Internet DRAFT - draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto
BESS Working Group P. Brissette
Internet-Draft A. Sajassi
Intended status: Standards Track L. Burdet, Ed.
Expires: August 26, 2021 Cisco Systems
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
February 22, 2021
EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 Gateway Protocols
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-06
Abstract
The existing EVPN multi-homing load-balancing modes defined are
Single-Active and All-Active. Neither of these multi-homing
mechanisms adequately ethernet-segments facing access networks with
Layer-2 Gateway protocols such as G.8032, (M)STP, REP, MPLS-TP, etc.
These loop-preventing Layer-2 protocols require a new multi-homing
mechanism defined in this draft.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Single-Flow-Active redundancy mode . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Fast-Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN) . . . 7
3.2.2. Propagating L2GW Protocol Events . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. MAC Flush and Invalidation Procedure . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Backwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. The two-ESI solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. RFC7432 Remote PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. ESI-label Extended Community Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Existing EVPN Single-Active and All-Active multi-homing mechanisms do
not address the additional requirements of loop-preventing Layer-2
gateway protocols such as G.8032, (M)STP, REP, MPLS-TP, etc.
These Layer-2 Gateway protocols require that a given L2 flow of a
VLAN be only active on one of the PEs in the multi-homing group,
while another L2 flow may be active on the other PE. This is in
contrast with Single-Active redundancy mode where all flows of a VLAN
are active on a single multi-homing PEs and it is also in contrast
with All-Active redundancy mode where all flows of a VLAN are active
on all PEs in the redundancy group.
This draft defines a new multi-homing mechanism "Single-Flow-Active"
specifying that a VLAN can be active on all PEs in the redundancy
group but each unique L2 flow of that VLAN can be active on only one
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
of the PEs in the redundancy group at a time. In fact, the
Designated Forwarder election algorithm for these L2 Gateway
protocols, is not per VLAN but rather for a given L2 flow. A
selected PE in the redundancy group must be the only Designated
Forwarder for a specific L2 flow, but the decision is not taken by
the PE. The loop-prevention blocking scheme occurs in the access
network, by the Layer-2 protocol.
EVPN multi-homing procedures need to be enhanced to support
Designated Forwarder election for all traffic (both known unicast and
BUM) on a per L2 flow basis. The Single-Flow-Active multi-homing
mechanism also requires new EVPN considerations for aliasing, mass-
withdraw, fast-switchover and
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding] as described in the
solution section.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terms and Abbreviations
AC: Attachment Circuit
BUM: Broadcast, Unknown unicast, Multicast
DF: Designated Forwarder
GW: Gateway
L2 Flow: A given flow of a VLAN, represented by (MAC-SA, MAC-DA)
L2GW: Layer-2 Gateway
MAC-IP: EVPN Route-Type 2 with non-zero IP field
G.8032: Ethernet Ring Protection
(M)STP: Multi-Spanning Tree Protocol
REP: Resilient Ethernet Protocol
TCN: Topology Change Notification
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
2. Requirements
The EVPN L2GW framework for L2GW protocols in Access-Gateway mode,
consists of the following rules:
o Peering PEs MUST share the same ESI.
o The Ethernet-Segment DF election MUST NOT be performed and
forwarding state MUST be dictated by the L2GW protocol. In
gateway mode, both PEs are usually in forwarding state. In fact,
the access protocol is responsible for operationally setting the
forwarding state for each VLAN.
o Split-horizon filtering is NOT needed because L2GW protocol
ensures there will never be a loop in the access network. The
forwarding between peering PEs MUST also be preserved. In
Figure 1, CE1/CE4 device may need reachability with CE2 device.
ESI-filtering capability MUST be disabled. The ESI label extended
comunity advertised to other peering PEs in the redundancy group
MUST NOT be applied it if received.
o ESI label BGP Extended Community MUST support a new multi-homing
mode named "Single-Flow-Active" corresponding largely to the
single-active behaviour of [RFC7432], applied per L2 flow rather
than per VLAN.
o Upon receiving ESI label BGP Extended Community with the single-
flow-active load-balancing mode, remote PE MUST:
* Disable ESI label processing
* Disable aliasing (at Layer-2 and Layer-3
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding])
o The Ethernet-Segment procedures in the EVPN core such as Ethernet
A-D per ES and per Ethernet A-D per EVI routes advertisement/
withdraw, as well as MAC and MAC+IP advertisement, remains as
explained in [RFC7432] and
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding].
o For fast-convergence, remote PE3 MAY set up two distinct backup
paths on a per-flow basis:
* { PE1 active, PE2 backup }
* { PE2 active, PE1 backup }
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
The backup paths so created, operate as in [RFC7432] section 8.4
where the backup PE of the redundancy group MAY immediately be
selected for forwarding upon detection of a specific subset of
failures: Ethernet A-D per ES route withdraw, Active PE loss of
reachability (via IGP detection). An Ethernet A-D per EVI
withdraw MUST NOT result in automatic switching to the backup PE
as only a subset of the hosts may be changing reachability to the
Backup PE, and the remote cannot determine which.
o MAC mobility procedures SHALL have precedence over backup path
procedure in Single-Flow-Active for tracking host reachability.
3. Solution
+---+
|CE3|
+---+
|
|
+-----+
+-----| PE3 |-----+
| +-----+ |
| |
| MPLS/IP |
| CORE |
| |
+-----+ +-----+
| PE1 |-----------| PE2 |
+-----+ +-----+
AC1| |AC2
| |
+---+ +---+
|CE1| |CE2|
+---+ +---+
| |
| +---+ |
+----|CE4|---/ /--+
+---+
Figure 1: EVPN network with L2 access GW protocols
Figure 1 shows a typical EVPN network with an access network running
a L2GW protocol, typically one of the following: G.8032, (M)STP, REP,
MPLS- TP, etc. The L2GW protocol usually starts from AC1 (on PE1) up
to AC2 (on PE2) in an open "ring" manner. AC1 and AC2 interfaces of
PE1 and PE2 are participants in the access protocol.
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
The L2GW protocol is used for loop avoidance. In above example, the
loop is broken on the right side of CE4.
3.1. Single-Flow-Active redundancy mode
PE1 and PE2 are peering PEs in a redundancy group, and sharing a same
ESI. In the proposed Single-Flow-Active mode, load-balancing at PE1
and PE2 shares similarities with singular aspects of both Single-
Active and All-Active. Designated Forwarder election must not
compete with the L2GW protocol and must not result in blocked ports
or portions of the access may become isolated. Additionally, the
reachability between CE1/CE4 and CE2 is achieved with the forwarding
path through the EVPN MPLS/IP core side. Thus, the ESI-Label
filtering of [RFC7432] is disabled for Single-Flow-Active Ethernet
segments.
Finally, PE3 behaves according to EVPN [RFC7432] rules for traffic
to/from PE1/PE2. Peering PE, selected per L2 flow, is chosen by the
L2GW protocol in the access, and is out of EVPN control.
From PE3 point of view, the L2 flows from PE3 destined to CE1/CE4
transit via edge node PE1 and the L2 flows destined to CE2 transit
via edge node PE2. A specific unicast L2 flow never goes to both
peering PEs. Therefore, aliasing of [RFC7432] Section 8.4 cannot be
performed by PE3. That node operates in a single-active fashion for
each of the unicast L2 flows.
The backup path of [RFC7432] Section 8.4 which is also setup for
single-active rapid convergence on a per-VLAN basis, is not
applicable here. For example, in Figure 1, if a failure happens
between CE1 and CE4 the loop-prevention at the right of CE4 is
released and:
o L2 flows coming from CE3 behind PE3 destined to CE1 still transit
through edge device PE1, and shall not switch to PE2 as a backup
path.
o L2 flows destined to CE4 on the other hand, may be backup switched
to PE2 transit node.
On PE3, there is no way to know which L2 flow specifically is
affected. During the transition time, PE3 may flood until unicast
traffic recovers properly.
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
3.2. Fast-Convergence
3.2.1. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN)
In order to address rapid Layer-2 convergence requirement, topology
change notification received from the L2GW protocols must be sent
across the EVPN network to perform the equivalent of legacy L2VPN
remote MAC flush.
The generation of TCN is done differently based on the access
protocol. In the case of REP and G.8032, TCN gets generated in both
directions and thus both of the dual-homing PEs receive it. However,
with (M)STP, TCN gets generated only in one direction and thus only a
single PE can receive it. That TCN is propagated to the other
peering PE for local MAC flushing, and relaying back into the access.
In fact, PEs have no direct visibility on failures happening in the
access network nor on the impact of those failures over the
connectivity between CE devices. Hence, both peering PEs require to
perform a local MAC flush on corresponding interfaces.
There are two options to relay the access protocol's TCN to the
peering PE: in-band or out-of-band messaging. The first method is
better for rapid convergence, and requires a dedicated channel
between peering PEs. An EVPN-VPWS connection MAY be dedicated for
that purpose, connecting the Untagged ACs of both PEs. The latter
choice relies on the MAC Mobility BGP Extended Community applied to
the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, detailed below. It is a slower
method but has the advantage of avoiding a dedicated channel between
peering PEs.
3.2.2. Propagating L2GW Protocol Events
Peering PE in Single Flow Active mode, upon receiving notification of
a protocol convergence-event from access (such as TCN), MUST:
o As per legacy VPLS, perform a local MAC flush on the access-facing
interfaces. An ARP probe is also sent for all hosts previously
locally-attached.
o Advertise Ethernet A-D per EVI route along with the MAC Mobility
BGP Extended Community, with incremented sequence number if
previously advertised, in order to perform a remote MAC flush and
steer L2 traffic to proper peering PE. The sequence number is
incremented by one as a flushing indication to remote PEs.
o Ensure MAC and MAC+IP route re-advertisement, with incremented
sequence number when host reachability is NOT moving to peering
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
PE. This is to ensure a re-advertisement of current MAC and MAC-
IP which may have been flushed remotely upon MAC Mobility Extended
Community reception. In theory, it should happen automatically
since peering PE, receiving TCN from the access, performs local
MAC flush on corresponding interface and will re-learn that local
MAC or MAC+IP.
o Where an access protocol relies on TCN BPDU propagation to all
participant nodes, a dedicated EVPN-VPWS connection MAY be used as
an in-band channel to relay TCN between peering PEs. That
connection may be auto-generated or can simply be configured by
user.
3.2.3. MAC Flush and Invalidation Procedure
The MAC-Flush procedure described in [RFC7623] is borrowed, and the
MAC mobility BGP Extended community is signaled along with the
Ethernet A-D per EVI route from a PE in Single-Flow-Active mode.
When MAC Mobility BGP Extended Community is received on the Ethernet
A-D per EVI route, it indicates to all remote PEs that all MAC
addresses associated with that EVI/ESI are "flushed" i.e. must be
unresolved.
Remote PEs, having previously received Ethernet A-D per ES with
Single Flow Active indication from an originating PE, treat the MAC
Mobility indication to simply invalidate the MAC entries for that
originating PE on an EVI/ESI basis, similar to [RFC7432]'s mass-
withdraw mechanism.
They remain unresolved until the remote PE receives a route update
(or withdraw) for those MAC addresses. Note: the MAC may be re-
advertised by the same PE, but also some are expected to have moved
to a multi-homing peer, within the same ESI, due to the L2 protocol's
action.
The sequence number of the MAC Mobility extended community is of
local significance from the originating PE, and is not used for
comparison between peering PEs. Rather, it is used to signal via BGP
successive MAC Flush requests from a given PE per EVI/ESI.
3.3. Backwards compatibility
3.3.1. The two-ESI solution
As a reference, an alternative solution which achieves some, but not
all, of the requirements exists:
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
On the PE1 and PE2,
a. A single-homed (different) non-zero ESI, or zero-ESI, is used for
each PE;
b. With no remote Ethernet-Segment routes received matching local
ESI, each PE will be designated forwarder for all the local
VLANs;
c. Each L2GW PE will send Ethernet A-D per ES and per EVI routes for
its ESI if non-zero; and
d. When the L2GW PEs receive a MAC-Flush notification (STP TCN,
G.8032 mac-flush, LDP MAC withdrawal etc.), they send an update
of the Ethernet A-D per EVI route with the MAC Mobility extended
community and a higher sequence number, using the procedure
outlined in Section 3.2.3.
While this solution is feasible, it is considered to fall short of
the requirements listed in Section 2, namely for all aspects meant to
achieve fast-convergence.
3.3.2. RFC7432 Remote PE
A PE which receives an Ethernet A-D per ES route with the Single-
Flow-Active bit set in the ESI-flags, and which does not support/
understand this bit, SHALL discard the bit and continue operating per
[RFC7432] (All-Active). The operator should understand the usage of
single-flow-active load-balancing mode else it is highly recommended
to use the two-ESI approach as described in Section 3.3.1
The remote PE3 which does not support Single-Flow-Active redundancy
mode as described, will ECMP traffic to peering PE1 and PE2 in the
example topology above (Figure 1), per [RFC7432], Section 8.4
aliasing and load-balancing rules. PE1 and PE2, which support the
Single-Flow-Active redundancy mode MUST setup redirections towards
the PE at which the flow is currently active (sub-optimal Layer-2
forwarding and sub-optimal Layer-3 routing).
Thus, while PE3 will ECMP (on average) 50% of the traffic to the
incorrect PE using [RFC7432] operation, PE1 and PE2 will handle this
gracefully in Single-Flow-Active mode and redirect across peering
pair of PEs appropriately.
No extra route or information is required for this. The [RFC7432]
and [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding] route advertisements
are sufficient.
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
4. ESI-label Extended Community Extension
In order to support the new EVPN load-balancing mode (single-flow-
active), the ESI label Extended Community is updated.
The 1 octet flag field, part of the ESI Label Extended Community, is
modified as follows:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x01 | Flags(1 octet)| Reserved=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved=0 | ESI Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Low-order bit: [7:0]
[2:0]- 000 = all-active,
001 = single-active,
010 = single-flow-active,
others = unassigned
[7:3]- Reserved
Figure 2: ESI Label BGP Extended Community
5. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding
EVPN Inter-subnet forwarding procedures in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding] works with the current
proposal and does not require any extension. Host routes continue to
be installed at PE3 with a single remote nexthop, no aliasing.
However, leveraging the same-ESI on both L2GW PEs enables ARP/ND
synchronization procedures which are defined for All-Active
redundancy in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding]. In
steady-state, on PE2 where a host is not locally-reachable the
routing table will reflect PE1 as the destination. However, with
ARP/ND synchronization based on a common ESI, the ARP/ND cache may be
pre-populated with the local AC as destination for the host, should
an AC failure occur on PE1. This achieves fast-convergence.
When a host moves to PE2 from the PE1 L2GW peer, the MAC mobility
sequence number is incremented to signal to remote peers that a
'move' has occurred and the routing tables must be updated to PE2.
This is required when an Access Protocol is running where the loop is
broken between two CEs in the access and the L2GWs, and the host is
no longer reachable from the PE1-side but now from the PE2-side of
the access network.
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
6. Conclusion
EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 Gateway Protocols solves a
true problem due to the wide legacy deployment of these access L2GW
protocols in Service Provider networks. The current draft has the
main advantage to be fully compliant with [RFC7432] and
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding].
7. Security Considerations
The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding] remain valid for this
document.
8. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for valuable review and
inputs with respect to access protocol deployments related to
procedures proposed in this document.
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding]
Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Thoria, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN", draft-
ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-11 (work in
progress), October 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols February 2021
10.2. Informative References
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.
Authors' Addresses
Patrice Brissette
Cisco Systems
Ottawa, ON
Canada
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Luc Andre Burdet (editor)
Cisco Systems
Ottawa, ON
Canada
Email: lburdet@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Montreal, QC
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Brissette, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 12]
