 | +-----+ sv.T3 / +====| | | +-----+
VIDs1,2 / +----| FXC |=======+ / | | |---+
+-----+ / /\ | | | | / | +-----+ |\3 +-----+
| CE2 |-----||---| | | sv.T4 / | | \ | CE5 |
| |-----||---| | |======+ +----------+ +---| |
+--VIDs3,4 \/ | +-----+ | | +-----+
p4 +---------+ |
PE2 | |
N.VID 1,2,3 +-------------------+
Figure 2 Default Flexible Xconnect
6.1 EVPN VPWS service Failure
The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via
OAM mechanisms such as VCCV-BFD and upon such failure detection, the
switch over procedure to the backup S-PE is the same as the one
described above.
6.2 Attachment Circuit Failure
In case of AC Failure, the VLAN-Signaled and default FXC modes behave
in a different way:
o VLAN-signaled FXC (Figure 1): a VLAN or AC failure, e.g. VID1 on
CE2, triggers the withdrawal of the AD per-EVI route for the
corresponding Normalized VID, that is, Ethernet-Tag 2. When PE3
receives the route withdrawal, it will remove PE1 from its path- list
for traffic coming from CE4.
o Default FXC (Figure 2): a VLAN or AC failure is not signaled in the
default mode, therefore in case of an AC failure, e.g. VID1 on CE2,
nothing prevents PE3 from sending CE4's traffic to PE1, creating a
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
black-hole. Application layer OAM may be used if per-VLAN fault
propagation is required in this case.
6.3 PE Port Failure
In case of PE port Failure, the failure will be signaled and the
other PE will take over in both cases:
o VLAN-signaled FXC (Figure 1): a port failure, e.g. p2, triggers the
withdrawal of the AD per-EVI routes for Normalized VIDs 2 and 3, as
well as the withdrawal of the AD per-ES route for p2's ES. Upon
receiving the fault notification, PE3 will withdraw PE1 from its
path-list for the traffic coming from CE4 and CE5.
o Default FXC (Figure 2): a port failure, e.g. p2, is signaled by
route for sv.T2 will also be withdrawn. Upon receiving the fault
notification, PE3 will remove PE1 from its path-list for traffic
coming from CE4 and CE5.
6.4 PE Node Failure
In the case of PE node failure, the operation is similar to the steps
described above, albeit that EVPN route withdrawals are performed by
the Route Reflector instead of the PE.
7 Security Considerations
There are no additional security considerations beyond what is
already specified in [RFC8214].
8 IANA Considerations
TBD.
9 References
9.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC7432] Sajassi et al., "Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, February 2015.
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
[RFC8214] Boutros et al., "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in
Ethernet VPN", RFC 8214, August 2015.
9.2 Informative References
[BGP-PIC] Bashandy A. et al., "BGP Prefix Independent Convergence",
draft-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt, work in progress, October
2013.
[EVPN-Overlay] Sajassi et al., "A Network Virtualization Overlay
Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-12,
work in progress, February 2018.
Authors' Addresses
A. Sajassi
Cisco
EMail: sajassi@cisco.com
P. Brissette
Cisco
EMail: pbrisset@cisco.com
J. Uttaro
ATT
EMail: ju1738@att.com
J. Drake
Juniper
EMail: jdrake@juniper.net
S. Boutros
ATT
EMail: boutros.sami@gmail.com
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT EVPN VPWS Flex Xconnect February 26, 2018
W. Lin
Juniper
EMail: wlin@juniper.net
J. Rabadan
jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Sajassi et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 16]