EVPN Network Layer Fault Management
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd-06
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (bess WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Vengada Prasad Govindan , Mallik Mudigonda, Ali Sajassi , Greg Mirsky , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-01 | ||
| Replaces | draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd-06
BESS Working Group V. Govindan
Internet-Draft M. Mudigonda
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi
Expires: 2 September 2024 Cisco Systems
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
D. Eastlake
Futurewei Technologies
1 March 2024
EVPN Network Layer Fault Management
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd-06
Abstract
This document specifies proactive, in-band network layer OAM
mechanisms to detect loss of continuity faults that affect unicast
and multi-destination paths (used by Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and
Multicast traffic) in an Ethernet VPN (RFC 7432bis) network. The
mechanisms specified in the draft use the widely adopted
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (RFC 5880) protocol and other
protocols as necessary.
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 2 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Motivation for Running BFD at the EVPN Network Layer . . . . 5
4. Fault Detection for Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Fault Detection for BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. P2MP Tunnels (Label Switched Multicast) . . . . . . . . . 7
6. BFD Packet Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. Unicast MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.2. MPLS Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.3. MPLS LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP) . . . . . . 10
6.2. VXLAN Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1. Unicast VXLAN Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2. VXLAN Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.3. VXLAN P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Pseudowire Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. MAC Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3. BFD Discriminator Attribute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
[RFC9062] outlines the OAM requirements of Ethernet VPN networks
(EVPN) [rfc7432bis]. This document specifies mechanisms for
proactive fault detection at the network (overlay) layer of EVPN,
that is to say between PEs (Provider Edge nodes). The mechanisms
proposed in this document use the widely adopted Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] protocol, which is a lightweight
protocol using fixed length messages suitable for implementation in
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
hardware, and other protocols as necessary.
EVPN fault detection mechanisms need to consider unicast traffic
separately from Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM)
traffic since they map to different Forwarding Equivalency Classes
(FECs) in EVPN. Hence this document proposes somewhat different
continuity fault detection mechanisms depending on the type of
traffic and the type of tunnel used as follows:
* Using BFD [RFC5880] for unicast traffic and BUM traffic via MP2P
tunnels.
* Using BFD Multipoint [RFC8562] or BFD Multipoint Active Tails
[RFC8563] [ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd] for BUM traffic via a P2MP tunnel.
Packet loss and packet delay measurement are out of scope for this
document. See [ietf-bmwg-evpntest] for EVPN benchmarking guidance.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The following acronyms are used in this document.
BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880]
BUM - Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast
CC - Continuity Check
CE - Customer Edge
EVI - EVPN Instance
EVPN - Ethernet VPN [rfc7432bis]
FEC - Forwarding Equivalency Class
GAL - Generic Associated Channel Label [RFC5586]
LSM - Label Switched Multicast (P2MP)
LSP - Label Switched Path
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
MP2MP - Multi-Point-to-Multi-Point
MP2P - Multi-Point-to-Point
OAM - Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
P2MP - Point-to-Multi-Point (LSM)
P2P - Point to Point
PE - Provider Edge node
VXLAN - Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network [RFC7348]
2. Scope of this Document
This document specifies BFD based mechanisms for proactive fault
detection for EVPN as specified in [rfc7432bis] and also for EVPN
using VXLAN encapsulation [RFC8365]. It covers the following:
* Unicast traffic using Point-to-Point (P2P) and Multi-Point-to-
Point (MP2P) tunnels.
* BUM traffic using ingress replication via Point-to-Point (P2P) and
Multi-Point-to-Point (MP2P) tunnels.
* BUM traffic using Point-to-Multi-Point (P2MP) tunnels (Label
Switched Multicast (LSM)).
* MPLS and VXLAN encapsulation.
This document does not discuss BFD mechanisms for:
* The PBB-EVPN [RFC7623] EVPN variant. It is intended to address
this in future versions.
* Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) solution based on EVPN
[RFC9135]. It is intended to address this in future versions.
* EVPN using other encapsulations such as NVGRE or MPLS over GRE
[RFC8365].
* BUM traffic using MP2MP tunnels.
This document specifies procedures for BFD asynchronous mode. BFD
demand mode is outside the scope of this specification except as it
is used in [RFC8563]. The use of the BFD Echo function is outside
the scope of this specification.
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
3. Motivation for Running BFD at the EVPN Network Layer
The choice of running BFD at the network layer of the OAM model for
EVPN [RFC9062] was made after considering the following:
* In addition to detecting link failures in the EVPN network, BFD
sessions at the network layer can be used to monitor the
successful setup, such as label programming, of MP2P and P2MP EVPN
tunnels transporting Unicast and BUM traffic. The scope of
reachability detection covers the ingress and the egress EVPN PE
(Provider Edge) nodes and the network connecting them.
* Monitoring a representative set of path(s) or a particular path
among multiple paths available between two EVPN PE nodes could be
done by exercising entropy mechanisms such as entropy labels, when
they are used, or VXLAN source ports. However, paths that cannot
be realized by entropy variations cannot be monitored. The fault
monitoring requirements outlined by [RFC9062] are addressed by the
mechanisms proposed by this draft.
BFD testing between EVPN PE nodes does not guarantee that the EVPN
service is functioning. (This can be monitored at the service level,
that is CE (Customer Edge) to CE.) For example, an egress EVPN-PE
could understand EVPN labeling received but could switch data to an
incorrect interface. However, BFD testing in the EVPN Network Layer
does provide additional confidence that data transported using those
tunnels will reach the expected egress node. When BFD testing in the
EVPN overlay fails, that can be used as an indication of a Loss-of-
Connectivity defect in the EVPN underlay that would cause EVPN
service failure.
4. Fault Detection for Unicast Traffic
The mechanisms specified in BFD for MPLS LSPs [RFC5884] [RFC7726] and
BFD for VXLAN [RFC8971] are, except as otherwise provided herein,
applied to test loss of continuity for unicast EVPN traffic. The
MPLS control plane can be verified against the data plane as
specified in [RFC8029]. When the discriminators required for de-
multiplexing the BFD sessions are not otherwise available, they can
be advertised through BGP using the BFD Discriminator Attribute
[RFC9026]. Discriminators are needed for MPLS since the label stack
does not contain enough information to identify the sender of the
packet.
The usage of MPLS entropy labels [RFC6790] or various VXLAN source
ports takes care of the requirement to monitor various paths of the
multi-path server layer network. Each unique realizable path between
the participating PE routers MAY be monitored separately when such
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
entropy is used. At least one path of multi-path connectivity
between two PE routers MUST be tracked with BFD, but in that case the
granularity of fault-detection will be coarser.
To support unicast fault management to a PE node, that PE MUST
allocate or be configured with a BFD discriminator to be used as Your
Discriminator in the BFD messages to it. By default, it advertises
this discriminator with BGP using the BFD Discriminator Attribute
[RFC9026] with BFD Mode TBD4 in an EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement Route
[rfc7432bis] and extracts its peer's discriminator from such an
attribute; however, these discriminators MAY be exchanged out-of-band
or through some other mechanism outside the scope of this document.
If it is desired to establish and maintain a BFD session to a PE when
it has not learned a local MAC address and would not otherwise be
advertising a MAC/IP route, the PE can advertise a MAC/IP route to
the MAC address TBD3.
Once a PE knows a unicast route and discriminator for another PE and
if it is the higher priority of the two PEs to initiate BFD and is
configured to do so, it endeavors to bring UP and maintain a BFD
session to that other PE.
Once the BFD session is UP, the ends of the BFD session MUST NOT
change the local discriminator values of the BFD Control packets they
generate, unless they first bring down the session as specified in
[RFC5884]. The BFD session is brought down if a PE is no longer
configured to maintain it or if a route and discriminator are no
longer available.
5. Fault Detection for BUM Traffic
Section 5.1 below discusses BUM traffic fault detection for P2P and
MP2P tunnels using ingress replication and Section 5.2 discusses such
fault detection for P2MP tunnels.
5.1. Ingress Replication
Ingress replication uses separate P2P or MP2P tunnels for
transporting BUM traffic from the ingress PE (head) to a set of one
or more egress PEs (tails). The fault detection mechanism specified
by this document takes advantage of the fact that the head makes a
unique copy for each tail.
Another key aspect to be considered in EVPN is the advertisement of
the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route [rfc7432bis]. The BUM
traffic flows from a head node to a particular tail only after the
head receives such an inclusive multicast route from the tail. This
route contains the BUM EVPN MPLS label (downstream allocated)
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
corresponding to the MP2P tunnel for MPLS encapsulation and contains
the IP address of the PE originating the inclusive multicast route
for use in VXLAN encapsulation. It also contains a BFD Discriminator
Attribute [RFC9026] with BFD Mode TDB4 giving the BFD discriminator
that will be used by the tail. This is the P2P mode since a P2P BFD
session is used in both the P2P and MP2P cases with ingress
replication.
There MAY exist multiple BFD sessions between a head PE and an
individual tail due to (1) the usage of MPLS entropy labels [RFC6790]
or VXLAN source ports for an inclusive multicast FEC and (2) due to
multiple MP2P tunnels indicated by different tail labels for MPLS or
different IP addresses for VXLAN. If configured to do so, once a PE
knows a multicast route and discriminator for another PE it endeavors
to bring UP and maintain a BFD session to that other PE. Once a BFD
session for a path is UP, the ends of the BFD session MUST NOT change
the local discriminator values of the BFD Control packets they
generate, unless they first bring down the session as specified in
[RFC5884]. The BFD session is brought down if a PE is no longer
configured to maintain it or if a route and discriminator are no
longer available.
5.2. P2MP Tunnels (Label Switched Multicast)
Fault detection for BUM traffic distributed using a P2MP tunnel uses
BFD Multipoint Active Tails [RFC8563] in one of the three methods
providing head notification. Which method is used depends on the
configuration. Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 of [RFC8563] describe two of
these methods ("Head Notification and Tail Solicitation with
Multipoint Polling" and "Head Notification with Composite Polling").
The third method ("Head Notification without Polling") is touched on
in Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8563] and fully specified in [ietf-mpls-p2mp-
bfd]. All three of these modes assume the existence of a unicast
path from each tail to the head. In addition, Head Notification with
Composite Polling assumes a head to tail unicast path disjoint from
the path used by the P2MP tunnel.
The BUM traffic flows from a head node to the tails after the head
transmits an Inclusive Multicast Tag Route [rfc7432bis]. It contains
the BUM EVPN MPLS label (upstream allocated) corresponding to the
P2MP tunnel for MPLS encapsulation. It also includes a BFD
Discriminator Attribute [RFC9026] with the BFD Mode set to 1 and a
Source IP Address TLV, which gives the address associated with the
MultiPoint Head of the P2MP session. This BFD discriminator
advertised by the head in the inclusive multicast route or otherwise
configured at or communicated to a tail MUST be used in any reverse
BFD control message as Your Discriminator so the head can determine
the tail of which P2MP BFD session is responding. If configured to
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
do so, once a PE knows a P2MP multicast route and the needed
discriminators, it brings UP and maintains a P2MP BFD active tails
session to the tails. The BFD session is brought down if a PE is no
longer configured to maintain it or the multicast route and
discriminators are no longer available.
For MPLS encapsulation of the head to tails BFD, Label Switched
Multicast is used. For VXLAN encapsulation, BFD is delivered to the
tails through underlay multicast using an outer multicast IP address.
6. BFD Packet Encapsulation
The sections below discuss the MPLS and VXLAN encapsulations of BFD
for EVPN network layer fault management.
6.1. MPLS Encapsulation
This section describes use of the Generic Associated Channel Label
(GAL) for BFD encapsulation in MPLS based EVPN network layer fault
management.
6.1.1. Unicast MPLS Encapsulation
As shown in Figure 1, the packet initially contains the following
labels: LSP label (transport), the optional entropy label, the EVPN
Unicast label, and then the Generic Associated Channel label with the
G-ACh type set to TBD1. The G-ACh payload of the packet MUST contain
the destination L2 header (in overlay space) followed by the IP
header that encapsulates the BFD packet. The MAC address of the
inner packet is used to validate the <EVI, MAC> in the receiving
node.
* The destination MAC MUST be the dedicated unicast MAC TBD3 (see
Section 8) or the MAC address of the destination PE.
* The destination IP address MUST be 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 [RFC1812]
or ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291].
* The destination UDP port MUST be 3784 [RFC5881].
* The source UDP port MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535.
* The discriminator values for BFD are obtained as discussed in
Section 4.
* IP TTL or Hop Limit MUST be set to 255 according to [RFC5082].
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
<---------- 4 bytes ---------->
+-------------------------------+ -----
| LSP Label | |
+-------------------------------+ |
: entropy label indicator : |
+ (optional) + MPLS Label Stack
: entropy label : |
+-------------------------------+ |
| EVPN Unicast label |
+-------------------------------+ |
| Generic Assoc. Channel Label | |
+-------------------------------+ -----
| ACH word, Type TBD1 no TLVs |
+-------------------------------+ --- -------
| Destination MAC Address | | |
+ +---------------+ | |
| TBD2 | | | |
+---------------+ + L2 Header |
| Source MAC Address | | |
+---------------+---------------+ | |
| VLAN Ethertype| VLAN-ID | | |
+---------------+---------------+ | |
|IP4/6 Ethertype| | |
+---------------+---------------+ --- |
/ / G-ACh Payload
/... IPv4/6 Header .../ |
/ / |
+-------------------------------+ |
| | |
+ UDP Header + |
| | |
+-------------------------------+ |
| | |
+ BFD Control Packet + |
/ / |
/... .../ ---------------
Figure 1: MPLS Unicast Encapsulation
6.1.2. MPLS Ingress Replication
The packet initially contains the following labels: LSP label
(transport), optionally the entropy label, the BUM label, and the
split horizon label [rfc7432bis] (where applicable). The G-ACh type
is set to TBD1. The G-ACh payload of the packet is as described in
Section 6.1.1 except that the destination MAC address is the
dedicated multicast MAC TBD2.
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
6.1.3. MPLS LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP)
The encapsulation is the same as in Section 6.1.2 for ingress
replication except that the transport label identifies the P2MP
tunnel, in effect the set of tail PEs, rather than identifying a
single destination PE at the end of an MP2P tunnel.
6.2. VXLAN Encapsulation
This section describes the use of the VXLAN [RFC7348] [RFC8365] for
BFD encapsulation in VXLAN based EVPN fault management.
6.2.1. Unicast VXLAN Encapsulation
Figure 2 below shows the unicast VXLAN encapsulation on the wire on
an Ethernet link. The outer and inner IP headers have a unicast
source and destination IP address that are the addresses of the PEs
that are the BFD message source and destination. If the BFD source
has multiple IP addresses, entropy MAY be further obtained by using
any of those addresses assuming the source is prepared for responses
directed to the IP address used.
* The outer destination UDP port MUST be 4789 [RFC7348].
* The inner destination UDP port MUST be 3784 [RFC5881].
* The outer and inner source UDP ports MUST each be in the range
49152 through 65535.
* The inner destination MAC MUST be the MAC address of the
destination PE or the dedicated unicast MAC TBD3 (see Section 8).
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
<---------- 4 bytes ---------->
+-------------------------------+ ---
| Destination MAC Address | |
+ +---------------+ |
| | | Outer
+---------------+ + L2 Header
| Source MAC Address | |
+-------------------------------+ |
| VLAN Ethertype| VLAN-ID | |
+---------------+---------------+ |
|IP4/6 Ethertype| |
+---------------+---------------+ ---
/ /
/... IP4/6 Header .../
/ /
+-------------------------------+
| |
+ UDP Header +
| |
+-------------------------------+
| |
+ VXLAN Header +
| |
+-------------------------------+ ---
| Destination MAC Address | |
+ +---------------+ |
| | | Inner
+---------------+ + L2 Header
| Source MAC Address | |
+---------------+---------------+ |
| IP4 Ethertype | |
+---------------+---------------+ ---
/ /
/... IP4 Header .../
/ /
+-------------------------------+
| |
+ UDP Header +
| |
+---------------+---------------+
| |
+ BFD Control Packet +
| |
/... .../
Figure 2: VXLAN Unicast Encapsulation
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
6.2.2. VXLAN Ingress Replication
The BFD packet construction is as given in Section 6.2.1 except as
follows:
1. The destination IP address used by the BFD message source is that
advertised by the destination PE in its Inclusive Multicast EVPN
route for the MP2P tunnel in question; and
2. The Your BFD discriminator used is the one advertised by the BFD
destination using BGP as discussed in Section 5.1 for the MP2P
tunnel.
6.2.3. VXLAN P2MP
The VXLAN encapsulation for the head-to-tails BFD packets uses the
multicast destination IP corresponding to the VXLAN VNI.
The destination UDP port MUST be 3784. For entropy purposes, the
source UDP port can vary but MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535
[RFC5881]. If the head PE has multiple IP addresses, entropy MAY be
further obtained by using any of those addresses.
The Your BFD discriminator is the value distributed for this
multicast fault management purpose as discussed in Section 5.2.
7. Scalability Considerations
The mechanisms proposed by this draft could affect the packet load on
the network and its elements especially when supporting
configurations involving a large number of EVIs. The option of
slowing down or speeding up BFD timer values can be used by an
administrator or a network management entity to maintain the overhead
incurred due to fault monitoring at an acceptable level.
8. IANA Considerations
The following IANA Actions are requested.
8.1. Pseudowire Associated Channel Type
IANA is requested to assign a channel type from the "Pseudowire
Associated Channel Types" registry in [RFC4385] as follows.
Value Description Reference
----- ------------ ------------
TBD1 BFD-EVPN OAM [this document]
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
8.2. MAC Addresses
IANA is requested to assign parallel multicast and unicast MAC
addresses under the IANA OUI [0x01005E900101 and 0x00005E900101
suggested] as follows:
IANA Multicast 48-bit MAC Addresses
Address Usage Reference
------- --------------------- ---------------
TBD2 EVPN Network Layer OAM [this document]
IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Addresses
Address Usage Reference
------- --------------------- ---------------
TBD3 EVPN Network Layer OAM [this document]
8.3. BFD Discriminator Attribute Mode
IANA is requested to assign a value from the IETF Review range in the
BFD Mode sub-registry on the Border Gateway Protocol Parameters
Registry web page as follows:
Value Description Reference
----- --------------- ---------------
TBD4 P2P BFD Session [this document]
9. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5883], and
[RFC8029] apply.
MPLS security considerations [RFC5920] apply to BFD Control packets
encapsulated in a MPLS label stack. When BPD Control packets are
routed, the authentication considerations discussed in [RFC5883]
should be followed.
VXLAN BFD security considerations in [RFC8971] apply to BFD packets
encapsulate in VXLAN.
10. Normative References
[ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd]
Mirsky, G., Mishra, G., and D. Eastlake, "BFD for
Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP",
December 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd/>.
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
[rfc7432bis]
Sajassi, A., Burdet, LA., Drake, J., and J. Rabadan, "BGP
MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-
rfc7432bis/>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[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>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7726] Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S.
Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD
Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7726>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
[RFC8563] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Multipoint
Active Tails", RFC 8563, DOI 10.17487/RFC8563, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8563>.
[RFC9026] Morin, T., Ed., Kebler, R., Ed., and G. Mirsky, Ed.,
"Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover", RFC 9026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9026, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026>.
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
11. Informative References
[ietf-bmwg-evpntest]
Jacob, S. and K. Tiruveedhula, "Benchmarking Methodology
for EVPN and PBB-EVPN", June 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-
evpntest/>.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
[RFC8971] Pallagatti, S., Ed., Mirsky, G., Ed., Paragiri, S.,
Govindan, V., and M. Mudigonda, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network
(VXLAN)", RFC 8971, DOI 10.17487/RFC8971, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8971>.
[RFC9062] Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Aldrin, S., Drake, J., and D.
Eastlake 3rd, "Framework and Requirements for Ethernet VPN
(EVPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
RFC 9062, DOI 10.17487/RFC9062, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9062>.
[RFC9135] Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Thoria, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in Ethernet VPN
(EVPN)", RFC 9135, DOI 10.17487/RFC9135, October 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9135>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following for their comments and
suggestions:
Mach Chen, Jorge Rabadan
Authors' Addresses
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EVPN Network Layer Fault Management March 2024
Vengada Prasad Govindan
Cisco Systems
Email: venggovi@cisco.com
Mudigonda Mallik
Cisco Systems
Email: mmudigon@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Gregory Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregmirsky@gmail.com
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Futurewei Technologies
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
United States of America
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com, donald.eastlake@futurewei.com
Govindan, et al. Expires 2 September 2024 [Page 17]