idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits12645/draft-allan-l2vpn-mldp-evpn-02.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 (January 2014) is 3048 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 275, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 278, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 281, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '8' is defined on line 298, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '9' is defined on line 303, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '10' is defined on line 306, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn has been published as RFC 7432 -- No information found for draft-allan-l2vpn-spb-evpn - is the name correct?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 '5' == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn has been published as RFC 7623 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).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: July 2014 5 January 2014 7 mLDP extensions for integrating EVPN and multicast 8 draft-allan-l2vpn-mldp-evpn-02 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 July 2014. 41 Copyright and License Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2014 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) Keep alive update. 99 3. Conventions used in this document 101 3.1. Terminology 103 BCB: Backbone Core Bridge 104 BEB: Backbone Edge Bridge 105 BU: Broadcast/Unknown 106 B-MAC: Backbone MAC Address 107 B-VID: Backbone VLAN ID 108 CE: Customer Edge 109 C-MAC: Customer/Client MAC Address 110 DF: Designated Forwarder 111 ESI: Ethernet segment identifier 112 EVPN: Ethernet VPN 113 FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class 114 ISIS-SPB: IS-IS as extended for SPB 115 I-SID: Backbone Service Instance ID 116 mLDP: Multicast Label Distribution Protocol 117 MP2MP: Multipoint to Multipoint 118 MVPN: Multicast VPN 119 NLRI: Network layer reachability information 120 PBBN: Provider Backbone Bridged Network 121 BEB-PE: Co located BEB and PE 122 PE: provider edge 123 P2MP: Point to Multipoint 124 P2P: Point to Point 125 RD: Route Distinguisher 126 SPB: Shortest path bridging 127 SPBM: Shortest path bridging MAC mode 128 VID: VLAN ID 129 VLAN: Virtual LAN 131 4. Solution Overview 133 mLDP[6] permits arbitrary FEC encodings for the naming of multicast 134 trees to be defined. This property is leveraged to permit both 135 service specific trees and shared trees to be utilized to augment 136 EVPN unicast connectivity with network based multicast and avoid the 137 inefficiencies of edge replication. 138 The flooding of EVPN BGP NLRI and ISIS-SPB [7] provides each PE with 139 sufficient information to self elect as a DF, have knowledge of peer 140 DFs, and from that construct the identifiers for the required set of 141 multicast trees to support the current service set, which can then be 142 encoded as mLDP FECs, and used to originate label mapping and label 143 withdraw messages. 144 Both p2mp and mp2mp trees are supported with different FEC encodings 145 for each. Service specific tree FECs encode the VID or I-SID 146 associated with the service instance in the subtending network. 147 Shared tree FECs encode a sorted list of the IP addresses of the leaf 148 DFs. 150 5. Elements of Procedure 152 A PE advertises whether or not it supports shared tree (actual 153 mechanism is TBD). Support of both shared and service specific trees 154 is mandatory. Whether a PE supports shared trees is a network design 155 decision. 157 A PE is expected to maintain a list of current multicast memberships. 159 A PE, upon receipt of new information from BGP or ISIS-SPB: 161 1) Evaluates it"s DF roles (as described in [5]). 163 2) On the basis of the PE"s DF role, determines the set of services 164 it needs to support. 166 3) Determines the set of peer DFs for each service. 168 4) On the basis of requisite tree types and ESI multicast 169 registrations (p2mp or mp2mp/service specific or shared), determines 170 the name of the multicast tree needed for the service. 172 For example an ESI may only have source interest in an ISIS-SPB I-SID 173 in which case it would: 175 - require a p2mp tree to the set of DFs registering receive 176 interest in the I-SID for p2mp trees 178 - require an upstream label mapping to the set of DFs registering 179 receive interest in the I_SID for mp2mp trees 181 5) Upon completion of evaluating the set of services, de-duplicates 182 the required tree membership list. 184 6) Compares the required list with the existing list, and originates 185 the necessary label mapping and label withdraw transactions to the 186 network state up to date. 188 7) Configures the dataplane for the appropriate service to multicast 189 tree bindings. 191 6. FEC Encoding 193 6.1. VLAN tagged FEC 195 VLAN tagged FEC uses the mLDP p2mp (0x06) type FEC and the mLDP mp2mp 196 downstream (0x07) and upstream FECs (0x08) 198 The encoding of the opaque value is: 199 0 1 2 3 200 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 1 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 | Type "x" | Length | | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 | RT | 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 | Ethertype | VID | = 0 | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 Where: 210 - RT is the route target for the EVPN instance 211 - Ethertype identifies the tag type (C 0x8100, S or B 0x88a8) 212 - VID is the VLAN ID tag value. If the VID=0, then this is the 213 default MDT for the RT and how VLAN unaware RTs are encoded, else it 214 permits MDTs to be defined for VLAN aware services. 216 6.2. I-SID tagged FEC 218 The encoding of the opaque value is: 219 0 1 2 3 220 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 1 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 | Type "x+1" | Length | | 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 | RT | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 226 | I-SID | | 227 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 229 Where: 230 - RT is the route target for the EVPN instance 231 - I-SID corresponds to the I-SID that will use the tree 233 6.3. Shared FEC 235 The encoding of the opaque value is: 236 0 1 2 3 237 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 1 238 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 239 | Type "x+2" | Length | | 240 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 241 | RT | 242 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 243 | | 244 ~ ~ 245 | | 246 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 248 Where: 250 - RT is the route target for the EVPN instance 251 - Sorted list of DF addresses identifies the set of leaves that have 252 registered interest in one or more Ethernet services (either C/S or I 253 tagged). 255 7. Acknowledgements 257 The authors would like to thank Panagiotis Saltsidis, Jakob Heitz, 258 Don Fedyk and Janos Farkas for their detailed review of this draft. 260 8. Security Considerations 262 For a future version of this document. 264 9. IANA Considerations 266 For a future version of this document. 268 10. References 270 10.1. Normative References 272 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 273 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 275 [2] Fedyk et.al. "IS-IS Extensions Supporting IEEE 802.1aq 276 Shortest Path Bridging", IETF RFC 6329, April 2012 278 [3] Rosen et.al., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks 279 (VPNs)", IETF RFC 4364, February 2006 281 [4] Aggarwal et.al. "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", IETF work 282 in progress, draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-01, July 2012 284 [5] Allan et.al. "802.1aq and 802.1Qbp Support over EVPN", 285 IETF work in progress, draft-allan-l2vpn-spb-evpn-03, 286 February 2013 288 [6] Wijnands et.al. "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions 289 for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label 290 Switched Paths". IETF RFC 6388, November 2011 292 10.2. Informative References 294 [7] IEEE 802.1aq "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan 295 Area Networks: Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area 296 Networks - Amendment 9: Shortest Path Bridging", June 2012 298 [8] IEEE 802.1Qbp "Draft IEEE Standard for Local and 299 Metropolitan Area Networks---Virtual Bridged Local Area 300 Networks - Amendment: Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMP), 301 802.1Qbp", draft 1.3, February 2013 303 [9] Sajassi et.al. "PBB E-VPN", IETF work in progress, draft- 304 ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03, June 2012 306 [10] IEEE 802.1Q-2011 "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan 307 area networks--Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and 308 Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", August 2011 310 11. Authors' Addresses 312 Dave Allan (editor) 313 Ericsson 314 300 Holger Way 315 San Jose, CA 95134 316 USA 317 Email: david.i.allan@ericsson.com 319 Jeff Tantsura 320 Ericsson 321 300 Holger Way 322 San Jose, CA 95134 323 Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com