idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits15280/draft-allan-l2vpn-mldp-evpn-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (July 2013) is 3232 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '2' is defined on line 276, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 279, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 282, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '8' is defined on line 299, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '9' is defined on line 304, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '10' is defined on line 307, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn has been published as RFC 7432 -- No information found for draft-allan-l2vpn-spb-evpn - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '5' == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn has been published as RFC 7623 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 L2VPN Working Group Dave Allan, Jeff Tantsura 2 Internet Draft Ericsson 3 Intended status: Standards Track 4 Expires: January 2014 5 July 2013 7 mLDP extensions for integrating EVPN and multicast 8 draft-allan-l2vpn-mldp-evpn-01 10 Abstract 12 This document describes how mLDP FECs can be encoded to support both 13 service specific and shared multicast trees and describes the 14 associated procedures for EVPN PEs. Thus, mLDP can implement 15 multicast for EVPN. 17 Status of this Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance 20 with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet 23 Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working 24 groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working 25 documents as Internet-Drafts. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 28 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 29 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- 30 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work 31 in progress". 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 36 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2014. 41 Copyright and License Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 51 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 52 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described 53 in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided 54 without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction...................................................2 59 1.1. Authors......................................................2 60 1.2. Requirements Language........................................2 61 2. Changes since last version.....................................3 62 3. Conventions used in this document..............................3 63 3.1. Terminology..................................................3 64 4. Solution Overview..............................................4 65 5. Elements of Procedure..........................................4 66 6. FEC Encoding...................................................5 67 6.1. VLAN tagged FEC..............................................5 68 6.2. I-SID tagged FEC.............................................6 69 6.3. Shared FEC...................................................6 70 7. Acknowledgements...............................................7 71 8. Security Considerations........................................7 72 9. IANA Considerations............................................7 73 10. References....................................................7 74 10.1. Normative References........................................7 75 10.2. Informative References......................................8 76 11. Authors' Addresses............................................8 78 1. Introduction 80 This document describes how mLDP FECs can be encoded to permit mLDP 81 to implement multicast for EVPN. Such support can be applied to 82 interconnecting 802.1ad, 802.1ah, 802.1aq, and 802.1Qbp based 83 networks. 85 1.1. Authors 87 David Allan, Jeff Tantsura 89 1.2. Requirements Language 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1]. 95 2. Changes since last version 97 1) Clarifications to the use of FEC encoding for RTs and VLANs 98 added to section 6. 100 3. Conventions used in this document 102 3.1. Terminology 104 BCB: Backbone Core Bridge 105 BEB: Backbone Edge Bridge 106 BU: Broadcast/Unknown 107 B-MAC: Backbone MAC Address 108 B-VID: Backbone VLAN ID 109 CE: Customer Edge 110 C-MAC: Customer/Client MAC Address 111 DF: Designated Forwarder 112 ESI: Ethernet segment identifier 113 EVPN: Ethernet VPN 114 FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class 115 ISIS-SPB: IS-IS as extended for SPB 116 I-SID: Backbone Service Instance ID 117 mLDP: Multicast Label Distribution Protocol 118 MP2MP: Multipoint to Multipoint 119 MVPN: Multicast VPN 120 NLRI: Network layer reachability information 121 PBBN: Provider Backbone Bridged Network 122 BEB-PE: Co located BEB and PE 123 PE: provider edge 124 P2MP: Point to Multipoint 125 P2P: Point to Point 126 RD: Route Distinguisher 127 SPB: Shortest path bridging 128 SPBM: Shortest path bridging MAC mode 129 VID: VLAN ID 130 VLAN: Virtual LAN 132 4. Solution Overview 134 mLDP[6] permits arbitrary FEC encodings for the naming of multicast 135 trees to be defined. This property is leveraged to permit both 136 service specific trees and shared trees to be utilized to augment 137 EVPN unicast connectivity with network based multicast and avoid the 138 inefficiencies of edge replication. 139 The flooding of EVPN BGP NLRI and ISIS-SPB [7] provides each PE with 140 sufficient information to self elect as a DF, have knowledge of peer 141 DFs, and from that construct the identifiers for the required set of 142 multicast trees to support the current service set, which can then be 143 encoded as mLDP FECs, and used to originate label mapping and label 144 withdraw messages. 145 Both p2mp and mp2mp trees are supported with different FEC encodings 146 for each. Service specific tree FECs encode the VID or I-SID 147 associated with the service instance in the subtending network. 148 Shared tree FECs encode a sorted list of the IP addresses of the leaf 149 DFs. 151 5. Elements of Procedure 153 A PE advertises whether or not it supports shared tree (actual 154 mechanism is TBD). Support of both shared and service specific trees 155 is mandatory. Whether a PE supports shared trees is a network design 156 decision. 158 A PE is expected to maintain a list of current multicast memberships. 160 A PE, upon receipt of new information from BGP or ISIS-SPB: 162 1) Evaluates it"s DF roles (as described in [5]). 164 2) On the basis of the PE"s DF role, determines the set of services 165 it needs to support. 167 3) Determines the set of peer DFs for each service. 169 4) On the basis of requisite tree types and ESI multicast 170 registrations (p2mp or mp2mp/service specific or shared), determines 171 the name of the multicast tree needed for the service. 173 For example an ESI may only have source interest in an ISIS-SPB I-SID 174 in which case it would: 176 - require a p2mp tree to the set of DFs registering receive 177 interest in the I-SID for p2mp trees 179 - require an upstream label mapping to the set of DFs registering 180 receive interest in the I_SID for mp2mp trees 182 5) Upon completion of evaluating the set of services, de-duplicates 183 the required tree membership list. 185 6) Compares the required list with the existing list, and originates 186 the necessary label mapping and label withdraw transactions to the 187 network state up to date. 189 7) Configures the dataplane for the appropriate service to multicast 190 tree bindings. 192 6. FEC Encoding 194 6.1. VLAN tagged FEC 196 VLAN tagged FEC uses the mLDP p2mp (0x06) type FEC and the mLDP mp2mp 197 downstream (0x07) and upstream FECs (0x08) 199 The encoding of the opaque value is: 200 0 1 2 3 201 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 1 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | Type "x" | Length | | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | RT | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | Ethertype | VID | = 0 | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 Where: 211 - RT is the route target for the EVPN instance 212 - Ethertype identifies the tag type (C 0x8100, S or B 0x88a8) 213 - VID is the VLAN ID tag value. If the VID=0, then this is the 214 default MDT for the RT and how VLAN unaware RTs are encoded, else it 215 permits MDTs to be defined for VLAN aware services. 217 6.2. I-SID tagged FEC 219 The encoding of the opaque value is: 220 0 1 2 3 221 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 1 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 223 | Type "x+1" | Length | | 224 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 225 | RT | 226 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 227 | I-SID | | 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 230 Where: 231 - RT is the route target for the EVPN instance 232 - I-SID corresponds to the I-SID that will use the tree 234 6.3. Shared FEC 236 The encoding of the opaque value is: 237 0 1 2 3 238 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 1 239 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 240 | Type "x+2" | Length | | 241 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 242 | RT | 243 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 244 | | 245 ~ ~ 246 | | 247 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 249 Where: 251 - RT is the route target for the EVPN instance 252 - Sorted list of DF addresses identifies the set of leaves that have 253 registered interest in one or more Ethernet services (either C/S or I 254 tagged). 256 7. Acknowledgements 258 The authors would like to thank Panagiotis Saltsidis, Jakob Heitz and 259 Janos Farkas for their detailed review of this draft. 261 8. Security Considerations 263 For a future version of this document. 265 9. IANA Considerations 267 For a future version of this document. 269 10. References 271 10.1. Normative References 273 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 274 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 276 [2] Fedyk et.al. "IS-IS Extensions Supporting IEEE 802.1aq 277 Shortest Path Bridging", IETF RFC 6329, April 2012 279 [3] Rosen et.al., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks 280 (VPNs)", IETF RFC 4364, February 2006 282 [4] Aggarwal et.al. "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", IETF work 283 in progress, draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-01, July 2012 285 [5] Allan et.al. "802.1aq and 802.1Qbp Support over EVPN", 286 IETF work in progress, draft-allan-l2vpn-spb-evpn-03, 287 February 2013 289 [6] Wijnands et.al. "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions 290 for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label 291 Switched Paths". IETF RFC 6388, November 2011 293 10.2. Informative References 295 [7] IEEE 802.1aq "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan 296 Area Networks: Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area 297 Networks - Amendment 9: Shortest Path Bridging", June 2012 299 [8] IEEE 802.1Qbp "Draft IEEE Standard for Local and 300 Metropolitan Area Networks---Virtual Bridged Local Area 301 Networks - Amendment: Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMP), 302 802.1Qbp", draft 1.3, February 2013 304 [9] Sajassi et.al. "PBB E-VPN", IETF work in progress, draft- 305 ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03, June 2012 307 [10] IEEE 802.1Q-2011 "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan 308 area networks--Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and 309 Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", August 2011 311 11. Authors' Addresses 313 Dave Allan (editor) 314 Ericsson 315 300 Holger Way 316 San Jose, CA 95134 317 USA 318 Email: david.i.allan@ericsson.com 320 Jeff Tantsura 321 Ericsson 322 300 Holger Way 323 San Jose, CA 95134 324 Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com