Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet-Draft K. Nagaraj
Updates: 8365, 7432 (if approved) Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track W. Lin
Expires: 6 June 2024 Juniper
A. Sajassi
Cisco
4 December 2023
EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-08
Abstract
Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used along with
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels, as well as MPLS and
Segment Routing tunnels. The EVPN multi-homing procedures may be
different depending on the tunnel type used in the EVPN Broadcast
Domain. In particular, there are two multi-homing Split Horizon
procedures to avoid looped frames on the multi-homed CE: ESI Label
based and Local Bias. ESI Label based Split Horizon is used for
MPLSoX tunnels, E.g., MPLSoUDP, whereas Local Bias is used for other
tunnels, E.g., VXLAN tunnels. The existing specifications do not
allow the operator to decide which Split Horizon procedure to use for
tunnel encapsulations that could support both. Examples of tunnels
that may support both procedures are MPLSoGRE, MPLSoUDP, GENEVE or
SRv6. This document updates the EVPN Multihoming procedures in
RFC8365 and RFC7432 so that an operator can decide the Split Horizon
procedure for a given tunnel depending on their own requirements.
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 6 June 2024.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Split Horizon Filtering and Tunnel Encapsulations . . . . 3
1.2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. BGP EVPN Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. The Split Horizon Type (SHT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Use of the Split Horizon Type In A-D Per ES Routes . . . 10
2.3. ESI Label Value In A-D Per ES Routes . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Backwards Compatibility With RFC8365 NVEs . . . . . . . . 11
3. Procedures for NVEs Supporting Multiple Encapsulations . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used with the
following tunnel encapsulations:
* Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels as specified in
[RFC8365]
* MPLS and Segment Routing with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS), as
specified in [RFC7432]
* Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6), as specified in
[RFC9252].
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
The EVPN multihoming procedures may be different depending on the
tunnel type used in the EVPN Broadcast Domain. In particular, there
are two multihoming Split Horizon procedures to avoid looped frames
on the multihomed CE: ESI Label based and Local Bias. ESI Label
based Split Horizon is used for MPLS or MPLSoX tunnels, E.g.,
MPLSoUDP [RFC7510], and its procedures described in [RFC7432]. Local
Bias is used by IP tunnels, E.g., VXLAN tunnels, and it is described
in [RFC8365].
1.1. Split Horizon Filtering and Tunnel Encapsulations
EVPN supports two Split Horizon Filtering mechanisms:
* ESI Label based Split Horizon filtering [RFC7432]
When EVPN is used for MPLS transport tunnels, an MPLS label
enables the Split Horizon filtering capability to support All-
Active multihoming. The ingress Network Virtualization Edge (NVE)
device adds a label corresponding to the source ES (an ESI label)
when encapsulating the packet. The egress NVE checks the ESI
label when attempting to forward a multi-destination frame out of
a local ES interface, and if the label corresponds to the same
site identifier (ESI) associated with that ES interface, the
packet is not forwarded. This prevents the occurrence of
forwarding loops for BUM traffic.
The ESI Label Split Horizon filtering SHOULD also be used with
Single-Active multihoming to avoid transient loops for in-flight
packets when the egress NVE takes over as Designated Forwarder for
an ES.
* Local Bias [RFC8365]
Since IP tunnels (such as VXLAN or NVGRE) do not support the ESI
label (or any MPLS label at all), a different Split Horizon
filtering procedure must be used for All-Active multihoming. This
mechanism is called Local Bias and relies on the tunnel source IP
address to decide whether to forward BUM traffic to a local ES
interface at the egress NVE.
In a nutshell, every NVE tracks the IP address(es) associated with
the other NVE(s) with which it has shared multihomed ESs. When
the egress NVE receives a BUM frame encapsulated in a IP tunnel,
it examines the source IP address in the tunnel header (which
identifies the ingress NVE) and filters out the frame on all local
interfaces connected to ESes that are shared with the ingress NVE.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
Due to this behavior at the egress NVE, the ingress NVE's behavior
is also changed to perform replication locally to all directly
attached ESes (regardless of the Designated Forwarder election
state) for all BUM ingress from the access ACs. Because of this
"local" replication at the ingress NVE, this approach is referred
to as Local Bias.
Local Bias cannot be used for Single-Active multihoming, since the
ingress NVE brings operationally down the Attachment Circuits
(ACs) for which it is non-Designated Forwarder (hence local
replication to non-Designated Forwarder ACs cannot be done). This
means transient in-flight BUM packets may be looped back to the
originating site by new elected Designated Forwarder egress NVEs.
[RFC8365] states that Local Bias is used only for IP tunnels, and ESI
Label based Split Horizon for IP-based MPLS tunnels. However, IP-
based MPLS tunnels, such as MPLSoGRE or MPLSoUDP, are also IP tunnels
and can potentially support both procedures, since they can carry ESI
Labels and they also use a tunnel IP header where the source IP
address identifies the ingress NVE.
Similarly, some IP tunnels that carry an identifier of the source ES
in the tunnel header, may potentially follow either procedure too.
Some examples are GENEVE or SRv6:
* In a GENEVE tunnel, the source IP address identifies the ingress
NVE therefore local bias is possible. Also,
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-geneve] defines an Ethernet option TLV (Type
Length Value) to encode an ESI label value.
* In an SRv6 tunnel, the source IP address also identifies the
ingress NVE, however, by default, and as described in [RFC9252]
the ingress PE will add information in the SRv6 packet so that the
egress PE can identify the source ES of the BUM packet. That
information is the ESI filtering argument (Arg.FE2) of the service
Segment Identifier (SID) received on an A-D per ES route from the
egress PE.
Table 1 shows different tunnel encapsulations and their supported and
default Split Horizon method. In the case of GENEVE, the default
Split Horizon Type (SHT) depends on whether the Ethernet Option with
Source ID TLV is negotiated. In the case of SRv6, the default SHT is
listed as ESI label filtering in the Table, since the behavior is
equivalent to that of ESI Label filtering. In this document, ESI
Label filtering refers to the Split Horizon filtering based on the
existence of a source ES identifier in the tunnel header.
This document classifies the tunnel encapsulations used by EVPN into:
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
1. IP-based MPLS tunnels
2. (SR-)MPLS tunnels
3. IP tunnels
4. SRv6 tunnels
Any other tunnel encapsulation (different from the encapsulations in
Table 1) that can be classified into any of the four encapsulation
groups above, supports Split Horizon based on the following rules:
* IP-based MPLS tunnels and SRv6 tunnels can support both Split
Horizon filtering methods
* (SR-)MPLS tunnels only support ESI Label based Split Horizon
filtering
* IP tunnels support Local Bias Split Horizon and may support ESI
Label based Split Horizon, if they include a method to identify
the source ESI in the header.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
+===============+========================+============+===========+
| Tunnel | Default Split Horizon | Supports | Supports |
| Encapsulation | Type (SHT) | Local Bias | ESI Label |
+===============+========================+============+===========+
| MPLSoGRE (IP- | ESI Label filtering | Yes | Yes |
| based MPLS) | | | |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| MPLSoUDP (IP- | ESI Label filtering | Yes | Yes |
| based MPLS) | | | |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| (SR-)MPLS | ESI Label filtering | No | Yes |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| VXLAN (IP | Local Bias | Yes | No |
| tunnels) | | | |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| NVGRE (IP | Local Bias | Yes | No |
| tunnels) | | | |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| VXLAN-GPE (IP | Local Bias | Yes | No |
| tunnels) | | | |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| GENEVE (IP | Local Bias (no ESI Lb) | Yes | Yes |
| tunnels) | ESI Label (if ESI lb) | | |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
| SRv6 | ESI Label filtering | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------------------------+------------+-----------+
Table 1: Tunnel Encapsulations and Split Horizon Types
The ESI Label method works for All-Active and Single-Active, while
Local Bias only works for All-Active. In addition, the ESI Label
method works across different network domains, whereas Local Bias is
limited to networks with no next hop change between the NVEs attached
to the same ES. However, some operators prefer the Local Bias
method, since it simplifies the encapsulation, consumes less
resources on the NVEs and the ingress NVE always forwards locally to
other interfaces, reducing the delay to reach multihomed hosts.
This document extends the EVPN multihoming procedures so that an
operator can decide the Split Horizon procedure for a given NVO
tunnel depending on their own specific requirements. The choice of
Local Bias or ESI Label Split Horizon is now allowed for tunnel
encapsulations that support both methods, and it is advertised along
with the EVPN A-D per ES route. IP tunnels that do not support both
methods, E.g., VXLAN or NVGRE, will keep following [RFC8365]
procedures.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
1.2. 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.
* AC: Attachment Circuit.
* A-D per ES route: refers to the EVPN Ethernet Auto-Discovery per
ES route defined in [RFC7432].
* Arg.FE2: refers to the ESI filtering argument used for Split
Horizon as specified in [RFC9252].
* Broadcast Domain (BD): an emulated ethernet, such that two systems
on the same BD will receive each other's link-local broadcasts.
In this document, BD also refers to the instantiation of a
Broadcast Domain on an EVPN PE. An EVPN PE can be attached to one
or multiple BDs of the same tenant.
* BUM: Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast traffic.
* ES and ESI: Ethernet Segment and Ethernet Segment Identifier.
* Designated Forwarder (DF): as defined in [RFC7432], an ES may be
multihomed (attached to more than one PE). An ES may also contain
multiple BDs, of one or more EVIs. For each such EVI, one of the
PEs attached to the segment becomes that EVI's DF for that
segment. Since a BD may belong to only one EVI, we can speak
unambiguously of the BD's DF for a given segment.
* EVI and EVI-RT: EVPN Instance and EVI Route Target. A group of
NVEs attached to the same EVI will share the same EVI-RT.
* GENEVE: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation, [RFC8926].
* MPLS and non-MPLS NVO tunnels: refer to Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (or the absence of it) Network Virtualization Overlay
tunnels. Network Virtualization Overlay tunnels use an IP
encapsulation for overlay frames, where the source IP address
identifies the ingress NVE and the destination IP address the
egress NVE.
* MPLSoUDP: Multi-Protocol Label Switching over User Datagram
Protocol, [RFC7510]
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
* MPLSoGRE: Multi-Protocol Label Switching over Generic Network
Encapsulation, [RFC4023].
* MPLSoX: refers to MPLS over any IP encapsulation. Examples are
MPLSoUDP or MPLSoGRE.
* NVE: Network Virtualization Edge device.
* NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation,
[RFC7637].
* VXLAN: Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network, [RFC7348].
* VXLAN-GPE: VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension,
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe].
* VNI: Virtual Network Identifier. A 24-bit identifier used by
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) over IP encapsulations.
Examples are VXLAN (Virtual Extended Local Area Network) or GENEVE
(Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation).
* SHT: Split Horizon Type, it refers to the Split Horizon method
that a PE intends to use and advertises in an A-D per ES route.
* SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with an MPLS data plane, [RFC8660].
* SRv6: Segment routing with an IPv6 data plane, [RFC8986].
This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
[RFC7432] and [RFC8365].
2. BGP EVPN Extensions
EVPN extensions are needed so that NVEs can advertise their
preference for the Split Horizon method to be used in the ES.
Figure 1 shows the ESI Label extended community that is always
advertised along with the EVPN A-D per ES route. All the NVEs
attached to an ES advertise an A-D per ES route for the ES, including
this extended community that conveys the information for the
multihoming mode (All-active or Single-Active), as well as the ESI
Label to be used (if needed).
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
Figure 1: ESI Label extended community
[RFC7432] defines the low-order bit of the Flags octet (bit 0) as the
"Single-Active" bit:
* A value of 0 means that the multihomed ES is operating in All-
Active mode.
* A value of 1 means that the multihomed ES is operating in Single-
Active mode.
Section 5 creates a registry for the Flags octet, where the "Single-
Active" bit is the low-order bit of the RED (multihoming redundancy
mode) field.
2.1. The Split Horizon Type (SHT)
[RFC8365] does not add any explicit indication about the Split
Horizon method in the A-D per ES route. In this document, the
[RFC8365] Split Horizon procedure is the default behavior and assumes
that Local Bias is used only for IP tunnels, and ESI Label based
Split Horizon for IP-based MPLS tunnels. This document defines the
two high-order bits in the Flags octet (bits 6 and 7) as the "Split
Horizon Type" (SHT) field, where:
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|SHT| |RED|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RED = "Multihoming redundancy mode" field
SHT bit 7 6
-----------
0 0 --> Default SHT. Backwards compatible with [RFC8365]
0 1 --> Local Bias
1 0 --> ESI Label based filtering
1 1 --> reserved for future use
* SHT = 00 is backwards compatible with [RFC8365] and indicates that
the advertising NVE intends to use the default or native SHT. The
default SHT is shown in Table 1 for each encapsulation. An egress
NVE that follows the [RFC8365] behavior and does not support this
specification will ignore the SHT bits (which is equivalent to
process them as value of 00).
* SHT = 01 indicates that the advertising NVE intends to use Local
Bias procedures in the ES for which the AD per-ES route is
advertised.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
* SHT = 10 indicates that the advertising NVE intends to use the ESI
Label based Split Horizon method procedures in the ES for which
the AD per-ES route is advertised.
* SHT = 11 is a reserved value, for future use.
2.2. Use of the Split Horizon Type In A-D Per ES Routes
The following behavior is observed:
* An SHT value of 01 or 10 MUST NOT be used with encapsulations that
support only one SHT in Table 1, and MAY be used by encapsulations
that support the two SHTs in Table 1.
* An SHT value different than 00 expresses the intent to use a
specific Split Horizon method, but does not reflect the actual
operational SHT used by the advertising NVE, unless all the NVEs
attached to the ES advertise the same SHT.
* In case of inconsistency in the SHT value advertised by the NVEs
attached to the same ES for a given EVI, all the NVEs MUST revert
to the [RFC8365] behavior, and use the default SHT in Table 1,
irrespective of the advertised SHT.
* An SHT different from 00 MUST NOT be set if the Single-Active bit
is set. A received A-D per ES route where Single-Active and SHT
bits are different from zero MUST be treat-as-withdraw [RFC7606].
* The SHT MUST have the same value in each Ethernet A-D per ES route
that an NVE advertises for a given ES and a given encapsulation
(see Section 3 for NVEs supporting multiple encapsulations).
As an example, egress NVEs that support IP-based MPLS tunnels, E.g.,
MPLSoGRE or MPLSoUDP, will advertise A-D per ES route(s) for the ES
along with the BGP Encapsulation extended community [RFC9012]
indicating the encapsulation (MPLSoGRE or MPLSoUDP) and MAY use the
SHT = 01 or 10 to indicate the intent to use Local Bias or ESI Label,
respectively.
An egress NVE MUST NOT use an SHT value different from 00 when
advertising an A-D per ES route with encapsulation VXLAN, NVGRE, MPLS
or no BGP tunnel encapsulation extended community [RFC9012]. We
assume that, in all these cases, there is no Split Horizon method
choice, and therefore the SHT value MUST be 00. A received route
with one of the above encapsulation options and SHT value different
from 00 SHOULD be treat-as-withdraw.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
An egress NVE advertising A-D per ES route(s) for an ES with
encapsulation GENEVE MAY use an SHT value of 01 or 10. A value of 01
indicates the intent to use Local Bias, irrespective of the presence
of an Ethernet option TLV with a non-zero Source-ID
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-geneve]. A value of 10 indicates the intent to
use ESI Label based Split Horizon. A value of 00 indicates the
default behavior in Table 1, that is, use Local Bias if no ESI-Label
exists in the Ethernet option TLV or no Ethernet option TLV
whatsoever. Otherwise the ESI Label Split Horizon method is used.
The above procedures assume a single encapsulation supported in the
egress NVE. Section 3 describes additional procedures for NVEs
supporting multiple encapsulations.
2.3. ESI Label Value In A-D Per ES Routes
This document also updates [RFC8365] in the value that is advertised
in the ESI Label field of the ESI Label extended community, as
follows:
* The A-D per ES route(s) for an ES MAY have an ESI Label value of
zero if the SHT value is 01. Section 2.2 specifies the cases
where the SHT can be 01. An ESI Label value of zero avoids the
allocation of Labels in the cases where they are not used (Local
Bias).
* The A-D per ES route(s) for an ES MAY have an ESI Label value of
zero for VXLAN or NVGRE encapsulations.
2.4. Backwards Compatibility With RFC8365 NVEs
As discussed in Section 2.2 this specification is backwards
compatible with the Split Horizon filtering behavior in [RFC8365] and
a non-upgraded NVE can be attached to the same ES as other NVEs
supporting this specification.
An NVE has an administrative SHT value for an ES (the one that is
advertised along with the A-D per ES route) and an operational SHT
value (the one that is actually used irrespective of what the NVE
advertised). The administrative SHT matches the operational SHT if
all the NVEs attached to the ES have the same administrative SHT.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
This document assumes that an [RFC7432] or [RFC8365] implementation
that does not support this document, ignores the value of all the
Flags in the ESI Label extended community except for the Single-
Active bit. Based on this assumption, a non-upgraded NVE will ignore
an SHT different from 00. As soon as an upgraded NVE receives at
least one A-D per ES route for the ES with SHT value of 00, it MUST
revert its operational SHT to the default Split Horizon method, as in
Table 1, and irrespective of its administrative SHT.
As an example, consider an NVE attached to ES N that receives two A-D
per ES routes for N from different NVEs, NVE1 and NVE2. If the route
from NVE1 has SHT = 00 and the one from NVE2 an SHT = 01, the NVE
MUST use the default Split Horizon method in Table 1 as operational
SHT, irrespective of its administrative SHT.
All the NVEs attached to an ES with operational SHT value of 10 MUST
advertise a valid non-zero ESI Label. If the operational SHT value
is 01, the ESI Label MAY be zero. If the operational SHT value is
00, the ESI Label MAY be zero only if the default encapsulation
supports Local Bias only and the NVEs do not check the presence of a
valid non-zero ESI Label.
If an NVE changes its operational SHT value from 01 (Local Bias) to
00 (Default SHT) as a result of a new non-upgraded NVE present in the
ES, and it previously advertised a zero ESI Label, it MUST send an
update with a non-zero valid ESI Label, unless all the non-upgraded
NVEs in the ES support Local Bias only. As an example, suppose NVE1
and NVE2 use MPLSoUDP as encapsulation, they are attached to the same
Ethernet Segment ES1 and advertise an SHT value of 01 (Local Bias)
and a zero ESI label value. Suppose NVE3 does not support this
specification and joins ES1, therefore advertises an SHT of 00
(default). Upon receiving NVE3's A-D per ES route, NVE1 and NVE2
MUST send an update of their A-D per ES route for ES1 with a non-zero
valid ESI label value. The assumption is that NVE3 supports only the
default ESI label based Split Horizon filtering.
3. Procedures for NVEs Supporting Multiple Encapsulations
As specified by [RFC8365], an egress NVE that supports multiple data
plane encapsulations (I.e., VXLAN, NVGRE, MPLS, MPLSoUDP, GENEVE)
needs to indicate all the supported encapsulations using BGP
Encapsulation extended communities defined in [RFC9012] with all EVPN
routes. This section clarifies the multihoming Split Horizon
behavior for NVEs advertising and receiving multiple BGP
Encapsulation extended communities along with the A-D per ES routes.
This section uses a notation of {x,y} to indicate the encapsulations
advertised in BGP Encapsulation extended communities [RFC9012], with
x and y being different encapsulation values.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
It is important to remember that an NVE MAY advertise multiple A-D
per ES routes for the same ES (and not only one), each route
conveying a number of Route Targets (RT). We refer to the total
number of Route Targets in a given ES as RT-set for that ES. Any of
the EVIs represented in the RT-set will have its RT included in one
(and only one) A-D per ES route for the ES. When multiple A-D per ES
routes are advertised for the same ES, each route MUST have a
different Route Distinguisher.
As per [RFC8365], an NVE that advertises multiple encapsulations in
the A-D per ES route(s) for an ES MUST advertise encapsulations that
use the same Split Horizon filtering method in the same route. For
example:
* An A-D per ES route for ES-x may be advertised with {VXLAN, NVGRE}
encapsulations.
* An A-D per ES route for ES-y may be advertised with {MPLS,
MPLSoUDP, MPLSoGRE} encapsulations (or a subset).
* But an A-D per ES route for ES-z MUST NOT be advertised with
{MPLS, VXLAN} encapsulations.
This document extends this behavior as follows:
a. An A-D per ES route for ES-x may be advertised with multiple
encapsulations where some support a single Split Horizon method.
In this case, the SHT value MUST be 00. As an example, {VXLAN,
NVGRE}, {VXLAN, GENEVE} or {MPLS, MPLSoGRE, MPLSoUDP} can be
advertised in an A-D per ES route. In all those cases SHT MUST
be 00.
b. An A-D per ES route for ES-y may be advertised with multiple
encapsulations where all of them support both Split Horizon
methods. In this case the SHT value MAY be 01 if the desired
method is Local Bias, or 10 if ESI Label based. For example,
{MPLSoGRE, MPLSoUDP, GENEVE} (or a subset) may be advertised in
an A-D per ES route with SHT value of 01. The ESI Label value in
this case MAY be zero.
c. If ES-z with RT-set composed of (RT1, RT2, RT3.. RTn) supports
multiple encapsulations that require a different Split Horizon
method, a different A-D per ES route (or group of routes) per
Split Horizon method MUST be advertised. For example, consider n
RTs in ES-z and:
* the EVIs corresponding to (RT1..RTi) support VXLAN,
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
* the ones for (RTi+1..RTm) (with i<m) support MPLSoUDP with
Local Bias,
* and the ones for (RTm+1..RTn) (with m<n) support GENEVE with
ESI Label based Split Horizon.
In this case, three groups of A-D per ES routes MUST be
advertised for ES-z:
* A-D per ES route group 1, including (RT1..RTi), with
encapsulation {VXLAN}, SHT = 00. The ESI Label MAY be zero.
* A-D per ES route group 2, including (RTi+1..RTm), with
encapsulation {MPLSoUDP}, SHT = 01. The ESI Label MAY be
zero.
* A-D per ES route group 3, including (RTm+1..RTn), with
encapsulation {GENEVE}, SHT = 10. The ESI Label MUST have a
valid value, different from zero, and the Ethernet option
[RFC8926] MUST be advertised.
As per [RFC8365], it is the responsibility of the operator of a given
EVI to ensure that all of the NVEs in that EVI support a common
encapsulation. If this condition is violated, it could result in
service disruption or failure.
4. Security Considerations
The same security considerations described in [RFC7432] relevant to
multihoming apply to this document.
In addition, this document modifies the [RFC8365] procedures for
Split Horizon filtering, providing the operator with a choice between
Local Bias and ESI Label based filtering for the tunnels that support
both methods. A misconfiguration of the desired SHT to be used may
result in a forwarding behavior that is different from the intended
one. Other than that, this document describes procedures so that all
the PEs or NVEs attached to the same ES agree on a common SHT method,
therefore an attacker changing the configuration of the SHT should
not cause traffic disruption, only a change in the forwarding
behavior.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
5. IANA Considerations
This document creates a registry called "EVPN ESI Label Extended
Community Flags" for the 1-octet Flags field in the ESI Label
Extended Community. New registrations will be made through the "RFC
Required" procedure defined in [RFC8126]. Initial registrations are
made for the "Multihoming redundancy mode" field in bits 0 and 1, as
follows:
+=====+=============================+
| RED | Multihoming redundancy mode |
+=====+=============================+
| 00 | All-Active mode |
+-----+-----------------------------+
| 01 | Single-Active mode |
+-----+-----------------------------+
Table 2
In addition, this document requests the registration of the "Split
Horizon Type" field in bits 6 and 7 of the Flags Octet of the EVPN
ESI Label extended community. This field is called "Split Horizon
Type" bits and it is defined as follows:
+=====+===========================+
| SHT | Split Horizon Type value |
+=====+===========================+
| 00 | Default SHT |
+-----+---------------------------+
| 01 | Local Bias |
+-----+---------------------------+
| 10 | ESI Label based filtering |
+-----+---------------------------+
| 11 | Reserved |
+-----+---------------------------+
Table 3
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Anoop Ghanwani, Gyan Mishra and
Jeffrey Zhang for their review and useful comments.
7. Contributors
8. References
8.1. Normative References
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-geneve]
Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., and S.
Aldrin, "EVPN control plane for Geneve", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-06, 26 May
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-geneve-06>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
"Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.
[RFC7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[RFC8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
"Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13, 4 November
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13>.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions December 2023
Authors' Addresses
Jorge Rabadan (editor)
Nokia
520 Almanor Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
United States of America
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Kiran Nagaraj
Nokia
520 Almanor Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
United States of America
Email: kiran.nagaraj@nokia.com
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks
Email: wlin@juniper.net
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Rabadan, et al. Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 18]
