L2VPN Workgroup Ali Sajassi
INTERNET-DRAFT Samer Salam
Intended Status: Standards Track Sami Boutros
Cisco
Wim Henderickx
Jorge Rabadan Jim Uttaro
Alcatel-Lucent AT&T
John Drake Aldrin Isaac
Wen Lin Bloomberg
Juniper
Expires: January 6, 2015 July 6, 2015
E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-02
Abstract
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint
Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). [ETREE-FMWK]
proposes a solution framework for supporting this service in MPLS
networks. This document discusses how those functional requirements
can be easily met with (PBB-)EVPN and how (PBB-)EVPN offers a more
efficient implementation of these functions.
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
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
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 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 E-Tree Scenarios and EVPN / PBB-EVPN Support . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Scenario 2: Leaf OR Root site(s) per AC . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Scenario 3: Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Operation for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a
leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a
root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a
leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a
root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 E-TREE Traffic Flows for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1 E-Tree with MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Operation for PBB-EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 BGP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1 Leaf ESI Label Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 E-TREE Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
6 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
1 Introduction
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint
Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). In an E-Tree
service, endpoints are labeled as either Root or Leaf sites. Root
sites can communicate with all other sites. Leaf sites can
communicate with Root sites but not with other Leaf sites.
[ETREE-FMWK] proposes the solution framework for supporting E-Tree
service in MPLS networks. The document identifies the functional
components of the overall solution to emulate E-Tree services in
addition to Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services on an existing MPLS
network.
[EVPN] is a solution for multipoint L2VPN services, with advanced
multi-homing capabilities, using BGP for distributing customer/client
MAC address reach-ability information over the MPLS/IP network. [PBB-
EVPN] combines the functionality of EVPN with [802.1ah] Provider
Backbone Bridging for MAC address scalability.
This document discusses how the functional requirements for E-Tree
service can be easily met with (PBB-)EVPN and how (PBB-)EVPN offers a
more efficient implementation of these functions.
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 [KEYWORDS].
2 E-Tree Scenarios and EVPN / PBB-EVPN Support
In this section, we will categorize support for E-Tree into three
different scenarios, depending on the nature of the site association
(Root/Leaf) per PE or per Ethernet Segment:
- Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE
- Leaf AND Root site(s) per PE
- Leaf AND Root site(s) per Ethernet Segment
2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE
In this scenario, a PE may receive traffic from either Root sites OR
Leaf sites for a given MAC-VRF/bridge table, but not both
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
concurrently. In other words, a given MAC-VRF/bridge table on a PE is
either associated with a root or leaf. The PE may have both Root and
Leaf sites albeit for different MAC-VRFs/bridge tables.
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+
|CE1+---ES1----+--+ | | | MPLS | | | +--+----ES2-----+CE2|
+---+ (Root) | |MAC| | | /IP | | |MAC| | (Leaf) +---+
| |VRF| | | | | |VRF| |
| | | | | | | | | | +---+
| | | | | | | | +--+----ES3-----+CE3|
| +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Leaf) +---+
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 1: Scenario 1
In such scenario, an EVPN PE implementation MAY provide topology
constraint among the PEs belonging to the same EVI associated with an
E-TREE service. The purpose of this topology constraint is to avoid
having PEs with only Leaf sites importing and processing BGP MAC
routes from each other, thereby unnecessarily exhausting their RIB
tables. To support such topology constrain in EVPN, two BGP Route-
Targets (RTs) are used for every EVPN Instance (EVI): one RT is
associated with the Root sites and the other is associated with the
Leaf sites. On a per EVI basis, every PE exports the single RT
associated with its type of site(s). Furthermore, a PE with Root
site(s) imports both Root and Leaf RTs, whereas a PE with Leaf
site(s) only imports the Root RT. If the number of EVIs is very large
(e.g., more than 32K or 64K), then RT type 0 as defined in [RFC4360]
SHOULD be used; otherwise, RT type 2 is sufficient.
2.2 Scenario 2: Leaf OR Root site(s) per AC
In this scenario, a PE may receive traffic from either Root OR Leaf
sites on a given Attachment Circuit (AC) of a MAC-VRF/bridge table.
In other words, an AC (ES or ES/VLAN) is either associated with a
Root or Leaf (but not both).
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+
|CE1+-----ES1----+--+ | | | | | | +--+---ES2/AC1--+CE2|
+---+ (Leaf) | |MAC| | | MPLS | | |MAC| | (Leaf) +---+
| |VRF| | | /IP | | |VRF| |
| | | | | | | | | | +---+
| | | | | | | | +--+---ES2/AC2--+CE3|
| +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Root) +---+
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 2: Scenario 2
In this scenario, if there are PEs with only root (or leaf) sites per
EVI, then the RT constrain procedures described in section 2.1 can
also be used here. However, when a Root site is added to a Leaf PE
(or vise versa), then that PE needs to process MAC routes from all
other Leaf PEs and add them to its forwarding table. If for a given
EVI, the PEs can eventually have both Leaf and Root sites attached,
even though they may start as Root-only or Leaf-only PEs, then it is
recommended to use a single RT per EVI and avoid additional
configuration and operational overhead.
2.3 Scenario 3: Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC
In this scenario, a PE may receive traffic from both Root AND Leaf
sites on a given Attachment Circuit (AC) of a MAC-VRF/bridge table.
Since an Attachment Circuit (ES or ES/VLAN) carries traffic from both
Root and Leaf sites, the granularity at which Root or Leaf sites are
identifies is on a per MAC address. This scenario is considered in
this draft for EVPN service with only known unicast traffic - i.e.,
there is no BUM traffic.
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+
|CE1+-----ES1----+--+ | | | | | | +--+---ES2/AC1--+CE2|
+---+ (Root) | | E | | | MPLS | | | E | | (Leaf/Root)+---+
| | V | | | /IP | | | V | |
| | I | | | | | | I | | +---+
| | | | | | | | +--+---ES2/AC2--+CE3|
| +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Leaf) +---+
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 3: Scenario 3
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
3 Operation for EVPN
[EVPN] defines the notion of ESI MPLS label used for split-horizon
filtering of BUM traffic at the egress PE. Such egress filtering
capabilities can be leveraged in provision of E-TREE services as seen
shortly. In other words, [EVPN] has inherent capability to support E-
TREE services without defining any new BGP routes but just defining a
new BGP Extended Community for leaf indication as shown later in this
document.
3.1 Known Unicast Traffic
Since in EVPN, MAC learning is performed in control plane via
advertisement of BGP routes, the filtering needed by E-TREE service
for known unicast traffic can be performed at the ingress PE, thus
providing very efficient filtering and avoiding sending known unicast
traffic over MPLS/IP core to be filtered at the egress PE as done in
traditional E-TREE solutions (e.g., E-TREE for VPLS).
To provide such ingress filtering for known unicast traffic, a PE
MUST indicate to other PEs what kind of sites (root or leaf) its MAC
addresses are associated with. This indication is achieved by using
one of the following mechanisms:
1) For single-homing scenarios of sections 2.2 and 2.3, the PE
advertises the MAC addresses received from a Leaf site, with an
Extended community indicating a leaf flag. The lack of such flag
indicates that the MAC address is associated with a root site.
2) For multi-homing scenario of section 2.2, where an AC is either
root or leaf (but not both), the PE advertises leaf indication along
with the Ethernet A-D per EVI route. Since these routes are always
advertised ahead of MAC advertisements route, there is no need to
append leaf-indication flag with the MAC advertisement routes. The
leaf indication flag on Ethernet A-D per EVI route tells the
receiving PEs that all MAC addresses associated with this <ESI, EVI>
or <ESI, EVI/VLAN> are from a leaf site. The lack of such leaf-
indication flag tells the receiving PEs that the MAC addresses are
associated with a root site.
If a leaf site is multi-homed to PE1 an PE2, and PE1 advertises the
Ethernet A-D per EVI corresponding to this leaf site with the leaf-
indication flag but PE2 does not, then the receiving PE MUST notify
the operator of such discrepancy and ignore the leaf-indication flag
on PE1. In other words, in case of discrepancy, the multi-homing for
that pair of PEs is assumed to be in default "root" mode for that
<ESI, EVI> or <ESI, EVI/VLAN>.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
3) For multi-homing scenario of section 2.3, where an AC is both root
or leaf (i.e., root or leaf indication is at the granularity of MAC
address), the PE advertises leaf indication along with each MAC
advertisement route just as in (1). No leaf-indication flag SHALL be
sent along with the Ethernet A-D per EVI route for this scenario.
Tagging MAC addresses with a leaf indication (either directly via MAC
advertisement route or indirectly via Ethernet A-D per EVI route)
enables remote PEs to perform ingress filtering for known unicast
traffic - i.e., on the ingress PE, the MAC destination address lookup
yields, in addition to the forwarding adjacency, a flag which
indicates whether the target MAC is associated with a Leaf site or
not. The ingress PE cross-checks this flag with the status of the
originating AC, and if both are Leafs, then the packet is not
forwarded.
To support the above ingress filtering functionality, a new E-TREE
Extended Community with a Leaf indication flag is introduced [section
5.2]. This new Extended Community is advertised with either Ethernet
A-D per EVI route or MAC/IP Advertisement route as described above.
3.2 BUM Traffic
For BUM traffic, it is not possible to perform filtering on the
ingress PE, as is the case with known unicast, because of the multi-
destination nature of the traffic. As such, the solution relies on
egress filtering. In order to apply the proper egress filtering,
which varies based on whether a packet is sent from a Leaf AC or a
root AC, the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an
indication of whether they originated from a Leaf AC or not. In other
words, leaf/root indication for BUM traffic is done at the
granularity of AC. This can be achieved in EVPN through the use of
the ESI MPLS label. Therefore, the ESI MPLS label can be used to
either identify the Ethernet segment of origin per [RFC 7432] or it
can be used to indicate that the packet is originated from a leaf
site.
BUM traffic sent over a P2MP LSP or ingress replication, may need to
carry an upstream assigned or downstream assigned MPLS label
(respectively) for the purpose of egress filtering to indicate to the
egress PEs whether this packet is originated from a root AC or a leaf
AC.
The main difference between downstream and upstream assigned ESI MPLS
label is that in case of downstream assigned not all egress PE
devices need to receive the ESI label just like ingress replication
procedures defined in [RFC7432].
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
There are four scenarios to consider:
3.2.1 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a leaf AC
In this scenario, the ingress PE adds a special ESI MPLS label to the
frame indicating a Leaf site. This special ESI MPLS label used for
single-homing scenarios is not on a per ES basis but rather on a per
PE basis - i.e., a single ESI MPLS label is used for all single-homed
ES's on that PE. This special ESI MPLS label is advertised to other
PE devices, using a new EVPN Extended Community called Leaf ESI MPLS
label Extended Community (section 5.1) along with a set of Ethernet
A-D per ES routes. The set of Ethernet A-D per ES routes may be
needed if the number of Route Targets (RTs) that need to be sent
exceed the limit on a single route per [RFC 7432]. The RT(s)
represent EVIs with at least a leaf site in them. The ESI for the
Ethernet A-D per ES route is set to zero indicating single-homed
sites.
When a PE receives this special ESI MPLS label in the data path, it
blocks the packet if the destination AC is of type Leaf; otherwise,
it forwards the packet.
3.2.2 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a root AC
In this scenario, the ingress PE does not add any ESI MPLS label and
it operates per [RFC7432] procedures.
3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC
In this scenario, the ingress PE adds an ESI MPLS label to the frame
indicating both the Ethernet Segment of origin and its Leaf type. The
reason Ethernet Segment of origin needs to be identified in addition
to Leaf type, is to accommodate multi-homing scenarios for Integrated
Routing and Bridging (IRB) where a source (Leaf) can be on one VLAN
and the receivers (roots) can be on some other VLANs for the same
Ethernet Segment.
This ESI MPLS label is advertised to other PE devices, using a new
EVPN Extended Community called Leaf ESI Label Extended Community
(section 5.1) along with a set of Ethernet A-D per ES routes
corresponding to the ES of the origin. If the egress ES is the same
as the originated ES, then the receiving PE uses the same procedure
for filtering BUM traffic as the one specified in [RFC 7432]. If the
egress ES is different from the originated ES, then the receiving PE
uses the ESI label to identify that the BUM traffic is associated
with a leaf site and thus blocking the BUM traffic if the destination
AC is also of type Leaf similar to section 3.2.1.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
3.2.4 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a root AC
In this scenario, both the ingress and egress PE devices follows the
procedure defined in [RFC 7432] for adding and/or processing an ESI
MPLS label.
The ingress PE imposes the right ESI MPLS label depending on whether
the Ethernet frame originated from the Root or Leaf site on that
Ethernet Segment. The mechanism by which the PE identifies whether a
given frame originated from a Root or Leaf site on the segment is
based on the Ethernet Tag associated with the frame (e.g., whether
the frame come from a leaf or a root AC). Other mechanisms for
identifying whether an egress AC is a root or leaf is beyond the
scope of this document.
3.3 E-TREE Traffic Flows for EVPN
Per [ETREE-FMWK], a generic E-Tree service supports all of the
following traffic flows:
- Ethernet Unicast from Root to Roots & Leaf
- Ethernet Unicast from Leaf to Root
- Ethernet Broadcast/Multicast from Root to Roots & Leafs
- Ethernet Broadcast/Multicast from Leaf to Roots
A particular E-Tree service may need to support all of the above
types of flows or only a select subset, depending on the target
application. In the case where unicast flows need not be supported,
the L2VPN PEs can avoid performing any MAC learning function.
In the subsections that follow, we will describe the operation of
EVPN to support E-Tree service with and without MAC learning.
3.3.1 E-Tree with MAC Learning
The PEs implementing an E-Tree service must perform MAC learning when
unicast traffic flows must be supported from Root to Leaf or from
Leaf to Root sites. In this case, the PE with Root sites performs MAC
learning in the data-path over the Ethernet Segments, and advertises
reachability in EVPN MAC Advertisement routes. These routes will be
imported by PEs that have Leaf sites as well as by PEs that have Root
sites, in a given EVI. Similarly, the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC
learning in the data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise
reachability in EVPN MAC Advertisement routes which are imported only
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
by PEs with at least one Root site in the EVI. A PE with only Leaf
sites will not import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites
may use the Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-
homed segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC 7432].
To support multicast/broadcast from Root to Leaf sites, either a P2MP
tree rooted at the PE(s) with the Root site(s) or ingress replication
can be used. The multicast tunnels are set up through the exchange of
the EVPN Inclusive Multicast route, as defined in [RFC7432].
To support multicast/broadcast from Leaf to Root sites, ingress
replication should be sufficient for most scenarios where there is a
single Root or few Roots. If the number of Roots is large, a P2MP
tree rooted at the PEs with Leaf sites may be used.
3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning
The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC learning
when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are multicast or
broadcast. In this case, the PEs do not exchange EVPN MAC
Advertisement routes. Instead, the Ethernet A-D routes are used to
exchange the EVPN labels.
The fields of the Ethernet A-D route are populated per the procedures
defined in [RFC7432], and the route import rules are as described in
previous sections.
4 Operation for PBB-EVPN
In PBB-EVPN, the PE must advertise a Root/Leaf indication along with
each B-MAC Advertisement route, to indicate whether the associated B-
MAC address corresponds to a Root or a Leaf site. Similar to the EVPN
case, this flag will be added to the new E-TREE Extended Community
defined in section [5.2], and advertised with each MAC Advertisement
route.
In the case where a multi-homed Ethernet Segment has both Root and
Leaf sites attached, two B-MAC addresses are allocated and
advertised: one B-MAC address implicitly denoting Root and the other
explicitly denoting Leaf. The former B-MAC address is not advertised
with the E-TREE extended community but the latter B-MAC denoting Leaf
is advertised with the new E-TREE extended community.
The ingress PE uses the right B-MAC source address depending on
whether the Ethernet frame originated from the Root or Leaf site on
that Ethernet Segment. The mechanism by which the PE identifies
whether a given frame originated from a Root or Leaf site on the
segment is based on the Ethernet Tag associated with the frame. Other
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
mechanisms of identification, beyond the Ethernet Tag, are outside
the scope of this document. It should be noted that support for both
Root and Leaf sites on a single Ethernet Segment requires that the PE
performs the Ethernet Segment split-horizon check on a per Ethernet
Tag basis.
In the case where a multi-homed Ethernet Segment has only Root OR
Leaf sites attached, then a single B-MAC address is allocated and
advertised per segment.
Furthermore, a PE advertises two special global B-MAC addresses: one
for Root and another for Leaf, and tags the Leaf one as such in the
MAC Advertisement route. These B-MAC addresses are used as source
addresses for traffic originating from single-homed segments.
4.1 Known Unicast Traffic
For known unicast traffic, the PEs perform ingress filtering: On the
ingress PE, the C-MAC destination address lookup yields, in addition
to the target B-MAC address and forwarding adjacency, a flag which
indicates whether the target B-MAC is associated with a Root or a
Leaf site. The ingress PE cross-checks this flag with the status of
the originating site, and if both are a Leaf, then the packet is not
forwarded.
4.2 BUM Traffic
For BUM traffic, the PEs must perform egress filtering. When a PE
receives a MAC advertisement route, it updates its Ethernet Segment
egress filtering function (based on the B-MAC source address), as
follows:
- If the MAC Advertisement route indicates that the advertised B-MAC
is a Leaf, and the local Ethernet Segment is a Leaf as well, then the
source B-MAC address is added to the B-MAC filtering list.
- Otherwise, the B-MAC filtering list is not updated.
When the egress PE receives the packet, it examines the B-MAC source
address to check whether it should filter or forward the frame. Note
that this uses the same filtering logic as baseline [PBB-EVPN] and
does not require any additional flags in the data-plane.
The PE places all Leaf Ethernet Segments of a given bridge domain in
a single split-horizon group in order to prevent intra-PE forwarding
among Leaf segments. This split-horizon function applies to BUM
traffic.
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
5 BGP Encoding
This document defines two new BGP Extended Community for EVPN.
5.1 Leaf ESI Label Extended Community
This Extended Community is a new transitive Extended Community having
a Type field value of 0x06 (EVPN) and the Sub-Type 0x04. In purpose,
it is similar to ESI Label EC defined in [RFC 7432] with the only
difference that it is used to indicate a leaf site in addition to the
Ethernet segment of origin.
It may be advertised along with Ethernet Auto-discovery routes, and
it enables split-horizon procedures for multihomed sites as described
in Section 3.2.1.3. The Leaf ESI Label field represents an ES with a
leaf site by the advertising PE, and it is used in split-horizon
filtering by other PEs that are connected to the same multihomed
Ethernet segment and egress filtering by other PEs that are connected
to Leaf ACs.
The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as
follows:
0 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=0x04 | Reserved=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved=0 | Leaf ESI Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.2 E-TREE Extended Community
A new EVPN BGP Extended Community called E-TREE is introduced here.
This new extended community is a transitive extended community with
the Type field of 0x06 (EVPN) and the Sub-Type of 0x05. This extended
community is used to for leaf indication and it is advertised with an
EVPN MAC/IP route or an Ethernet A-D per EVI route.
The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as
follows:
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
0 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=0x05 | Reserved=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rserved=0 | Reserved=0 |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Leaf flag (L): A value of 1 indicates a leaf
6 Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dennis Cai and Antoni Przygienda for their
comments.
7 Security Considerations
Same security considerations as [RFC7432].
8 IANA Considerations
Allocation of Extended Community Type and Sub-Type for EVPN.
9 References
9.1 Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4360] S. Sangli et al, ""BGP Extended Communities Attribute",
February, 2006.
[RFC7432] Sajassi et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", February,
2015.
9.2 Informative References
[ETREE-FMWK] Key et al., "A Framework for E-Tree Service over MPLS
Network", draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-03, work in progress, September
2013.
[PBB-EVPN] Sajassi et al., "PBB-EVPN", draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN July 6, 2015
05.txt, work in progress, October, 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Samer Salam
Cisco
Email: ssalam@cisco.com
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Jim Uttaro
AT&T
Email: ju1738@att.com
Aldrin
Bloomberg Issac
Email: aisaac71@bloomberg.net
Sami Boutros
Cisco
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
Sajassi et al. Expires January 6, 2015 [Page 15]
