Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet Draft Nokia
Updates: 7432 S. Mohanty, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi
Cisco
J. Drake
Juniper
K. Nagaraj
S. Sathappan
Nokia
Expires: July 28, 2019 January 24, 2019
Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09
Abstract
An alternative to the Default Designated Forwarder (DF) selection
algorithm in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) networks is defined. The DF is the
Provider Edge (PE) router responsible for sending broadcast, unknown
unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic to multi-homed Customer Equipment
(CE) on a particular Ethernet Segment (ES) within a VLAN. In
addition, the capability to influence the DF election result for a
VLAN based on the state of the associated Attachment Circuit (AC) is
specified. This document clarifies the DF Election Finite State
Machine in EVPN, therefore it updates the EVPN specification.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Default Designated Forwarder (DF) Election in EVPN . . . . 3
1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1. Unfair Load-Balancing and Service Disruption . . . . . 6
1.2.2. Traffic Black-Holing on Individual AC Failures . . . . 7
1.3. The Need for Extending the Default DF Election in EVPN . . 10
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Designated Forwarder Election Protocol and BGP Extensions . . . 12
3.1. The DF Election Finite State Machine (FSM) . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. The DF Election Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3. Auto-Derivation of ES-Import Route Target . . . . . . . . . 18
4. The Highest Random Weight DF Election Algorithm . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. HRW and Consistent Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2. HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. The Attachment Circuit Influenced DF Election Capability . . . 21
5.1. AC-Influenced DF Election Capability For VLAN-Aware
Bundle Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
6. Solution Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
The Designated Forwarder (DF) in EVPN networks is the Provider Edge
(PE) router responsible for sending broadcast, unknown unicast and
multicast (BUM) traffic to a multi-homed Customer Equipment (CE)
device, on a given VLAN on a particular Ethernet Segment (ES). The DF
is selected out of a list of candidate PEs that advertise the same
Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) to the EVPN network. By default,
EVPN uses a DF Election algorithm referred to as "Service Carving"
and it is based on a modulus function (V mod N) that takes the number
of PEs in the ES (N) and the VLAN value (V) as input. This Default DF
Election algorithm has some inefficiencies that this document
addresses by defining a new DF Election algorithm and a capability to
influence the DF Election result for a VLAN, depending on the state
of the associated Attachment Circuit (AC). In order to avoid any
ambiguity with the identifier used in the DF Election Algorithm, this
document uses the term Ethernet Tag instead of VLAN. This document
also creates a registry with IANA, for future DF Election Algorithms
and Capabilities. It also presents a formal definition and
clarification of the DF Election Finite State Machine (FSM),
therefore the document updates [RFC7432] and EVPN implementations
MUST conform to the prescribed FSM.
The procedures described in this document apply to DF election in all
EVPN solutions including [RFC7432] and [RFC8214]. Apart from the FSM
formal description, this document does not intend to update other
[RFC7432] procedures. It only aims to improve the behavior of the DF
Election on PEs that are upgraded to follow the described procedures.
1.1. Default Designated Forwarder (DF) Election in EVPN
[RFC7432] defines the Designated Forwarder (DF) as the EVPN PE
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
responsible for:
o Flooding Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast traffic (BUM), on
a given Ethernet Tag on a particular Ethernet Segment (ES), to the
CE. This is valid for single-active and all-active EVPN
multi-homing.
o Sending unicast traffic on a given Ethernet Tag on a particular ES
to the CE. This is valid for single-active multi-homing.
Figure 1 illustrates an example that we will use to explain the
Designated Forwarder function.
+---------------+
| IP/MPLS |
| CORE |
+----+ ES1 +----+ +----+
| CE1|-----| | | |____ES2
+----+ | PE1| | PE2| \
| | +----+ \+----+
+----+ | | CE2|
| +----+ /+----+
| | |____/ |
| | PE3| ES2 /
| +----+ /
| | /
+-------------+----+ /
| PE4|____/ES2
| |
+----+
Figure 1 Multi-homing Network of EVPN
Figure 1 illustrates a case where there are two Ethernet Segments,
ES1 and ES2. PE1 is attached to CE1 via Ethernet Segment ES1 whereas
PE2, PE3 and PE4 are attached to CE2 via ES2 i.e. PE2, PE3 and PE4
form a redundancy group. Since CE2 is multi-homed to different PEs on
the same Ethernet Segment, it is necessary for PE2, PE3 and PE4 to
agree on a DF to satisfy the above mentioned requirements.
The effect of forwarding loops in a Layer-2 network is particularly
severe because of the broadcast nature of Ethernet traffic and the
lack of a Time-To-Live (TTL). Therefore it is very important that in
the case of a multi-homed CE only one of the PEs be used to send BUM
traffic to it.
One of the pre-requisites for this support is that participating PEs
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
must agree amongst themselves as to who would act as the Designated
Forwarder (DF). This needs to be achieved through a distributed
algorithm in which each participating PE independently and
unambiguously selects one of the participating PEs as the DF, and the
result should be consistent and unanimous.
The default algorithm for DF election defined by [RFC7432] at the
granularity of (ESI,EVI) is referred to as "service carving". In this
document, service carving and Default DF Election algorithm are used
interchangeably. With service carving, it is possible to elect
multiple DFs per Ethernet Segment (one per EVI) in order to perform
load-balancing of traffic destined to a given Segment. The objective
is that the load-balancing procedures should carve up the BD space
among the redundant PE nodes evenly, in such a way that every PE is
the DF for a distinct set of EVIs.
The DF Election algorithm as described in [RFC7432] (Section 8.5) is
based on a modulus operation. The PEs to which the ES (for which DF
election is to be carried out per EVI) is multi-homed form an ordered
(ordinal) list in ascending order of the PE IP address values. For
example, there are N PEs: PE0, PE1,... PEN-1 ranked as per increasing
IP addresses in the ordinal list; then for each VLAN with Ethernet
Tag V, configured on the Ethernet Segment ES1, PEx is the DF for VLAN
V on ES1 when x equals (V mod N). In the case of VLAN Bundle only the
lowest VLAN is used. In the case when the planned density is high
(meaning there are significant number of VLANs and the Ethernet Tags
are uniformly distributed), the thinking is that the DF Election will
be spread across the PEs hosting that Ethernet Segment and good load-
balancing can be achieved.
However, the described Default DF Election algorithm has some
undesirable properties and in some cases can be somewhat disruptive
and unfair. This document describes some of those issues and defines
a mechanism for dealing with them. These mechanisms do involve
changes to the Default DF Election algorithm, but they do not require
any changes to the EVPN Route exchange and have minimal changes in
the EVPN routes.
In addition, there is a need to extend the DF Election procedures so
that new algorithms and capabilities are possible. A single algorithm
(the Default DF Election algorithm) may not meet the requirements in
all the use-cases.
Note that while [RFC7432] elects a DF per <ES, EVI>, this document
elects a DF per <ES, BD>. This means that unlike [RFC7432], where for
a VLAN-Aware Bundle service EVI there is only one DF for the EVI,
this document specifies that there will be multiple DFs, one for each
BD configured in that EVI.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
1.2. Problem Statement
This section describes some potential issues with the Default DF
Election algorithm.
1.2.1. Unfair Load-Balancing and Service Disruption
There are three fundamental problems with the current Default DF
Election algorithm.
1- First, the algorithm will not perform well when the Ethernet Tag
follows a non-uniform distribution, for instance when the Ethernet
Tags are all even or all odd. In such a case let us assume that
the ES is multi-homed to two PEs; one of the PEs will be elected
as DF for all of the VLANs. This is very sub-optimal. It defeats
the purpose of service carving as the DFs are not really evenly
spread across. In fact, in this particular case, one of the PEs
does not get elected as DF at all, so it does not participate in
the DF responsibilities at all. Consider another example where,
referring to Figure 1, lets assume that PE2, PE3, PE4 are in
ascending order of the IP address; and each VLAN configured on ES2
is associated with an Ethernet Tag of the form (3x+1), where x is
an integer. This will result in PE3 always be selected as the DF.
2- The Ethernet tag that identifies the BD can be as large as 2^24;
however, it is not guaranteed that the tenant BD on the ES will
conform to a uniform distribution. In fact, it is up to the
customer what BDs they will configure on the ES. Quoting [Knuth],
"In general, we want to avoid values of M that divide r^k+a or
r^k-a, where k and a are small numbers and r is the radix of the
alphabetic character set (usually r=64, 256 or 100), since a
remainder modulo such a value of M tends to be largely a simple
superposition of key digits. Such considerations suggest that we
choose M to be a prime number such that r^k!=a(modulo)M or
r^k!=?a(modulo)M for small k & a."
In our case, N is the number of PEs in [RFC7432] which corresponds
to M above. Since N, N-1 or N+1 need not satisfy the primality
properties of the M above; as per the [RFC7432] modulo based DF
assignment, whenever a PE goes down or a new PE boots up (hosting
the same Ethernet Segment), the modulo scheme will not necessarily
map BDs to PEs uniformly.
3- The third problem is one of disruption. Consider a case when the
same Ethernet Segment is multi-homed to a set of PEs. When the ES
is down in one of the PEs, say PE1, or PE1 itself reboots, or the
BGP process goes down or the connectivity between PE1 and an RR
goes down, the effective number of PEs in the system now becomes
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
N-1, and DFs are computed for all the VLANs that are configured on
that Ethernet Segment. In general, if the DF for a VLAN v happens
not to be PE1, but some other PE, say PE2, it is likely that some
other PE (different from PE1 and PE2) will become the new DF. This
is not desirable. Similarly when a new PE hosts the same Ethernet
Segment, the mapping again changes because of the modulus
operation. This results in needless churn. Again referring to
Figure 1, say v1, v2 and v3 are VLANs configured on ES2 with
associated Ethernet Tags of value 999, 1000 and 1001 respectively.
So PE1, PE2 and PE3 are the DFs for v1, v2 and v3 respectively.
Now when PE3 goes down, PE2 will become the DF for v1 and PE1 will
become the DF for v2.
One point to note is that the Default DF election algorithm assumes
that all the PEs who are multi-homed to the same Ethernet Segment
(and interested in the DF Election by exchanging EVPN routes) use an
Originating Router's IP Address of the same family. This does not
need to be the case as the EVPN address-family can be carried over an
IPv4 or IPv6 peering, and the PEs attached to the same ES may use an
address of either family.
Mathematically, a conventional hash function maps a key k to a number
i representing one of m hash buckets through a function h(k) i.e.
i=h(k). In the EVPN case, h is simply a modulo-m hash function viz.
h(v) = v mod N, where N is the number of PEs that are multi-homed to
the Ethernet Segment in discussion. It is well-known that for good
hash distribution using the modulus operation, the modulus N should
be a prime-number not too close to a power of 2 [CLRS2009]. When the
effective number of PEs changes from N to N-1 (or vice versa); all
the objects (VLAN V) will be remapped except those for which V mod N
and V mod (N-1) refer to the same PE in the previous and subsequent
ordinal rankings respectively. From a forwarding perspective, this is
a churn, as it results in re-programming the PE ports as either
blocking or non-blocking at the PEs where the DF state changes.
This document addresses this problem and furnishes a solution to this
undesirable behavior.
1.2.2. Traffic Black-Holing on Individual AC Failures
As discussed in section 2.1 the Default DF Election algorithm defined
by [RFC7432] takes into account only two variables in the modulus
function for a given ES: the existence of the PE's IP address on the
candidate list and the locally provisioned Ethernet Tags.
If the DF for an <ESI, EVI> fails (due to physical link/node
failures) an ES route withdrawal will make the Non-DF (NDF) PEs re-
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
elect the DF for that <ESI, EVI> and the service will be recovered.
However, the Default DF election procedure does not provide a
protection against "logical" failures or human errors that may occur
at service level on the DF, while the list of active PEs for a given
ES does not change. These failures may have an impact not only on the
local PE where the issue happens, but also on the rest of the PEs of
the ES. Some examples of such logical failures are listed below:
a) A given individual Attachment Circuit (AC) defined in an ES is
accidentally shutdown or even not provisioned yet (hence the
Attachment Circuit Status - ACS - is DOWN), while the ES is
operationally active (since the ES route is active).
b) A given MAC-VRF - with a defined ES - is shutdown or not
provisioned yet, while the ES is operationally active (since the
ES route is active). In this case, the ACS of all the ACs defined
in that MAC-VRF is considered to be DOWN.
Neither (a) nor (b) will trigger the DF re-election on the remote
multi-homed PEs for a given ES since the ACS is not taken into
account in the DF election procedures. While the ACS is used as a DF
election tie-breaker and trigger in VPLS multi-homing procedures
[VPLS-MH], there is no procedure defined in EVPN [RFC7432] to trigger
the DF re-election based on the ACS change on the DF.
Figure 2 illustrates the described issue with an example.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
+---+
|CE4|
+---+
|
PE4 |
+-----+-----+
+---------------| +-----+ |---------------+
| | | BD-1| | |
| +-----------+ |
| |
| EVPN |
| |
| PE1 PE2 PE3 |
| (NDF) (DF) (NDF)|
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | BD-1| | | | BD-1| | | | BD-1| |
| +-----+ |-------| +-----+ |-------| +-----+ |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
AC1\ ES12 /AC2 AC3\ ES23 /AC4
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
+----+ +----+
|CE12| |CE23|
+----+ +----+
Figure 2 Default DF Election and Traffic Black-Holing
BD-1 is defined in PE1, PE2, PE3 and PE4. CE12 is a multi-homed CE
connected to ES12 in PE1 and PE2. Similarly CE23 is multi-homed to
PE2 and PE3 using ES23. Both, CE12 and CE23, are connected to BD-1
through VLAN-based service interfaces: CE12-VID 1 (VLAN ID 1 on CE12)
is associated to AC1 and AC2 in BD-1, whereas CE23-VID 1 is
associated to AC3 and AC4 in BD-1. Assume that, although not
represented, there are other ACs defined on these ES mapped to
different BDs.
After executing the [RFC7432] Default DF election algorithm, PE2
turns out to be the DF for ES12 and ES23 in BD-1. The following
issues may arise:
a) If AC2 is accidentally shutdown or even not configured, CE12
traffic will be impacted. In case of all-active multi-homing, the
BUM traffic to CE12 will be "black-holed", whereas for single-
active multi-homing, all the traffic to/from CE12 will be
discarded. This is due to the fact that a logical failure in PE2's
AC2 may not trigger an ES route withdrawn for ES12 (since there
are still other ACs active on ES12) and therefore PE1 will not re-
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
run the DF election procedures.
b) If the Bridge Table for BD-1 is administratively shutdown or even
not configured yet on PE2, CE12 and CE23 will both be impacted:
BUM traffic to both CEs will be discarded in case of all-active
multi-homing and all traffic will be discarded to/from the CEs in
case of single-active multi-homing. This is due to the fact that
PE1 and PE3 will not re-run the DF election procedures and will
keep assuming PE2 is the DF.
Quoting [RFC7432], "when an Ethernet Tag is decommissioned on an
Ethernet Segment, then the PE MUST withdraw the Ethernet A-D per EVI
route(s) announced for the <ESI, Ethernet Tags> that are impacted by
the decommissioning", however, while this A-D per EVI route
withdrawal is used at the remote PEs performing aliasing or backup
procedures, it is not used to influence the DF election for the
affected EVIs.
This document adds an optional modification of the DF Election
procedure so that the ACS may be taken into account as a variable in
the DF election, and therefore EVPN can provide protection against
logical failures.
1.3. The Need for Extending the Default DF Election in EVPN
Section 1.2 describes some of the issues that exist in the Default DF
Election procedures. In order to address those issues, this document
introduces a new DF Election framework. This framework allows the PEs
to agree on a common DF election algorithm, as well as the
capabilities to enable during the DF Election procedure. Generally,
'DF election algorithm' refers to the algorithm by which a number of
input parameters are used to determine the DF PE, while 'DF election
capability' refers to an additional feature that can be used prior to
the invocation of the DF election algorithm, such as modifying the
inputs (or list of candidate PEs).
Within this framework, this document defines a new DF Election
algorithm and a new capability that can influence the DF Election
result:
o The new DF Election algorithm is referred to as "Highest Random
Weight" (HRW). The HRW procedures are described in section 4.
o The new DF Election capability is referred to as "AC-Influenced DF
Election" (AC-DF). The AC-DF procedures are described in section 5.
o HRW and AC-DF mechanisms are independent of each other. Therefore,
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
a PE may support either HRW or AC-DF independently or may support
both of them together. A PE may also support AC-DF capability along
with the Default DF election algorithm per [RFC7432].
In addition, this document defines a way to indicate the support of
HRW and/or AC-DF along with the EVPN ES routes advertised for a given
ES. Refer to section 3.2 for more details.
2. Conventions and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
o AC and ACS - Attachment Circuit and Attachment Circuit Status. An
AC has an Ethernet Tag associated to it.
o BUM - refers to the Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast
traffic.
o DF, NDF and BDF - Designated Forwarder, Non-Designated Forwarder
and Backup Designated Forwarder
o Ethernet A-D per ES route - refers to [RFC7432] route type 1 or
Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment route.
o Ethernet A-D per EVI route - refers to [RFC7432] route type 1 or
Auto-Discovery per EVPN Instance route.
o ES and ESI - Ethernet Segment and Ethernet Segment Identifier.
o EVI - EVPN Instance.
o MAC-VRF - A Virtual Routing and Forwarding table for Media Access
Control (MAC) addresses on a PE.
o BD - Broadcast Domain. An EVI may be comprised of one (VLAN-Based
or VLAN Bundle services) or multiple (VLAN-Aware Bundle services)
Broadcast Domains.
o Bridge Table - An instantiation of a broadcast domain on a MAC-VRF.
o HRW - Highest Random Weight
o VID and CE-VID - VLAN Identifier and Customer Equipment VLAN
Identifier.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is
configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that
any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain:
VIDs (including Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI (VXLAN Network
Identifiers), normalized VID, I-SIDs (Service Instance
Identifiers), etc., as long as the representation of the broadcast
domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed PEs
attached to that ES. The Ethernet Tag value MUST be different from
zero.
o Ethernet Tag ID - refers to the identifier used in the EVPN routes
defined in [RFC7432]. Its value may be the same as the Ethernet Tag
value (see Ethernet Tag definition) when advertising routes for
VLAN-aware Bundle services. Note that in case of VLAN-based or VLAN
Bundle services, the Ethernet Tag ID is zero.
o DF Election Procedure and DF Algorithm - The Designated Forwarder
Election Procedure or simply DF Election, refers to the process in
its entirety, including the discovery of the PEs in the ES, the
creation and maintenance of the PE candidate list and the selection
of a PE. The Designated Forwarder Algorithm is just a component of
the DF Election Procedure and strictly refers to the selection of a
PE for a given <ES,Ethernet Tag>.
o TTL - Time To Live
This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
[RFC7432].
3. Designated Forwarder Election Protocol and BGP Extensions
This section describes the BGP extensions required to support the new
DF Election procedures. In addition, since the EVPN specification
[RFC7432] does leave several questions open as to the precise final
state machine behavior of the DF election, section 3.1 describes
precisely the intended behavior.
3.1. The DF Election Finite State Machine (FSM)
Per [RFC7432], the FSM described in Figure 3 is executed per
<ESI,VLAN> in case of VLAN-based service or <ESI,[VLANs in VLAN
Bundle]> in case of VLAN Bundle on each participating PE.
Observe that currently the VLANs are derived from local configuration
and the FSM does not provide any protection against misconfiguration
where the same (EVI,ESI) combination has different set of VLANs on
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
different participating PEs or one of the PEs elects to consider
VLANs as VLAN Bundle and another as separate VLANs for election
purposes (service type mismatch).
The FSM is conceptual and any design or implementation MUST comply
with a behavior equivalent to the one outlined in this FSM.
VLAN_CHANGE
VLAN_CHANGE RCVD_ES
RCVD_ES LOST_ES
LOST_ES +----+
+----+ | v
| | ++----++
| +-+----+ ES_UP | DF |
+->+ INIT +---------------> WAIT |
++-----+ +----+-+
^ |
+-----------+ | |DF_TIMER
| ANY STATE +-------+ VLAN_CHANGE |
+-----------+ ES_DOWN +-----------------+ |
| RCVD_ES v v
+-----++ LOST_ES ++---+-+
| DF | | DF |
| DONE +<--------------+ CALC +<-+
+------+ CALCULATED +----+-+ |
| |
+----+
VLAN_CHANGE
RCVD_ES
LOST_ES
Figure 3 DF Election Finite State Machine
States:
1. INIT: Initial State
2. DF_WAIT: State in which the participant waits for enough
information to perform the DF election for the EVI/ESI/VLAN
combination.
3. DF_CALC: State in which the new DF is recomputed.
4. DF_DONE: State in which the according DF for the EVI/ESI/VLAN
combination has been elected.
5. ANY_STATE: Refers to any of the above states.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
Events:
1. ES_UP: The ESI has been locally configured as 'up'.
2. ES_DOWN: The ESI has been locally configured as 'down'.
3. VLAN_CHANGE: The VLANs configured in a bundle (that uses the ESI)
changed. This event is necessary for VLAN Bundles only.
4. DF_TIMER: DF Wait timer [RFC7432] has expired.
5. RCVD_ES: A new or changed Ethernet Segment route is received in a
BGP REACH UPDATE. Receiving an unchanged UPDATE MUST NOT trigger
this event.
6. LOST_ES: A BGP UNREACH UPDATE for a previously received Ethernet
Segment route has been received. If an UNREACH is seen for a
route that has not been advertised previously, the event MUST NOT
be triggered.
7. CALCULATED: DF has been successfully calculated.
According actions when transitions are performed or states
entered/exited:
1. ANY_STATE on ES_DOWN: (i) stop DF wait timer (ii) assume NDF for
local PE.
2. INIT on ES_UP: transition to DF_WAIT.
3. INIT on VLAN_CHANGE, RCVD_ES or LOST_ES: do nothing.
4. DF_WAIT on entering the state: (i) start DF wait timer if not
started already or expired (ii) assume NDF for local PE.
5. DF_WAIT on VLAN_CHANGE, RCVD_ES or LOST_ES: do nothing.
6. DF_WAIT on DF_TIMER: transition to DF_CALC.
7. DF_CALC on entering or re-entering the state: (i) rebuild
candidate list, hash and perform election (ii) Afterwards FSM
generates CALCULATED event against itself.
8. DF_CALC on VLAN_CHANGE, RCVD_ES or LOST_ES: do as in transition
7.
9. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: mark election result for VLAN or bundle,
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
and transition to DF_DONE.
11. DF_DONE on exiting the state: if there is a new DF election
triggered and the current DF is lost, then assume NDF for local
PE for VLAN or VLAN Bundle.
12. DF_DONE on VLAN_CHANGE, RCVD_ES or LOST_ES: transition to
DF_CALC.
The above events and transitions are defined for the Default DF
Election Algorithm. As described in Section 5, the use of the AC-DF
capability introduces additional events and transitions.
3.2. The DF Election Extended Community
For the DF election procedures to be consistent and unanimous, it is
necessary that all the participating PEs agree on the DF Election
algorithm and capabilities to be used. For instance, it is not
possible that some PEs continue to use the Default DF Election
algorithm and some PEs use HRW. For brown-field deployments and for
interoperability with legacy PEs, it is important that all PEs need
to have the capability to fall back on the Default DF Election. A PE
can indicate its willingness to support HRW and/or AC-DF by signaling
a DF Election Extended Community along with the Ethernet Segment
route (Type-4).
The DF Election Extended Community is a new BGP transitive extended
community attribute [RFC4360] that is defined to identify the DF
election procedure to be used for the Ethernet Segment. Figure 4
shows the encoding of the DF Election Extended Community.
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(0x06)| RSV | DF Alg | Bitmap ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Bitmap | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 DF Election Extended Community
Where:
o Type is 0x06 as registered with IANA for EVPN Extended Communities.
o Sub-Type is 0x06 - "DF Election Extended Community" as requested by
this document to IANA.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
o RSV / Reserved - Reserved bits for DF Alg specific information.
o DF Alg (5 bits) - Encodes the DF Election algorithm values (between
0 and 31) that the advertising PE desires to use for the ES. This
document requests IANA to set up a registry called "DF Alg
Registry" and solicits the following values:
- Type 0: Default DF Election algorithm, or modulus-based algorithm
as in [RFC7432].
- Type 1: HRW algorithm (explained in this document).
- Types 2-30: Unassigned.
- Type 31: Reserved for Experimental Use.
o Bitmap (2 octets) - Encodes "capabilities" to use with the DF
Election algorithm in the field "DF Alg". This document requests
IANA to create a registry for the Bitmap field, with values 0-15,
called "DF Election Capabilities" and solicits the following
values:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |A| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Bitmap field in the DF Election Extended Community
- Bit 0 (corresponds to Bit 24 of the DF Election Extended
Community): Unassigned.
- Bit 1: AC-DF (AC-Influenced DF Election, explained in this
document). When set to 1, it indicates the desire to use AC-
Influenced DF Election with the rest of the PEs in the ES.
- Bits 2-15: Unassigned.
The DF Election Extended Community is used as follows:
o A PE SHOULD attach the DF Election Extended Community to any
advertised ES route and the Extended Community MUST be sent if the
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
ES is locally configured with a DF election algorithm other than
the Default Election algorithm or if a capability is required to be
used. In the Extended Community, the PE indicates the desired "DF
Alg" algorithm and "Bitmap" capabilities to be used for the ES.
- Only one DF Election Extended Community can be sent along with an
ES route. Note that the intent is not for the advertising PE to
indicate all the supported DF election algorithms and
capabilities, but signal the preferred one.
- DF Algs 0 and 1 can be both used with bit AC-DF set to 0 or 1.
- In general, a specific DF Alg SHOULD determine the use of the
reserved bits in the Extended Community, which may be used in a
different way for a different DF Alg. In particular, for DF Algs
0 and 1, the reserved bits are not set by the advertising PE and
SHOULD be ignored by the receiving PE.
o When a PE receives the ES Routes from all the other PEs for the ES
in question, it checks to see if all the advertisements have the
extended community with the same DF Alg and Bitmap:
- In the case that they do, this particular PE MUST follow the
procedures for the advertised DF Alg and capabilities. For
instance, if all ES routes for a given ES indicate DF Alg HRW and
AC-DF set to 1, the receiving PE and by induction all the other
PEs in the ES will proceed to do DF Election as per the HRW
Algorithm and following the AC-DF procedures.
- Otherwise if even a single advertisement for the type-4 route is
received without the locally configured DF Alg and capability,
the Default DF Election algorithm (modulus) algorithm MUST be
used as in [RFC7432]. This procedure handles the case where
participating PEs in the ES disagree about the DF algorithm and
capability to apply.
- The absence of the DF Election Extended Community or the presence
of multiple DF Election Extended Communities (in the same route)
MUST be interpreted by a receiving PE as an indication of the
Default DF Election algorithm on the sending PE, that is, DF Alg
0 and no DF Election capabilities.
o When all the PEs in an ES advertise DF Type 31, they will rely on
the local policy to decide how to proceed with the DF Election.
o For any new capability defined in the future, the
applicability/compatibility of this new capability to the existing
DF Algs must be assessed on a case by case basis.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
o Likewise, for any new DF Alg defined in future, its
applicability/compatibility to the existing capabilities must be
assessed on a case by case basis.
3.2.1. Backward Compatibility
[RFC7432] implementations (i.e., those that predate this
specification) will not advertise the DF Election Extended Community.
That means that all other participating PEs in the ES will not
receive DF preferences and will revert to the Default DF Election
algorithm without AC-Influenced DF Election.
Similarly, a [RFC7432] implementation receiving a DF Election
Extended Community will ignore it and will continue to use the
Default DF Election algorithm.
3.3. Auto-Derivation of ES-Import Route Target
Section 7.6 of [RFC7432] describes how the value of the ES-Import
Route Target for ESI types 1, 2, and 3 can be auto-derived by using
the high-order six bytes of the nine byte ESI value. The same auto-
derivation procedure can be extended to ESI types 0, 4, and 5 as long
as it is ensured that the auto-derived values for ES-Import RT among
different ES types don't overlap. As in [RFC7432], the mechanism to
guarantee that the auto-derived ESI or ES-import RT values for
different ESIs do not match is out of scope of this document.
4. The Highest Random Weight DF Election Algorithm
The procedure discussed in this section is applicable to the DF
Election in EVPN Services [RFC7432] and EVPN Virtual Private Wire
Services [RFC8214].
Highest Random Weight (HRW) as defined in [HRW1999] is originally
proposed in the context of Internet Caching and proxy Server load
balancing. Given an object name and a set of servers, HRW maps a
request to a server using the object-name (object-id) and server-name
(server-id) rather than the server states. HRW forms a hash out of
the server-id and the object-id and forms an ordered list of the
servers for the particular object-id. The server for which the hash
value is highest, serves as the primary responsible for that
particular object, and the server with the next highest value in that
hash serves as the backup server. HRW always maps a given object name
to the same server within a given cluster; consequently it can be
used at client sites to achieve global consensus on object-server
mappings. When that server goes down, the backup server becomes the
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
responsible designate.
Choosing an appropriate hash function that is statistically oblivious
to the key distribution and imparts a good uniform distribution of
the hash output is an important aspect of the algorithm. Fortunately
many such hash functions exist. [HRW1999] provides pseudo-random
functions based on the Unix utilities rand and srand and easily
constructed XOR functions that satisfy the desired hashing
properties. HRW already finds use in multicast and ECMP
[RFC2991],[RFC2992].
4.1. HRW and Consistent Hashing
HRW is not the only algorithm that addresses the object to server
mapping problem with goals of fair load distribution, redundancy and
fast access. There is another family of algorithms that also
addresses this problem; these fall under the umbrella of the
Consistent Hashing Algorithms [CHASH]. These will not be considered
here.
4.2. HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election
This section describes the application of HRW to DF election. Let
DF(v) denote the Designated Forwarder and BDF(v) the Backup
Designated forwarder for the Ethernet Tag v, where v is the VLAN, Si
is the IP address of PE i, Es denotes the Ethernet Segment Identifier
and weight is a function of v, Si, and Es.
Note that while the DF election algorithm in [RFC7432] uses PE
address and vlan as inputs, this document uses Ethernet Tag, PE
address and ESI as inputs. This is because if the same set of PEs are
multi-homed to the same set of ESes, then the DF election algorithm
used in [RFC7432] would result in the same PE being elected DF for
the same set of broadcast domains on each ES, which can have adverse
side-effects on both load balancing and redundancy. Including ESI in
the DF election algorithm introduces additional entropy which
significantly reduces the probability of the same PE being elected DF
for the same set of broadcast domains on each ES. Therefore, when
using the HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election, the ESI value in the
Weight function below SHOULD be set to that of the corresponding ES.
In case of a VLAN Bundle service, v denotes the lowest VLAN similar
to the 'lowest VLAN in bundle' logic of [RFC7432].
1. DF(v) = Si| Weight(v, Es, Si) >= Weight(v, Es, Sj), for all j. In
case of a tie, choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the
least. Note 0 <= i,j < Number of PEs in the redundancy group.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
2. BDF(v) = Sk| Weight(v, Es, Si) >= Weight(v, Es, Sk) and Weight(v,
Es, Sk) >= Weight(v, Es, Sj). In case of tie choose the PE whose
IP address is numerically the least.
Where:
DF(v): is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which weight(v,
Es, Si) is the highest, 0 <= i < N-1
BDF(v) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the computed
weight is the next highest after the weight of the DF. j is the
running index from 0 to N-1, i, k are selected values.
Since the Weight is a pseudo-random function with domain as the
three-tuple (v, Es, S), it is an efficient and deterministic
algorithm that is independent of the Ethernet Tag v sample space
distribution. Choosing a good hash function for the pseudo-random
function is an important consideration for this algorithm to perform
better than the Default algorithm. As mentioned previously, such
functions are described in the HRW paper. We take as candidate hash
function the first one out of the two that are preferred in
[HRW1999]:
Wrand(v, Es, Si) = (1103515245((1103515245.Si+12345) XOR
D(v,Es))+12345)(mod 2^31)
Here D(v,Es) is the 31-bit digest (CRC-32 and discarding the MSB as
in [HRW1999]) of the 14-byte stream, the Ethernet Tag v (4 bytes)
followed by the Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 bytes). It is
mandated that the 14-byte stream is formed by concatenation of the
Ethernet tag and the Ethernet Segment identifier in network byte
order. The CRC should proceed as if the stream is in network byte
order (big-endian). Si is address of the ith server. The server's IP
address length does not matter as only the low-order 31 bits are
modulo significant.
A point to note is that the Weight function takes into consideration
the combination of the Ethernet Tag, Ethernet Segment and the PE IP-
address, and the actual length of the server IP address (whether IPv4
or IPv6) is not really relevant. The Default algorithm in [RFC7432]
cannot employ both IPv4 and IPv6 PE addresses, since [RFC7432] does
not specify how to decide on the ordering (the ordinal list) when
both IPv4 and IPv6 PEs are present.
HRW solves the disadvantages pointed out in Section 1.2.1 and
ensures:
o with very high probability that the task of DF election for the
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
VLANs configured on an ES is more or less equally distributed among
the PEs even for the 2 PE case.
o If a PE that is not the DF or the BDF for that VLAN, goes down or
its connection to the ES goes down, it does not result in a DF or
BDF reassignment. This saves computation, especially in the case
when the connection flaps.
o More importantly it avoids the needless disruption case of Section
1.2.1 (3), that is inherent in the existing Default DF Election.
o In addition to the DF, the algorithm also furnishes the BDF, which
would be the DF if the current DF fails.
5. The Attachment Circuit Influenced DF Election Capability
The procedure discussed in this section is applicable to the DF
Election in EVPN Services [RFC7432] and EVPN Virtual Private Wire
Services [RFC8214].
The AC-DF capability is expected to be of general applicability with
any future DF Algorithm. It modifies the DF Election procedures by
removing from consideration any candidate PE in the ES that cannot
forward traffic on the AC that belongs to the BD. This section is
applicable to VLAN-Based and VLAN Bundle service interfaces. Section
5.1 describes the procedures for VLAN-Aware Bundle interfaces.
In particular, when used with the Default DF Alg, the AC-DF
capability modifies the Step 3 in the DF Election procedure described
in [RFC7432] Section 8.5, as follows:
3. When the timer expires, each PE builds an ordered "candidate" list
of the IP addresses of all the PE nodes attached to the Ethernet
Segment (including itself), in increasing numeric value. The
candidate list is based on the Originator Router's IP addresses of
the ES routes, but excludes any PE from whom no Ethernet A-D per
ES route has been received, or from whom the route has been
withdrawn. Afterwards, the DF Election algorithm is applied on a
per <ES, Ethernet Tag>, however, the IP address for a PE will not
be considered candidate for a given <ES, Ethernet Tag> until the
corresponding Ethernet A-D per EVI route has been received from
that PE. In other words, the ACS on the ES for a given PE must be
UP so that the PE is considered as candidate for a given BD.
If the Default DF Alg is used, every PE in the resulting candidate
list is then given an ordinal indicating its position in the
ordered list, starting with 0 as the ordinal for the PE with the
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
numerically lowest IP address. The ordinals are used to determine
which PE node will be the DF for a given Ethernet Tag on the
Ethernet Segment, using the following rule:
Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, for VLAN-based service,
the PE with ordinal i is the DF for an <ES, Ethernet Tag V> when
(V mod N)= i. In the case of VLAN-(aware) bundle service, then the
numerically lowest VLAN value in that bundle on that ES MUST be
used in the modulo function as Ethernet Tag.
It should be noted that using the "Originating Router's IP
address" field in the Ethernet Segment route to get the PE IP
address needed for the ordered list allows for a CE to be
multihomed across different ASes if such a need ever arises.
The above three paragraphs differ from [RFC7432] Section 8.5, Step 3,
in two aspects:
o Any DF Alg algorithm can be used, and not only the described
modulus-based DF Alg (referred to as the Default DF Election, or DF
Alg 0 in this document).
o The candidate list is pruned based upon non-receipt of Ethernet A-D
routes: a PE's IP address MUST be removed from the ES candidate
list if its Ethernet A-D per ES route is withdrawn. A PE's IP
address MUST NOT be considered as candidate DF for a <ES, Ethernet
Tag>, if its Ethernet A-D per EVI route for the <ES, Ethernet Tag>
is withdrawn.
The following example illustrates the AC-DF behavior applied to the
Default DF election algorithm, assuming the network in Figure 2:
a) When PE1 and PE2 discover ES12, they advertise an ES route for
ES12 with the associated ES-import extended community and the DF
Election Extended Community indicating AC-DF=1; they start a DF
Wait timer (independently). Likewise, PE2 and PE3 advertise an ES
route for ES23 with AC-DF=1 and start a DF Wait timer.
b) PE1/PE2 advertise an Ethernet A-D per ES route for ES12, and
PE2/PE3 advertise an Ethernet A-D per ES route for ES23.
c) In addition, PE1/PE2/PE3 advertise an Ethernet A-D per EVI route
for AC1, AC2, AC3 and AC4 as soon as the ACs are enabled. Note
that the AC can be associated to a single customer VID (e.g. VLAN-
based service interfaces) or a bundle of customer VIDs (e.g. VLAN
Bundle service interfaces).
d) When the timer expires, each PE builds an ordered "candidate" list
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
of the IP addresses of all the PE nodes connected to the Ethernet
Segment (including itself) as explained above in [RFC7432] Step 3.
Any PE from which an Ethernet A-D per ES route has not been
received is pruned from the list.
e) When electing the DF for a given BD, a PE will not be considered
candidate until an Ethernet A-D per EVI route has been received
from that PE. In other words, the ACS on the ES for a given PE
must be UP so that the PE is considered as candidate for a given
BD. For example, PE1 will not consider PE2 as candidate for DF
election for <ES12,VLAN-1> until an Ethernet A-D per EVI route is
received from PE2 for <ES12,VLAN-1>.
f) Once the PEs with ACS = DOWN for a given BD have been removed from
the candidate list, the DF Election can be applied for the
remaining N candidates.
Note that this procedure only modifies the existing EVPN control
plane by adding and processing the DF Election Extended Community,
and by pruning the candidate list of PEs that take part in the DF
election.
In addition to the events defined in the FSM in Section 3.1, the
following events SHALL modify the candidate PE list and trigger the
DF re-election in a PE for a given <ES, Ethernet Tag>. In the FSM of
Figure 3, the events below MUST trigger a transition from DF_DONE to
DF_CALC:
i. Local AC going DOWN/UP.
ii. Reception of a new Ethernet A-D per EVI update/withdraw for the
<ES, Ethernet Tag>.
iii. Reception of a new Ethernet A-D per ES update/withdraw for the
ES.
5.1. AC-Influenced DF Election Capability For VLAN-Aware Bundle Services
The procedure described in section 5 works for VLAN-based and VLAN
Bundle service interfaces since, for those service types, a PE
advertises only one Ethernet A-D per EVI route per <ES,VLAN> or
<ES,VLAN Bundle>. In Section 5, an Ethernet Tag represents a given
VLAN or VLAN Bundle for the purpose of DF Election. The withdrawal of
such route means that the PE cannot forward traffic on that
particular <ES,VLAN> or <ES,VLAN Bundle>, therefore the PE can be
removed from consideration for DF.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
According to [RFC7432], in VLAN-aware Bundle services, the PE
advertises multiple Ethernet A-D per EVI routes per <ES,VLAN Bundle>
(one route per Ethernet Tag), while the DF Election is still
performed per <ES,VLAN Bundle>. The withdrawal of an individual route
only indicates the unavailability of a specific AC but not
necessarily all the ACs in the <ES,VLAN Bundle>.
This document modifies the DF Election for VLAN-Aware Bundle services
in the following way:
o After confirming that all the PEs in the ES advertise the AC-DF
capability, a PE will perform a DF Election per <ES,VLAN>, as
opposed to per <ES,VLAN Bundle> in [RFC7432]. Now, the withdrawal
of an Ethernet A-D per EVI route for a VLAN will indicate that the
advertising PE's ACS is DOWN and the rest of the PEs in the ES can
remove the PE from consideration for DF in the <ES,VLAN>.
o The PEs will now follow the procedures in section 5.
For example, assuming three Bridge Tables in PE1 for the same MAC-VRF
(each one associated to a different Ethernet Tag, e.g. VLAN-1, VLAN-2
and VLAN-3), PE1 will advertise three Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for
ES12. Each of the three routes will indicate the status of each of
the three ACs in ES12. PE1 will be considered as a valid candidate PE
for DF Election in <ES12,VLAN-1>, <ES12,VLAN-2>, <ES12,VLAN-3> as
long as its three routes are active. For instance, if PE1 withdraws
the Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for <ES12,VLAN-1>, the PEs in ES12
will not consider PE1 as a suitable DF candidate for <ES12,VLAN-1>.
PE1 will still be considered for <ES12,VLAN-2> and <ES12,VLAN-3>
since its routes are active.
6. Solution Benefits
The solution described in this document provides the following
benefits:
a) Extends the DF Election in [RFC7432] to address the unfair load-
balancing and potential black-holing issues of the Default DF
Election algorithm. The solution is applicable to the DF Election
in EVPN Services [RFC7432] and EVPN Virtual Private Wire Services
[RFC8214].
b) It defines a way to signal the DF Election algorithm and
capabilities intended by the advertising PE. This is done by
defining the DF Election Extended Community, which allow signaling
of the capabilities supported by this document as well as any
other future DF Election algorithms and capabilities.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
c) The solution is backwards compatible with the procedures defined
in [RFC7432]. If one or more PEs in the ES do not support the new
procedures, they will all follow the [RFC7432] DF Election.
7. Security Considerations
This document addresses some identified issues in the DF Election
procedures described in [RFC7432] by defining a new DF Election
framework. In general, this framework allows the PEs that are part of
the same Ethernet Segment to exchange additional information and
agree on the DF Election Type and Capabilities to be used.
Following the procedures in this document, the operator will minimize
undesired situations such as unfair load-balancing, service
disruption and traffic black-holing. Since those situations may have
been purposely created by a malicious user with access to the
configuration of one PE, this document enhances also the security of
the network. Note that the network will not benefit of the new
procedures if the DF Election Alg is not consistently configured on
all the PEs in the ES (if there is no unanimity among all the PEs,
the DF Election Alg falls back to the Default [RFC7432] DF Election).
This behavior could be exploited by an attacker that manages to
modify the configuration of one PE in the Ethernet Segment so that
the DF Election Alg and capabilities in all the PEs in the Ethernet
Segment fall back to the Default DF Election. If that is the case,
the PEs will be exposed to the unfair load-balancing, service
disruption and black-holing that were mentioned earlier.
In addition, the new framework is extensible and allows for future
new security enhancements that are out of the scope of this document.
Finally, since this document extends the procedures in [RFC7432], the
same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] are valid for
this document.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to:
o Allocate Sub-Type value 0x06 in the "EVPN Extended Community Sub-
Types" registry defined in [RFC7153] as follows:
SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference
-------------- ------------------------- -------------
0x06 DF Election Extended Community This document
o Set up a registry called "DF Alg" for the DF Alg field in the
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
Extended Community. New registrations will be made through the "RFC
Required" procedure defined in [RFC8126]. Value 31 is for
Experimental use and does not require any other RFC than this
document. The following initial values in that registry are
requested:
Alg Name Reference
---- -------------- -------------
0 Default DF Election This document
1 HRW algorithm This document
2-30 Unassigned
31 Reserved for Experimental use This document
o Set up a registry called "DF Election Capabilities" for the two-
octet Bitmap field in the Extended Community. New registrations
will be made through the "RFC Required" procedure defined in
[RFC8126]. The following initial value in that registry is
requested:
Bit Name Reference
---- -------------- -------------
0 Unassigned
1 AC-DF capability This document
2-15 Unassigned
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN", RFC
8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8214>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC7153] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP
Extended Communities", RFC 7153, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
9.2. Informative References
[VPLS-MH] Kothari, Henderickx et al., "BGP based Multi-homing in
Virtual Private LAN Service", draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-
02.txt, work in progress, September, 2018.
[CHASH] Karger, D., Lehman, E., Leighton, T., Panigrahy, R., Levine,
M., and D. Lewin, "Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed
Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web", ACM
Symposium on Theory of Computing ACM Press New York, May 1997.
[CLRS2009] Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., and C. Stein,
"Introduction to Algorithms (3rd ed.)", MIT Press and McGraw-Hill
ISBN 0-262-03384-4., February 2009.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, DOI 10.17487/RFC2991,
November 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.
[RFC2992] Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path
Algorithm", RFC 2992, DOI 10.17487/RFC2992, November 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2992>.
[HRW1999] Thaler, D. and C. Ravishankar, "Using Name-Based Mappings
to Increase Hit Rates", IEEE/ACM Transactions in networking Volume 6
Issue 1, February 1998, <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/HRW98.pdf>.
[Knuth] Art of Computer Programming - Sorting and Searching,Vol 3
Pg. 516, Addison Wesley
10. Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Sriram Venkateswaran, Laxmi Padakanti,
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
Ranganathan Boovaraghavan, Tamas Mondal, Sami Boutros, Jakob Heitz,
Mrinmoy Ghosh, Leo Mermelstein, Mankamana Mishra, Anoop Ghanwani and
Samir Thoria for their review and contributions. Special thanks to
Stephane Litkowski for his thorough review and detailed
contributions.
11. Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
coauthors have also contributed to this document:
Antoni Przygienda
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 95134
USA
Email: prz@juniper.net
Vinod Prabhu
Nokia
Email: vinod.prabhu@nokia.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: wlin@juniper.net
Patrice Brissette
Cisco Systems
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Autumn Liu
Ciena
Email: hliu@ciena.com
Authors' Addresses
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DF Election Framework for EVPN January 24, 2019
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Satya Mohanty
Cisco Systems, Inc.
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: satyamoh@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 95134
USA
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Kiran Nagaraj
Nokia
701 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: kiran.nagaraj@nokia.com
Senthil Sathappan
Nokia
701 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com
Rabadan, Mohanty et al. Expires July 28, 2019 [Page 29]
