L2VPN Workgroup Ali Sajassi
INTERNET-DRAFT Samer Salam
Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco
Yakov Rekhter
Wim Henderickx John Drake
Alcatel-Lucent Juniper
Lucy Yong
Florin Balus Linda Dunbar
Nuage Networks Huawei
Expires: January 15, 2014 July 15, 2013
IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in EVPN
draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-02
Abstract
EVPN provides an extensible and flexible multi-homing VPN solution
for intra-subnet connectivity among hosts/VMs over an MPLS/IP
network. However, there are scenarios in which inter-subnet
forwarding among hosts/VMs across different IP subnets is required,
while maintaining the multi-homing capabilities of EVPN. This
document describes an IRB solution based on EVPN to address such
requirements.
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 January 15, 2014 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Traditional Inter-Subnet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Scenarios of EVPN NVEs as L3GW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Inter-Subnet Forwarding Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Switching among EVIs within a DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Switching among EVIs in different DCs without route
aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Switching among EVIs in different DCs with route
aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Switching among IP-VPN sites and EVIs with route
aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Default L3 Gateway Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Homogeneous Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Heterogeneous Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Operational Models for Inter-Subnet Forwarding . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 Among EVPN NVEs within a DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Among EVPN NVEs in Different DCs Without Route Aggregation . 10
4.3 Among EVPN NVEs in Different DCs with Route Aggregation . . 12
4.4 Among IP-VPN Sites and EVPN NVEs with Route Aggregation . . 13
4.5 Use of Centralized Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5 VM Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1 VM Mobility & Optimum Forwarding for VM's Outbound Traffic . 14
5.2 VM Mobility & Optimum Forwarding for VM's Inbound Traffic . 15
5.2.1 Mobility without Route Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.2 Mobility with Route Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
6 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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].
IRB: Integrated Routing and Bridging
IRB Interface: A virtual interface that connects the bridging module
and the routing module on an NVE.
NVE: Network Virtualization Endpoint
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
1 Introduction
EVPN provides an extensible and flexible multi-homing VPN solution
for intra-subnet connectivity among hosts/VMs over an MPLS/IP
network. However, there are scenarios where, in addition to intra-
subnet forwarding, inter-subnet forwarding is required among
hosts/VMs across different IP subnets at the EVPN PE nodes, also
known as EVPN NVE nodes throughout this document, while maintaining
the multi-homing capabilities of EVPN. This document describes an IRB
solution based on EVPN to address such requirements.
1.1 Traditional Inter-Subnet Forwarding
The inter-subnet communication is traditionally achieved at the L3
Gateway nodes where all the inter-subnet communication policies are
enforced. Even for different subnets belonging to one IP-VPN or
tenant, traffic may need to go through FW or IPS between the trusted
and un-trusted zones.
Some operators may prefer centralized approach, i.e. only have a set
of default L3 gateways (whose redundancy is typically achieved by
VRRP) for all inter-subnet traffic to go through. Usually there are
FW, IPS, or other network appliances directly attached to the
centralized L3 Gateway nodes. The centralized approach makes it
easier for maintaining consistent policies and less prone to
configuration errors. However, such centralized approach suffers
from a major drawback of requiring all traffic to be hair-pinned to
the L3GW nodes.
Some operators may prefer fully distributed L3 gateway design, e.g.
allowing all NVEs to have the policies to route traffic across
subnets. Under this design, all traffic between hosts attached to one
NVE can be routed locally, thus avoiding traffic hair-pinning issue
at the centralized L3GW. The perceived drawback of this fully
distributed approach may be the extra effort required in maintaining
policy consistence across all the NVEs.
Some operators may prefer somewhere in the middle, i.e. allowing NVEs
to route traffic across only selected subnets. For example, allow
NVEs to route traffic among subnets belonging to one tenant or one
security zone.
1.2. Scenarios of EVPN NVEs as L3GW
When an EVPN NVE node is not the L3GW for the subnets attached, the
EVPN NVE performs only L2 switching function for the traffic
initiated from or destined to the hosts attached to the NVE.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
Some EVPN NVEs can be the default L3GWs for some subnets. In this
situation, the EVPN NVEs can route traffic across the subnets for
which they are default L3GWs.
When there are multiple subnets attached to an EVPN NVE, some of the
subnets could have the EVPN NVE as their L3GW, some other subnets
don't have the NVE as their L3GW. For example: "Subnet-X" can
communicate with "Subnet-Y" via NVE "A", but "Subnet-X" can't
communicate with "Subnet-Z" via NVE "A". So when the "Subnet-X" needs
to communicate with "Subnet-Z", the traffic might need to be routed
through another device (e.g. FW, IPS, or another L3GW node).
1. When the EVPN NVE is the L3GW for "Subnet -X", hosts within
"Subnet-X" will have the NVE's IRB MAC address as their default GW
MAC address when they send data frames towards targets in different
subnets.
2. When the EVPN NVE is not the L3GW for "Subnet-Y", hosts within
"Subnet-Y", (even though still attached to the NVE), will use their
own designated L3GW MAC address (that is different from the NVE's IRB
address) in data frames destined towards targets in different
subnets.
2 Inter-Subnet Forwarding Scenarios
The inter-subnet forwarding scenarios performed by an EVPN NVE can be
divided into the following five categories. The last scenario, along
with their corresponding solutions, are described in [EVPN-IPVPN-
INTEROP]. The solutions for the first four scenarios are the focus of
this document.
1. Switching among EVPN instances within a DC
2. Switching among EVPN instances in different DCs without route
aggregation
3. Switching among EVPN instances in different DCs with route
aggregation
4. Switching among IP-VPN sites and EVPN instances with route
aggregation
5. Switching among IP-VPN sites and EVPN instances without route
aggregation
In the above scenario, the term "route aggregation" refers to the
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
case where for a given EVI/VRF a node situated at the WAN edge of the
data center network behaves as a default gateway for all the
destinations that are outside the data center. The absence of route
aggregation refers to the scenario where a given EVI/VRF within a
data center has (host) routes to individual VMs that are outside of
the data center.
In the case (4) the WAN edge node also performs route aggregation for
all the destinations within its own data center, and acts as an
interworking unit between EVPN and IP VPN (it implements both EVPN
and IP VPN functionality).
+---+ Enterprise Site 1
|PE1|----- H1
+---+
/
,---------. Enterprise Site 2
,' `. +---+
,---------. /( MPLS/IP )---|PE2|----- H2
' DCN 3 `./ `. Core ,' +---+
`-+------+' `-+------+'
__/__ / / \ \
:NVE4 : +---+ \ \
'-----' ,----|GW |. \ \
| ,' +---+ `. ,---------.
VM6 ( DCN 1 ) ,' `.
`. ,' ( DCN 2 )
`-+------+' `. ,'
__/__ `-+------+'
:NVE1 : __/__ __\__
'-----' :NVE2 : :NVE3 :
| | '-----' '-----'
VM1 VM2 | | |
VM3 VM4 VM5
Figure 2: Interoperability Use-Cases
In what follows, we will describe scenarios 3 through 6 in more
detail.
2.1 Switching among EVIs within a DC
In this scenario, connectivity is required between hosts (e.g. VMs)
in the same data center, where those hosts belong to different IP
subnets. All these subnets are part of the same IP VPN. Each subnet
is associated with a single EVPN, where each such EVPN is realized by
a collection of EVIs residing on appropriate NVEs.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
As an example, consider VM3 and VM5 of Figure 2 above. Assume that
connectivity is required between these two VMs where VM3 belongs to
the IP3 subnet whereas VM5 belongs to the IP5 subnet. Both IP3 and
IP5 subnets are part of the same IP VPN. NVE2 has an EVI3 associated
with IP3 subnet and NVE3 has an EVI5 associated with the IP5 subnet.
2.2 Switching among EVIs in different DCs without route aggregation
This case is similar to that of section 2.1 above albeit for the fact
that the hosts belong to different data centers that are
interconnected over a WAN (e.g. MPLS/IP PSN). The data centers in
question here are seamlessly interconnected to the WAN, i.e., the WAN
edge does not maintain any host/VM-specific addresses in the
forwarding path.
As an example, consider VM3 and VM6 of Figure 2 above. Assume that
connectivity is required between these two VMs where VM3 belongs to
the IP3 subnet whereas VM6 belongs to the IP6 subnet. NVE2 has an
EVI3 associated with IP3 subnet and NVE4 has an EVI6 associated with
the IP6 subnet. Both IP3 and IP6 subnets are part of the same IP VPN
and both EVI3 and EVI6 are associated with their VRFs for that IP
VPN.
2.3 Switching among EVIs in different DCs with route aggregation
In this scenario, connectivity is required between hosts (e.g. VMs)
in different data centers, and those hosts belong to different IP
subnets. What makes this case different from that of Section 2.2 is
that (in the context of a given EVI/VRF) at least one of the data
centers in question has a gateway as the WAN edge switch. Because of
that, the EVIs/VRFs within each data center need not maintain (host)
routes to individual VMs outside of the data center.
As an example, consider VM1 and VM5 of Figure 2 above. Assume that
connectivity is required between these two VMs where VM1 belongs to
the IP1 subnet whereas VM5 belongs to the IP5 subnet thus IP1 and IP5
subnets belong to the same IP VPN. NVE3 has an EVI5 associated with
the IP5 subnet and NVE1 has an EVI1 associated with the IP1 subnet.
Both EVI1 and EVI5 have associated with their VRFs that belong to the
IP VPN that includes IP1 and IP5 subnets. Due to the gateway at the
edge of DCN 1, NVE1 does not have the address of VM5 in its VRF table
but instead it has a default route in its VRF with the next-hop being
the GW.
2.4 Switching among IP-VPN sites and EVIs with route aggregation
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
In this scenario (within a context of a particular EVPN instance),
connectivity is required between hosts (e.g. VMs) in a data center
and hosts in an enterprise site that belongs to a given IP-VPN. The
NVE within the data center is an EVPN NVE, whereas the enterprise
site has an IP-VPN PE. Furthermore, the data center in question has a
gateway as the WAN edge switch. Because of that, the NVE in the data
center does not need to maintain individual IP prefixes advertised by
enterprise sites (by IP-VPN PEs).
As an example, consider end-station H1 and VM2 of Figure 2. Assume
that connectivity is required between the end-station and the VM,
where VM2 belongs to the IP2 subnet that is realized using EVPN,
whereas H1 belongs to an IP VPN site connected to PE1 (PE1 maintains
an IP VPN VRF associated with that IP VPN). NVE1 has an EVI2
associated with the IP2 subnet. Moreover, NVE1 maintains a VRF
associated with EVI2. PE1 originates a VPN-IP route that covers H1.
The gateway at the edge of DCN1 performs interworking function
between IP-VPN and EVPN. As a result of this, a default route in the
VRF associated with EVI2, pointing to the gateway as the next hop,
and a route to the VM2 (or maybe IP2 subnet) on the H1's VRF on PE1
are sufficient for the connectivity between H1 and VM2.
3 Default L3 Gateway Addressing
3.1 Homogeneous Environment
This is an environment where all NVEs to which an EVPN instance could
potentially be attached (or moved), perform inter-subnet switching.
Therefore, inter-subnet traffic can be locally switched by the EVPN
NVE connecting the VMs belonging to different subnets.
To support such inter-subnet forwarding, the NVE behaves as an IP
Default Gateway from the perspective of the attached end-stations
(e.g. VMs). Two models are possible, as discussed in [DC-MOBILITY]:
1. All the EVIs of a given EVPN instance use the same anycast default
gateway IP address and the same anycast default gateway MAC address.
On each NVE, this default gateway IP/MAC address correspond to the
IRB interface of the EVI associated with that EVPN instance.
2. Each EVI of a given EVPN instance uses its own default gateway IP
and MAC addresses, and these addresses are aliased to the same
conceptual gateway through the use of the Default Gateway extended
community as specified in [EVPN], which is carried in the EVPN MAC
Advertisement routes. On each NVE, this default gateway IP/MAC
address correspond to the IRB interface of the EVI associated with
that EVPN instance.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
Both of these models enable a packet forwarding paradigm where inter-
subnet traffic can bypass the VRF processing on the egress (i.e.
disposition) NVE. The egress NVE merely needs to perform a lookup in
the associated EVI and forward the Ethernet frames unmodified, i.e.
without rewriting the source MAC address. This is different from
traditional IRB forwarding where a packet is forwarded through the
bridge module followed by the routing module on the ingress NVE, and
then forwarded through the routing module followed by the bridging
module on the egress NVE. For inter-subnet forwarding using EVPN, the
routing module on the egress NVE can be completely bypassed.
It is worth noting that if the applications that are running on the
hosts (e.g. VMs) are employing or relying on any form of MAC
security, then the first model (i.e. using anycast addresses) would
be required to ensure that the applications receive traffic from the
same source MAC address that they are sending to.
3.1 Heterogeneous Environment
For large data centers with thousands of servers and ToR (or Access)
switches, some of them may not have the capability of maintaining or
enforcing policies for inter-subnet switching. Even though policies
among multiple subnets belonging to same tenant can be simpler, hosts
belonging to one tenant can also send traffic to peers belonging to
different tenants or security zones. A L3GW not only needs to enforce
policies for communication among subnets belonging to a single
tenant, but also it needs to know how to handle traffic destined
towards peers in different tenants. Therefore, there can be a mixed
environment where an NVE performs inter-subnet switching for some
EVPN instances but not others.
4 Operational Models for Inter-Subnet Forwarding
4.1 Among EVPN NVEs within a DC
When an EVPN MAC advertisement route is received by the NVE, the IP
address associated with the route is used to populate the VRF,
whereas the MAC address associated with the route is used to populate
both the bridge-domain MAC table, as well as the adjacency associated
with the IP route in the VRF.
When an Ethernet frame is received by an ingress NVE, it performs a
lookup on the destination MAC address in the associated EVI. If the
MAC address corresponds to its IRB Interface MAC address, the ingress
NVE deduces that the packet MUST be inter-subnet routed. Hence, the
ingress NVE performs an IP lookup in the associated VRF table. The
lookup identifies both the next-hop (i.e. egress) NVE to which the
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
packet must be forwarded, in addition to an adjacency that contains a
MAC rewrite and an MPLS label stack. The MAC rewrite holds the MAC
address associated with the destination host (as populated by the
EVPN MAC route), instead of the MAC address of the next-hop NVE. The
ingress NVE then rewrites the destination MAC address in the packet
with the address specified in the adjacency. It also rewrites the
source MAC address with its IRB Interface MAC address. The ingress
NVE, then, forwards the frame to the next-hop (i.e. egress) NVE after
encapsulating it with the MPLS label stack. Note that this label
stack includes the LSP label as well as the EVI label that was
advertised by the egress NVE. When the MPLS encapsulated packet is
received by the egress NVE, it uses the EVI label to identify the
bridge-domain table. It then performs a MAC lookup in that table,
which yields the outbound interface to which the Ethernet frame must
be forwarded. Figure 2 below depicts the packet flow, where NVE1 and
NVE2 are the ingress and egress NVEs, respectively.
NVE1 NVE2
+------------+ +------------+
| ... ... | | ... ... |
|(EVI)-(VRF) | |(VRF)-(EVI) |
| .|. .|. | | ... |..| |
+------------+ +------------+
^ v ^ V
| | | |
VM1->-+ +-->--------------+ +->-VM2
Figure 2: Inter-Subnet Forwarding Among EVPN NVEs within a DC
Note that the forwarding behavior on the egress NVE is similar to
EVPN intra-subnet forwarding. In other words, all the packet
processing associated with the inter-subnet forwarding semantics is
confined to the ingress NVE.
It should also be noted that [EVPN] provides different level of
granularity for the EVI label. Besides identifying bridge domain
table, it can be used to identify the egress interface or a
destination MAC address on that interface. If EVI label is used for
egress interface or destination MAC address identification, then no
MAC lookup is needed in the egress EVI and the packet can be directly
forwarded to the egress interface just based on EVI label lookup.
4.2 Among EVPN NVEs in Different DCs Without Route Aggregation
When an EVPN MAC advertisement route is received by the NVE, the IP
address associated with the route is used to populate the VRF,
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
whereas the MAC address associated with the route is used to populate
both the bridge-domain MAC table, as well as the adjacency associated
with the IP route in the VRF.
When an Ethernet frame is received by an ingress NVE, it performs a
lookup on the destination MAC address in the associated EVI. If the
MAC address corresponds to its IRB Interface MAC address, the ingress
NVE deduces that the packet MUST be inter-subnet routed. Hence, the
ingress NVE performs an IP lookup in the associated VRF table. The
lookup identifies both the next-hop (i.e. egress) Gateway to which
the packet must be forwarded, in addition to an adjacency that
contains a MAC rewrite and an MPLS label stack. The MAC rewrite holds
the MAC address associated with the destination host (as populated by
the EVPN MAC route), instead of the MAC address of the next-hop
Gateway. The ingress NVE then rewrites the destination MAC address in
the packet with the address specified in the adjacency. It also
rewrites the source MAC address with its IRB Interface MAC address.
The ingress NVE, then, forwards the frame to the next-hop (i.e.
egress) Gateway after encapsulating it with the MPLS label stack.
Note that this label stack includes the LSP label as well as an EVI
label. The EVI label could be either advertised by the ingress
Gateway, if inter-AS option B is used, or advertised by the egress
NVE, if inter-AS option C is used. When the MPLS encapsulated packet
is received by the ingress Gateway, the processing again differs
depending on whether inter-AS option B or option C is employed: in
the former case, the ingress Gateway swaps the EVI label in the
packets with the EVI label value received from the egress Gateway. In
the latter case, the ingress Gateway does not modify the EVI label
and performs normal label switching on the LSP label. Similarly on
the egress Gateway, for option B, the egress Gateway swaps the EVI
label with the value advertised by the egress NVE. Whereas, for
option C, the egress Gateway does not modify the EVI label, and
performs normal label switching on the LSP label. When the MPLS
encapsulated packet is received by the egress NVE, it uses the EVI
label to identify the bridge-domain table. It then performs a MAC
lookup in that table, which yields the outbound interface to which
the Ethernet frame must be forwarded. Figure 3 below depicts the
packet flow.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
NVE1 GW1 GW2 NVE2
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ... ... | | ... | | ... | | ... ... |
|(EVI)-(VRF) | | [LS ] | | [LS ] | |(VRF)-(EVI) |
| .|. .|. | | |..| | | |..| | | ... |..| |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
^ v ^ V ^ V ^ V
| | | | | | | |
VM1->-+ +-->--------+ +------------+ +---------------+ +->-VM2
Figure 3: Inter-Subnet Forwarding Among EVPN NVEs in Different DCs
without Route Aggregation
4.3 Among EVPN NVEs in Different DCs with Route Aggregation
In this scenario, the NVEs within a given data center do not have
entries for the MAC/IP addresses of hosts in remote data centers.
Rather, the NVEs have a default IP route pointing to the WAN gateway
for each VRF. This is accomplished by the WAN gateway advertising for
a given EVPN that spans multiple DC a default VPN-IP route that is
imported by the NVEs of that EVPN that are in the gateway's own DC.
When an Ethernet frame is received by an ingress NVE, it performs a
lookup on the destination MAC address in the associated EVI. If the
MAC address corresponds to the IRB Interface MAC address, the ingress
NVE deduces that the packet MUST be inter-subnet routed. Hence, the
ingress NVE performs an IP lookup in the associated VRF table. The
lookup, in this case, matches the default route which points to the
local WAN gateway. The ingress NVE then rewrites the destination MAC
address in the packet with the IRB Interface MAC address of the local
WAN gateway. It also rewrites the source MAC address with its own IRB
Interface MAC address. The ingress NVE, then, forwards the frame to
the WAN gateway after encapsulating it with the MPLS label stack.
Note that this label stack includes the LSP label as well as the IP-
VPN label that was advertised by the local WAN gateway. When the MPLS
encapsulated packet is received by the local WAN gateway, it uses the
IP-VPN label to identify the VRF table. It then performs an IP lookup
in that table. The lookup identifies both the remote WAN gateway (of
the remote data center) to which the packet must be forwarded, in
addition to an adjacency that contains a MAC rewrite and an MPLS
label stack. The MAC rewrite holds the MAC address associated with
the ultimate destination host (as populated by the EVPN MAC route).
The local WAN gateway then rewrites the destination MAC address in
the packet with the address specified in the adjacency. It also
rewrites the source MAC address with its IRB Interface MAC address.
The local WAN gateway, then, forwards the frame to the remote WAN
gateway after encapsulating it with the MPLS label stack. Note that
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
this label stack includes the LSP label as well as a VPN label that
was advertised by the remote WAN gateway. When the MPLS encapsulated
packet is received by the remote WAN gateway, it simply swaps the VPN
label with the EVI label advertised by the egress NVE. This implies
that the remote WAN gateway must allocate the VPN label at least at
the granularity of a (VRF, egress NVE) tuple. The remote WAN gateway
then forward the packet to the egress NVE. The egress NVE then
performs a MAC lookup in the EVI (identified by the received EVI
label) to determine the outbound port to send the traffic on.
Figure 4 below depicts the forwarding model.
NVE1 GW1 GW2 NVE2
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ... ... | | ... ... | | ... | | ... ... |
|(EVI)-(VRF) | |(VRF)-(EVI) | | [LS ] | |(VRF)-(EVI) |
| .|. .|. | | |..| | | |...| | | ... |..| |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
^ v ^ V ^ V ^ V
| | | | | | | |
VM1->-+ +-->-----+ +--------------+ +---------------+ +->-VM2
Figure 4: Inter-Subnet Forwarding Among EVPN NVEs in Different DCs
with Route Aggregation
4.4 Among IP-VPN Sites and EVPN NVEs with Route Aggregation
In this scenario, the NVEs within a given data center do not have
entries for the IP addresses of hosts in remote enterprise sites.
Rather, the NVEs have a default IP route pointing to the WAN gateway
for each VRF.
When an Ethernet frame is received by an ingress NVE, it performs a
lookup on the destination MAC address in the associated EVI. If the
MAC address corresponds to the IRB Interface MAC address, the ingress
NVE deduces that the packet MUST be inter-subnet routed. Hence, the
ingress NVE performs an IP lookup in the associated VRF table. The
lookup, in this case, matches the default route which points to the
local WAN gateway. The ingress NVE then rewrites the destination MAC
address in the packet with the IRB Interface MAC address of the local
WAN gateway. It also rewrites the source MAC address with its own IRB
Interface MAC address. The ingress NVE, then, forwards the frame to
the WAN gateway after encapsulating it with the MPLS label stack.
Note that this label stack includes the LSP label as well as the IP-
VPN label that was advertised by the local WAN gateway. When the MPLS
encapsulated packet is received by the local WAN gateway, it uses the
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
IP-VPN label to identify the VRF table. It then performs an IP lookup
in that table. The lookup identifies the next hop ASBR to which the
packet must be forwarded. The local gateway in this case strips the
Ethernet encapsulation and forwards the IP packet to the ASBR using a
label stack comprising of an LSP label and a VPN label that was
advertised by the ASBR. When the MPLS encapsulated packet is received
by the ASBR, it simply swaps the VPN label with the IP-VPN label
advertised by the egress PE. This implies that the remote WAN gateway
must allocate the VPN label at least at the granularity of a (VRF,
egress PE) tuple. The ASBR then forwards the packet to the egress PE.
The egress PE then performs an IP lookup in the VRF (identified by
the received IP-VPN label) to determine where to forward the traffic.
Figure 5 below depicts the forwarding model.
NVE1 GW1 ASBR NVE2
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ... ... | | ... ... | | ... | | ... |
|(EVI)-(VRF) | |(VRF)-(EVI) | | [LS ] | | (VRF)|
| .|. .|. | | |..| | | |...| | | |..| |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
^ v ^ V ^ V ^ V
| | | | | | | |
VM1->-+ +-->-----+ +--------------+ +---------------+ +->-H1
Figure 5: Inter-Subnet Forwarding Among IP-VPN Sites and EVPN NVEs
with Route Aggregation
4.5 Use of Centralized Gateway
In this scenario, the NVEs within a given data center need to forward
traffic in L2 to a centralized L3GW for a number of reasons: a) they
don't have IRB capabilities or b) they don't have required policy for
switching traffic between different tenants or security zones. The
centralized L3GW performs both the IRB function for switching traffic
among different EVPN instances as well as it performs interworking
function when the traffic needs to be switched between IP-VPN sites
and EVPN instances.
5 VM Mobility
5.1 VM Mobility & Optimum Forwarding for VM's Outbound Traffic
Optimum forwarding for the VM's outbound traffic, upon VM mobility,
can be achieved using either the anycast default Gateway MAC and IP
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
addresses, or using the address aliasing as discussed in [DC-
MOBILITY].
5.2 VM Mobility & Optimum Forwarding for VM's Inbound Traffic
For optimum forwarding of the VM's inbound traffic, upon VM mobility,
all the NVEs and/or IP-VPN PEs need to know the up to date location
of the VM. Two scenarios must be considered, as discussed next.
In what follows, we use the following terminology:
- source NVE refers to the NVE behind which the VM used to reside
prior to the VM mobility event.
- target NVE refers to the new NVE behind which the VM has moved
after the mobility event.
5.2.1 Mobility without Route Aggregation
In this scenario, when a target NVE detects that a MAC mobility event
has occurred, it initiates the MAC mobility handshake in BGP as
specified in [EVPN]. The WAN Gateways, acting as ASBRs in this case,
re-advertise the MAC route of the target NVE with the MAC Mobility
extended community attribute unmodified. Because the WAN Gateway for
a given data center re-advertises BGP routes received from the WAN
into the data center, the source NVE will receive the MAC
Advertisement route of the target NVE (with the next hop attribute
adjusted depending on which inter-AS option is employed). The source
NVE will then withdraw its original MAC Advertisement route as a
result of evaluating the Sequence Number field of the MAC Mobility
extended community in the received MAC Advertisement route. This is
per the procedures already defined in [EVPN].
5.2.2 Mobility with Route Aggregation
This section will be completed in the next revision.
6 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sami Boutros for his valuable
comments.
7 Security Considerations
8 IANA Considerations
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
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.
9.2 Informative References
[EVPN] Sajassi et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-ietf-
l2vpn-evpn-04.txt, work in progress, July, 2014.
[EVPN-IPVPN-INTEROP] Sajassi et al., "EVPN Seamless Interoperability
with IP-VPN", draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-ipvpn-interop-01, work in
progress, October, 2012.
[DC-MOBILITY] Aggarwal et al., "Data Center Mobility based on
BGP/MPLS, IP Routing and NHRP", draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility-
05.txt, work in progress, June, 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Samer Salam
Cisco
Email: ssalam@cisco.com
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
Email: yakov@juniper.net
John E. Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Lucy Yong
Huawei Technologies
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT IP Inter-Subnet Forwarding in E-VPN July 15, 2013
Linda Dunbar
Huawei Technologies
Email: linda.dunbar@huawei.com
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Florin Balus
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: Florin.Balus@alcatel-lucent.com
Sajassi et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 17]