draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14v3updated.txt | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14v3.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
skipping to change at line 13 | skipping to change at page 1, line 14 | |||
Internet-Draft VMware | Internet-Draft VMware | |||
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi | Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi | |||
Expires: November 15, 2017 S. Salam | Expires: November 15, 2017 S. Salam | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
J. Drake | J. Drake | |||
Juniper Networks | Juniper Networks | |||
J. Rabadan | J. Rabadan | |||
Nokia | Nokia | |||
May 14, 2017 | May 14, 2017 | |||
Virtual Private Wire Service support in Ethernet VPN | Virtual Private Wire Service support in Ethernet VPN | |||
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14.txt | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14.txt | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used to | This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used to | |||
support Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN | support Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. | |||
enables the following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well | EVPN enables the following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as | |||
as all-active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates | well as all-active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, | |||
the need for Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides fast protection | eliminates the need for Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides fast | |||
convergence upon node or link failure. | protection convergence upon node or link failure. | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2017. | This Internet-Draft will expire on November 15, 2017. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2. Service interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Service interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
3.1. EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
6. Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 6. Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
6.1. Single-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 6.1. Single-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
6.2. Multi-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 6.2. Multi-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
This document describes how EVPN can be used to support VPWS in | This document describes how EVPN can be used to support VPWS in MPLS/ | |||
MPLS/IP networks. The use of EVPN mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS) | IP networks. The use of EVPN mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS) brings | |||
brings the benefits of EVPN to Point to Point (P2P) services. These | the benefits of EVPN to Point to Point (P2P) services. These | |||
benefits include single-active redundancy as well as all-active | benefits include single-active redundancy as well as all-active | |||
redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore, the use of | redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore, the use of | |||
EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for traditional way of PW signaling | EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for traditional way of PW signaling | |||
for P2P Ethernet services, as described in section 4. | for P2P Ethernet services, as described in section 4. | |||
[RFC7432] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a | [RFC7432] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a | |||
given customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any Media Access | given customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any Media Access | |||
Control (MAC) lookup. This capability is ideal in providing P2P | Control (MAC) lookup. This capability is ideal in providing P2P | |||
services (aka VPWS services). [MEF] defines Ethernet Virtual Private | services (aka VPWS services). [MEF] defines Ethernet Virtual Private | |||
Line (EVPL) service as P2P service between a pair of ACs (designated | Line (EVPL) service as P2P service between a pair of ACs (designated | |||
by VLANs) and Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service, in which all | by VLANs) and Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service, in which all | |||
traffic flows are between a single pair of ports, that in EVPN | traffic flows are between a single pair of ports, that in EVPN | |||
terminology would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments ES(es). | terminology would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments ES(es). | |||
EVPL can be considered as a VPWS with only two ACs. In delivering an | EVPL can be considered as a VPWS with only two ACs. In delivering an | |||
EVPL service, the traffic forwarding capability of EVPN is based on | EVPL service, the traffic forwarding capability of EVPN is based on | |||
the exchange of a pair of Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes; | the exchange of a pair of Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes; | |||
whereas, for more general VPWS as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding | whereas, for more general VPWS as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding | |||
capability of EVPN is based on the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD | capability of EVPN is based on the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD | |||
routes (one Ethernet AD route per AC/ES). In a VPWS service, the | routes (one Ethernet AD route per AC/ES). In a VPWS service, the | |||
traffic from an originating Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to | traffic from an originating Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to | |||
a single destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed | a single destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed | |||
and the MPLS label associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI) | and the MPLS label associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI) | |||
Ethernet A-D route can be used in forwarding user traffic to the | Ethernet A-D route can be used in forwarding user traffic to the | |||
destination AC. | destination AC. | |||
For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is | For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is | |||
identified by a pair of per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes which together | identified by a pair of per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes which together | |||
identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service | identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service | |||
instance. In the control plane the VPWS service instance is | instance. In the control plane the VPWS service instance is | |||
identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by | identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by | |||
each Provider Edge node (PE). In the data plane the value of the MPLS | each Provider Edge node (PE). In the data plane the value of the | |||
label advertised by one PE is used by the other PE to send traffic | MPLS label advertised by one PE is used by the other PE to send | |||
for that VPWS service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard | traffic for that VPWS service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in | |||
EVPN, the VPWS service instance identifier has uniqueness within an | standard EVPN, the VPWS service instance identifier has uniqueness | |||
EVPN instance. | within an EVPN instance. | |||
For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for Port-based, | For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for Port-based, | |||
VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero | VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero | |||
Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN- | Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN- | |||
VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a | VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a | |||
non-zero value for all four service interface types. | non-zero value for all four service interface types. | |||
In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- | In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- | |||
VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when | VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when | |||
a PE advertises per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance | a PE advertises per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance | |||
serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of the MPLS | serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of the MPLS | |||
label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service | label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service | |||
instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the | instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the | |||
disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and | disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and | |||
subsequently perform any required tag translation. For EVPL service, | subsequently perform any required tag translation. For EVPL service, | |||
the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain | the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain | |||
tagged with the originating VLAN-ID (VID) and any VID translation | tagged with the originating VLAN-ID (VID) and any VID translation | |||
MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service, the | MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service, the | |||
Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered. | Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered. | |||
The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the | The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the | |||
Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN | Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN | |||
encapsulation as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope | encapsulation as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope | |||
per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier | per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier | |||
set in the Ethernet A-D route. When using VXLAN encap, the BGP | set in the Ethernet A-D route. When using VXLAN encap, the BGP | |||
Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D | Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D | |||
route as described in [I-D.ietf-evpn-overlay]. The VXLAN VNI like the | route as described in [I-D.ietf-evpn-overlay]. The VXLAN VNI like | |||
MPLS label that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel | the MPLS label that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel | |||
Ethernet packets from all the service interface types defined in | Ethernet packets from all the service interface types defined in | |||
section 2. The EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document has no | section 2. The EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document has no | |||
dependency on the tunneling technology. | dependency on the tunneling technology. | |||
The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI | The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI | |||
route is not used to identify the service. However it can be used for | route is not used to identify the service. However it can be used | |||
flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the | for flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the | |||
[RFC7432] baseline. | [RFC7432] baseline. | |||
As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast | As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast | |||
convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is | convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is | |||
used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed | used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed | |||
Customer Edge node (CE) and to synchronize state between them. | Customer Edge node (CE) and to synchronize state between them. | |||
1.1. Terminology | 1.1. Terminology | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. | |||
EVPN: Ethernet VPN | EVPN: Ethernet VPN | |||
skipping to change at line 234 | skipping to change at page 5, line 45 | |||
forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given | forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given | |||
VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single- | VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single- | |||
Active". | Active". | |||
All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when | All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when | |||
all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the | all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the | |||
multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or | multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or | |||
redundancy is referred to as "All-Active". | redundancy is referred to as "All-Active". | |||
VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service | VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service | |||
labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream | labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream | |||
assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D | assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D | |||
per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the | per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the | |||
disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only | disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only | |||
one VPWS service identifier. | one VPWS service identifier. | |||
2. Service interface | 2. Service interface | |||
2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface | 2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface | |||
With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds | With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds | |||
to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a | to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a | |||
one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS | one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS | |||
service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect | service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect | |||
functionality between an MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service | functionality between an MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service | |||
instance identifier and a specific <port,VLAN>. If the VLAN is | instance identifier and a specific <port,VLAN>. If the VLAN is | |||
represented by different VIDs on different PEs and different ES(es), | represented by different VIDs on different PEs and different ES(es), | |||
(e.g., a different VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE | (e.g., a different VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE | |||
needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to its Ethernet | needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to its Ethernet | |||
segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an | segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an | |||
MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a | MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a | |||
VID translation MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be | VID translation MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be | |||
performed on the disposition PE. | performed on the disposition PE. | |||
2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface | 2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface | |||
With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier | With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier | |||
corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE | corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE | |||
provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label | provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label | |||
identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of | identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of | |||
VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN | VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN | |||
is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is | is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is | |||
allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label | allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN | |||
alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross-connect | label alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross- | |||
traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label. | connect traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS | |||
The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating | label. The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the | |||
VID. | originating VID. | |||
2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface | 2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface | |||
This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service | This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service | |||
interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same | interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same | |||
VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to | VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to | |||
those described in Section 2.2. | those described in Section 2.2. | |||
2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface | 2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface | |||
Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN- | Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN- | |||
based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this | based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this | |||
service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one | service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one | |||
tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this | tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this | |||
service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of | service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of | |||
VLAN-based service. | VLAN-based service. | |||
3. BGP Extensions | 3. BGP Extensions | |||
This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to | This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to | |||
signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to | signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set | |||
the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to | to the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set | |||
the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance | to the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service | |||
identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit value | instance identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a | |||
is used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services | 24-bit value is used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and | |||
using a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating | EVPL services using a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs | |||
that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D | instantiating that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per- | |||
route with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be | EVI Ethernet A-D route with its VPWS service instance identifier and | |||
configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier. When | will each be configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance | |||
each PE has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the | identifier. When each PE has received the other PE's per-EVI | |||
VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be noted that the | Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance is instantiated. It | |||
same VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs. | should be noted that the same VPWS service instance identifier may be | |||
configured on both PEs. | ||||
The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI | The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI | |||
Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which | Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which | |||
the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice | the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice | |||
as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a | as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a | |||
given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be | given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be | |||
configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi- | configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi- | |||
point services. | point services. | |||
3.1. EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community | 3.1. EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community | |||
This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be | This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be | |||
included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is | included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is | |||
mandatory if multihoming is enabled. | mandatory if multihoming is enabled. | |||
+------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)| | | Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet) | | |||
+------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| Control Flags (2 octets) | | | Control Flags (2 octets) | | |||
+------------------------------------+ | | L2 MTU (2 octets) | | |||
| L2 MTU (2 octets) | | | Reserved (2 octets) | | |||
+------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| Reserved (2 octets) | | ||||
+------------------------------------+ | ||||
Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community | Table 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community | |||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) | | MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags | Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags | |||
The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining | The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining | |||
bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when | bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when | |||
receiving this community. | receiving this community. | |||
Name Meaning | Name Meaning | |||
P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it | P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it | |||
indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE. | indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE. MUST be | |||
MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by | set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by all active | |||
all active PE(s). | PE(s). | |||
B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it | B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it | |||
indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE. | indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE. | |||
C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present | C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present when | |||
when sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is recommended to | sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is recommended to include | |||
include the control word in the absence of Entropy Label. | the control word in the absence of Entropy Label. | |||
L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the | L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the | |||
MTU in bytes. | MTU in bytes. | |||
A received L2 MTU of zero means no MTU checking against local MTU is | A received L2 MTU of zero means no MTU checking against local MTU is | |||
needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and | needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU | |||
if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as | and if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE | |||
the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance. | as the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance. | |||
The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its | The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its | |||
usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the | usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the | |||
ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all- | ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all- | |||
active redundancy is used for this ES. | active redundancy is used for this ES. | |||
In multihoming scenarios, the B and P flags MUST be cleared. A PE | In multihoming scenarios, the B and P flags MUST be cleared. A PE | |||
that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the | that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the | |||
route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P | route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P | |||
clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE. | clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE. | |||
In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no Designated | In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no Designated | |||
Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active | Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active | |||
and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A | and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A | |||
remote PE will do per-flow load-balancing to the PEs that set the P | remote PE will do per-flow load-balancing to the PEs that set the P | |||
Flag for the same Ethernet Tag and ESI. The B Flag in control flags | Flag for the same Ethernet Tag and ESI. The B Flag in control flags | |||
SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be | SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be | |||
ignored by receiving PE(s) if set. | ignored by receiving PE(s) if set. | |||
In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service | In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service | |||
instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for | instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for | |||
the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag | the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag | |||
clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and | clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and | |||
the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal | the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal | |||
both P and B Flags clear. When the primary PE/ES fails, the primary | both P and B Flags clear. When the primary PE/ES fails, the primary | |||
PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS | PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS | |||
service instance from the remote PE and the remote PEs should then | service instance from the remote PE and the remote PEs should then | |||
send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF | send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF | |||
re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there | re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there | |||
will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected backup PE that | will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected backup PE that | |||
will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD | will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD | |||
receive the P Flag set from only one Primary PE and the B Flag set | receive the P Flag set from only one Primary PE and the B Flag set | |||
from only one Backup PE. However during transient situations, a | from only one Backup PE. However during transient situations, a | |||
remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE will select | remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE will select | |||
the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding traffic. A | the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding traffic. A | |||
remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE will select | remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE will select | |||
the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P | the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P | |||
Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding traffic. | Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding traffic. | |||
If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST | If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST | |||
NOT be set and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN- | NOT be set and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN- | |||
encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP. | encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP. | |||
4. Operation | 4. Operation | |||
The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with | The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with | |||
EVPN. | EVPN. | |||
skipping to change at line 428 | skipping to change at page 9, line 49 | |||
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | | | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | | |||
+----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+ | +----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+ | |||
^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^ | ^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^ | |||
| Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | | | Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| EVPN Inter-provider point | | | EVPN Inter-provider point | | |||
| | | | | | |||
|<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->| | |<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->| | |||
Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model | Figure 2: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model | |||
iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3, | iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3, | |||
possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are | possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are | |||
established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are | established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are | |||
established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4. | established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4. | |||
All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI | All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI | |||
Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- | Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- | |||
AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP | AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP | |||
attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link | attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link | |||
between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, | between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, | |||
as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two | as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two | |||
nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, | nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, | |||
one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID | one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID | |||
used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to | used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to | |||
identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't | identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't | |||
perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS | perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS | |||
label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is | label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is | |||
needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service. | needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service. | |||
For single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the | For single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the | |||
ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS | ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS | |||
service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service. | service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service. | |||
For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the | For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the | |||
ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to | ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to | |||
the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value | the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value | |||
on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a | on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a | |||
multihoming all-active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing | multihoming all-active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing | |||
of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all cases | of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all cases | |||
traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric. | traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric. | |||
The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID | The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID | |||
in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique | in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique | |||
across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the | across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the | |||
per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS | per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS | |||
to the other AS. | to the other AS. | |||
A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw | A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw | |||
all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site | all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site | |||
on a given PE. | on a given PE. | |||
5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling | 5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling | |||
In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done | In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done | |||
concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label | concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label | |||
signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either | signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either | |||
through manual provisioning or through BGP. | through manual provisioning or through BGP. | |||
In existing implementations of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), | In existing implementations of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), | |||
redundancy is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN | redundancy is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN | |||
implementation of VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy | implementation of VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy | |||
modes can be supported. | modes can be supported. | |||
In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to | In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to | |||
carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among | carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among | |||
different PEs multi-homed to a single CE. | different PEs multi-homed to a single CE. | |||
Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the | Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the | |||
withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL | withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL | |||
services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence | services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence | |||
requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to | requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to | |||
deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate | deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate | |||
the group of backup PWs associated with the access link. | the group of backup PWs associated with the access link. | |||
Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms | Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms | |||
not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local | not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local | |||
AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route | AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route | |||
by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the | by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the | |||
backup PE. | backup PE. | |||
6. Failure Scenarios | 6. Failure Scenarios | |||
On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single | On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single | |||
and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the | and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the | |||
associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the | associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the | |||
failed port or link. | failed port or link. | |||
6.1. Single-Homed CEs | 6.1. Single-Homed CEs | |||
Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements | Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements | |||
for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port | for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, | |||
failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw | upon a link/port failure of this single-homed | |||
the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. | Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw the | |||
associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. | ||||
6.2. Multi-Homed CEs | 6.2. Multi-Homed CEs | |||
For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- | For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- | |||
Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique | Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique | |||
is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can | is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, | |||
withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the | can withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all | |||
VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the | the VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the | |||
backup PE. | backup PE. | |||
7. Acknowledgements | 7. Acknowledgements | |||
The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin | The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin | |||
Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar | Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar | |||
Hussain, Alvaro Retana and Acee Lindem for their feedback and | Hussain, Alvaro Retana and Acee Lindem for their feedback and | |||
contributions to this document. | contributions to this document. | |||
8. Security Considerations | 8. Security Considerations | |||
The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in | The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in | |||
[RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally | [RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are | |||
applicable. | equally applicable. | |||
This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support | This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support | |||
data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] | data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] | |||
and in [I-D.ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable. | and in [I-D.ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable. | |||
9. IANA Considerations | 9. IANA Considerations | |||
IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type: | IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type: | |||
SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference | SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference | |||
0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes [RFCXXXX] | 0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes [RFCXXXX] | |||
This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes | This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes | |||
Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC | Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC | |||
Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226]. | Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226]. | |||
Initial registrations are as follows: | Initial registrations are as follows: | |||
P Advertising PE is the Primary PE. | P Advertising PE is the Primary PE. | |||
B Advertising PE is the Backup PE. | B Advertising PE is the Backup PE. | |||
C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present. | C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present. | |||
10. References | 10. References | |||
10.1. Normative References | 10.1. Normative References | |||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | ||||
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., | [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., | |||
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet | Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based | |||
VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <http://www.rfc- | Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February | |||
editor.org/info/rfc7432>. | 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>. | |||
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, | [RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, | |||
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", | "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS | |||
RFC 4448, April 2006. | Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>. | ||||
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. | [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and | |||
Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012. | L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", | |||
November 2012. | ||||
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border | [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A | |||
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc- | Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, | |||
editor.org/info/rfc4271>. | DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. | ||||
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended | [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended | |||
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc- | Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, | |||
editor.org/info/rfc4360>. | February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. | |||
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an | [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an | |||
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008, | IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. | DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. | ||||
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., "VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying | [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, | |||
Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, August | L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual | |||
2014. | 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, | ||||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. | ||||
10.2. Informative References | 10.2. Informative References | |||
[MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase | [MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - | |||
2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008, | Phase 2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008, | |||
https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf | <https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/ | |||
MEF_6.1.pdf>. | ||||
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for | ||||
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006, | ||||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-evpn-overlay] Drake, J., "A Network Virtualization | [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer | |||
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07, | 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, | |||
(work in progress), December 2016. | DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>. | ||||
Contributors | Contributors | |||
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following | In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following | |||
co-authors have also contributed to this document: | co-authors have also contributed to this document: | |||
Daniel Voyer Bell Canada | Daniel Voyer Bell Canada | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
End of changes. 73 change blocks. | ||||
165 lines changed or deleted | 171 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |