Skip to main content

EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 Gateway Protocols
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Authors Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi , Luc André Burdet , Daniel Voyer
Last updated 2018-10-22 (Latest revision 2018-02-26)
Replaced by draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Additional resources
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02
INTERNET-DRAFT                                         Patrice Brissette
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                           Ali Sajassi
                                                        Luc Andre Burdet
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                        
                                                            Daniel Voyer
                                                             Bell Canada
                                                                        
Expires: April 23, 2019                                 October 20, 2018

       EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 Gateway Protocols
                draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02

Abstract

   The existing EVPN multi-homing load-balancing modes defined are
   Single-Active and All-Active. Neither of these multi-homing
   mechanisms are appropriate to support access networks with Layer-2
   Gateway protocols such as G.8032, MPLS-TP, STP, etc. These Layer-2
   Gateway protocols require a new multi-homing mechanism defined in
   this draft.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright and License Notice

 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

   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
     1.2  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3. Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN)  . . . . . . . .  7
   5. ESI-label Extended Community Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6. EVPN MAC Flush Extcomm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8. Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   11.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     11.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     11.2  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

1. Introduction

   Existing EVPN multi-homing mechanisms of Single-Active and All-Active
   are not sufficient to support access Layer-2 Gateway protocols such
   as G.8032, MPLS-TP, STP, etc. 

   These Layer-2 Gateway protocols require that a given flow of a VLAN
   (represented by {MAC-SA, MAC-DA}) to be only active on one of the PEs
   in the multi-homing group. This is in contrast with Single-Active
   redundancy mode where all flows of a VLAN are active on one of the
   multi-homing PEs and it is also in contrast with All-Active
   redundancy mode where all L2 flows of a VLAN are active on all PEs in
   the redundancy group.

   This draft defines a new multi-homing mechanism "Single-Flow-Active"
   which defines that a VLAN can be active on all PEs in the redundancy
   group but a single given flow of that VLAN can be active on only one
   of the PEs in the redundancy group. In fact, the carving scheme,
   performed by the DF(Designated Forwarder) election algorithm for
   these L2 Gateway protocols, is not per VLAN but rather for a given
   VLAN. A selected PE in the redundancy group can be the only
   Designated Forwarder for a specific L2 flow but the decision is not
   taken by the PE. The loop-prevention blocking scheme occurs in the
   access network.

   EVPN multi-homing procedures need to be enhanced to support
   Designated Forwarder election for all traffic (both known unicast and
   BUM) on a per L2 flow basis. This new multi-homing mechanism also
   requires new EVPN considerations for aliasing, mass-withdraw, fast-
   switchover and [EVPN-IRB] as described in the solution section.

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].

1.2  Acronyms

   AC      : Attachment Circuit
   BUM     : Broadcast, Unknown unicast, Multicast
   DF      : Designated Forwarder
   EVLAG   : EVPN LAG (equivalent to EVPN MC-LAG)
   GW      : Gateway
   L2 Flow : a given flow of a VLAN, represented by (MAC-SA, MAC-DA)
   L2GW    : Layer-2 Gateway
   G.8032  : Ethernet Ring Protection
   MST-AG  : Multi-Spanning Tree Access Gateway
 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

   REP-AG  : Resilient Ethernet Protocol Access Gateway
   TCN     : Topology Change Notification

 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

2.  Solution

                    +---+
                    |CE4|
                    +---+
                      |
                      |
                   +-----+
                   | PE3 |
                   +-----+
             +-----------------+
             |                 |
             |     MPLS/IP     |
             |      CORE       |
             |                 |
             +-----------------+
          +-----+           +-----+
          | PE1 |           | PE2 |
          +-----+           +-----+
          AC1|                 |AC2
             |                 | 
           +---+             +---+
           |CE1|             |CE3|
           +---+             +---+
             |                 |
             |    +---+       |
             +----|CE2|----/---+
                  +---+    

         Figure 1 EVPN network with L2 access GW protocols

   Figure 1. shows a typical EVPN network with an access network running
   a L2GW protocol; typically one of the following: G.8032, STP, MPLS-
   TP, etc. The L2GW protocol usually starts from AC1 (on PE1) up to AC2
   (on PE2) in an open "ring" manner. AC1 and AC2 interfaces of PE1 and
   PE2 are participants in the access protocol. PE1 and PE2 are peering
   PEs (EVLAG capable) in a redundancy group sharing a same ESI. The
   L2GW protocol is used for loop avoidance. In above example, the loop
   is broken on the right side of CE2. In the proposed Single-Flow-
   Active mode, PE1 and PE2 'Access Gateway' load-balancing mode shares
   similarities with both Single-Active and All-Active. DF election must
   not result in blocked ports or portions of the access may become
   isolated. Additionally, the reachability between CE1/CE2 and CE3 is
   achieved with the forwarding path through the EVPN MPLS/IP core side.
   Thus, the ESI-Label filtering of [RFC7432] is disabled for Single-
   Flow-Active Ethernet segments.

   Finally, PE3 behaves according to EVPN rules for traffic to/from
 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

   PE1/PE2. Peering PE, selected per L2 flow, is chosen by the L2GW
   protocol in the access, and is out of EVPN control. From PE3 point of
   view, some of the L2 flows coming from PE3 may reach CE3 via PE2 and
   some of the L2 flows may reach CE1/CE2 via PE1. A specific L2 flow
   never goes to both peering PEs. Therefore, aliasing cannot be
   performed by PE3. That node operates in a single-active fashion for
   these L2 flows. The backup path which is also setup for rapid
   convergence, is not applicable here. For example, in Figure 1, if a
   failure happens between CE1 and CE2, L2 flows coming from CE4 behind
   PE3 destined to CE1 still goes through PE1 and shall not switch to
   PE2 as a backup path. On PE3, there is no way to know which L2 flow
   specifically is affected. During the transition time, PE3 may flood
   until unicast traffic recovers properly. 

3. Requirements

   The EVPN L2GW framework for L2GW protocols in Access-Gateway mode,
   consists of the following rules:

      o Peering PEs MUST share the same ESI. 

      o The Ethernet-Segment DF election MUST NOT be performed and
      forwarding state MUST be dictated by the L2GW protocol. In Access
      Gateway mode, both PEs are usually in forwarding state. In fact,
      access protocol guarantees drive that state.

      o Split-horizon filtering is NOT needed because L2GW protocol
      ensures there will never be loop in the access network. The
      forwarding between peering PEs MUST also be preserved. In figure
      1, CE1/CE2 device may need reachability with CE3 device.  ESI-
      filtering capability MUST be disabled. PE MUST NOT advertise
      corresponding ESI-label to other PEs in the redundancy group, or
      apply it if it is received.

      o ESI-label BGP-extcomm MUST support a new multi-homing mode named
      "Single-Flow-Active" corresponding to the single-active behaviour
      of [RFC7432], applied per flow.

      o Upon receiving ESI-label BGP-Extcomm with the single-flow-active
      load-balancing mode, remote PE MUST:
         - Disable ESI-Label processing
         - Disable aliasing (at Layer-2 and Layer-3 [EVPN-IRB])

      o The Ethernet-Segment procedures in the EVPN core such as per
      ES/EAD and per EVI/EAD routes advertisement/withdraw, as well as
      MAC and MAC+IP advertisement, remains as explained in [RFC7432]
      and [EVPN-IRB].

 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

      o For fast-convergence, remote PE3 MAY set up two distinct backup
      paths on a per-flow basis:

         - { PE1 active, PE2 backup }
         - { PE2 active, PE1 backup }

      o MAC mobility procedures SHALL have precedence in Single-Flow-
      Active for tracking host reachability over backup path procedure.

4. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN)

   In order to address rapid Layer-2 convergence requirement, topology
   change notification received from the L2GW protocols must be sent
   across the EVPN network to perform the equivalent of legacy L2VPN
   remote MAC flush.

   The generation of TCN is done differently based on the access
   protocol. In the case of STP (REP-AG) and G.8032, TCN gets generated
   in both directions and thus both of the dual-homing PEs receive it.
   However, with STP (MST-AG), TCN gets generated only in one direction
   and thus only a single PE can receive it. That TCN is propagated to
   the other peering PE for local MAC flushing, and relaying back into
   the access.

   In fact, PEs have no direct visibility on failures happening in the
   access network neither on the impact of those failures over the
   connectivity between CE devices. Hence, both peering PEs require to
   perform a local MAC flush on corresponding interfaces.

   There are two options to relay the access protocol's TCN to the
   peering PE: in-band or out-of-band messaging. The first method is
   better for rapid convergence, and requires a dedicated channel
   between peering PEs. An EVPN-VPWS connection MAY be dedicated for
   that purpose, connecting the Untagged ACs of both PEs. The latter
   choice relies on a new MAC flush extended community in the Ethernet
   Auto-discovery per EVI route, defined below. It is a slower method
   but has the advantage of avoid the usage of a dedicated channel
   between peering PEs. 

   Peering PE, upon receiving TCN from access, MUST:

   o As per legacy VPLS, perform a local MAC flush on the access-facing
   interfaces. An ARP probe is also sent for all hosts previously
   locally-attached.

 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

   o Advertise per EVI/EAD route along with a new MAC-flush BGP Extended
   Community in order to perform a remote MAC flush and steer L2 traffic
   to proper peering PE. The sequence number is incremented by one as a
   flushing indication to remote PEs.

   o Ensure MAC and MAC/IP route re-advertisement, with incremented
   sequence number when host reachability is NOT moving to peering PE.
   This is to ensure a re-advertisement of current MAC and MAC/IP which
   may have been flushed remotely upon MAC Flush extcomm reception. In
   theory, it should happen automatically since peering PE, receiving
   TCN from the access, performs local MAC flush on corresponding
   interface and will re-learn that local MAC or MAC/IP at ARP probe
   reply.

   o When MST-AG runs in the access, a dedicated EVPN-VPWS connection
   MAY be used as an in-band channel to relay TCN between peering PEs.
   That connection may be auto-generated or can simply be directly
   configured by user.

5. ESI-label Extended Community Extension

   In order to support the new EVPN load-balancing mode (single-flow-
   active), the ESI-label extcomm is extended. The 1 octet flag field,
   as part of the ESI-label Extcomm, is updated as follow:

   Each ESI Label extended community is encoded as an 8-octet value, as
      follows:
                            1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Type=0x06     | Sub-Type=0x01 | Flags(1 octet)|  Reserved=0   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Reserved=0   |          ESI Label                            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Low-order bit: [7:0]
   [2:0]- 000 = all-active, 
          001 = single-active, 
          010 = single-flow-active, 
          others = unassigned
   [7:3]- Reserved

6. EVPN MAC Flush Extcomm

   A new BGP Extended community, similar to MAC mobility BGP-extcomm, is
   required by the TCN procedure. It may get advertised along with
   Ethernet Auto-discovery routes (per EVI/EAD) upon reception of TCN
 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

   from the access. When this extended community is used, it indicates,
   to all remote PEs that all MAC addresses associated with that EVI/ESI
   are "flushed" i.e. unresolved. They remain unresolved until remote PE
   receives a route update / withdraw for those MAC addresses; the MAC
   may be readvertised by the same PE, or by another, in the same ESI.

   The sequence number used is of local significance from the
   originating PE, and is not used for comparison between peering PEs.
   Rather, it is used to signal via BGP successive MAC Flush requests
   from a given PE.

                            1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Type=0x06     | Sub-Type=0x?? |        Reserved = 0           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 Sequence Number                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

7. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding

   EVPN Inter-subnet forwarding procedures in [EVPN-IRB] works with the
   current proposal and does not require any extension. Host routes
   continue to be installed at PE3 with a single remote nexthop, no
   aliasing.

8. Conclusion

   EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 gateway Protocols solves a
   true problem due to the wide legacy deployment of these access L2GW
   protocols in Service Provider networks. The current draft has the
   main advantage to be fully compliant with [RFC7432] and [EVPN-IRB].

 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

9.  Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and [EVPN-
   IRB] remain valid for this document. 

10.  IANA Considerations

   A new allocation of Extended Community Sub-Type for EVPN is required
   to support the new EVPN MAC flush mechanism.

11.  References

11.1  Normative References

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

11.2  Informative References

   [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>.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for valuable review and
   inputs with respect to access protocol deployments related to
   procedures proposed in this document.

Authors' Addresses

   Patrice Brissette
   Cisco Systems
   EMail: pbrisset@cisco.com

   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems
   EMail: sajassi@cisco.com

   Luc Andre Burdet
   Cisco Systems
   EMail: lburdet@cisco.com
 

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT    draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto  October 20, 2018

   Daniel Voyer
   Bell Canada
   EMail: daniel.voyer@bell.ca

Patrice Brissette        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 11]