Internet DRAFT - draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon
draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet-Draft K. Nagaraj
Intended status: Standards Track Nokia
Expires: March 13, 2021 W. Lin
Juniper
A. Sajassi
Cisco
September 9, 2020
EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering
draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03
Abstract
Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used along with
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels. The EVPN multi-homing
procedures may be different depending on the NVO 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 others, E.g., VXLAN tunnels. The current 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 extends the EVPN Multi-Homing procedures so that
an operator can decide the Split Horizon procedure for a given NVO
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 March 13, 2021.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. BGP EVPN Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. The Split Horizon Type (SHT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Use of the Split Horizon Type In A-D Per ES Routes . . . 8
2.3. ESI Label Value In A-D Per ES Routes . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Backwards Compatibility With [RFC8365] NVEs . . . . . . . 10
3. Procedures for NVEs Supporting Multiple Encapsulations . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used along with
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels and specified in
[RFC8365]. The EVPN multi-homing procedures may be different
depending on the NVO 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 [RFC7510], and its procedures described in [RFC7432].
Local Bias is used by non-MPLS NVO tunnels, E.g., VXLAN tunnels, and
it is described in [RFC8365].
As a refresher:
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
o 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 multi-homing. The ingress NVE adds a label corresponding
to the source Ethernet Segment (aka 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 multi-homing to avoid transient loops for in-flight
packets when the egress NVE takes over as DF for an Ethernet
Segment.
o Local Bias for non-MPLS NVO tunnels [RFC8365]
Since non-MPLS NVO 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 multi-
homing. This mechanism is called Local Bias and relies on the NVO
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 multi-homed ESs. When
the egress NVE receives a BUM frame encapsulated in a non-MPLS NVO
packet, 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.
Due to this behavior at the egress NVE, the ingress NVE's behavior
is also changed to perform replication locally to all directly
attached Ethernet Segments (regardless of the DF 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 multi-homing, since
the ingress NVE brings operationally down the ACs for which it is
non-DF (hence local replication to non-DF ACs cannot be done).
This means transient in-flight BUM packets may be looped back to
the originating site by new elected DF egress NVEs.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
[RFC8365] states that Local Bias is used only for non-MPLS NVO
tunnels, and ESI Label based Split Horizon for MPLS NVO tunnels.
However, MPLS NVO tunnels, such as MPLSoGRE or MPLSoUDP, 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 non-MPLS NVO 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:
o 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.
o In an SRv6 tunnel, the source IP address also identifies the
ingress NVE, however, by default and as described in
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] 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 of the service 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.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| Tunnel | Default Split Horizon | Supports | Supports |
| Encapsulation | Type (SHT) | Local Bias | ESI Label |
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| VXLAN | Local Bias | Yes | No |
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| NVGRE | Local Bias | Yes | No |
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| MPLS | ESI Label filtering | No | Yes |
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| MPLSoGRE | ESI Label filtering | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| MPLSoUDP | ESI Label filtering | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------------------------+-------------+------------+
| GENEVE | Local Bias (no ESI Lb) | Yes | Yes |
| | 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 Ethernet Segment. 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 multi-homed
hosts.
This document extends the EVPN Multi-Homing 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 NVO tunnels
that support both methods. Non-MPLS NVO tunnels that do not support
both methods, E.g., VXLAN or NVGRE, will keeo following [RFC8365]
procedures.
1.1. 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.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
o BUM: Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast traffic.
o ES and ESI: Ethernet Segment and Ethernet Segment Identifier.
o A-D per ES route: refers to the EVPN Ethernet Auto-Discovery per
Ethernet Segment route defined in [RFC7432].
o AC: Attachment Circuit.
o NVE: Network Virtualization Edge device.
o 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.
o 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.
o MPLSoUDP: Multi-Protocol Label Switching over User Datagram
Protocol, [RFC7510]
o MPLSoGRE: Multi-Protocol Label Switching over Generic Network
Encapsulation, [RFC4023].
o MPLSoX: refers to MPLS over any IP encapsulation. Examples are
MPLSoUDP or MPLSoGRE.
o GENEVE: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation,
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve].
o VXLAN: Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network, [RFC7348].
o NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation,
[RFC7637].
o 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).
o 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.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
o Designated Forwarder (DF): as defined in [RFC7432], an ethernet
segment may be multi-homed (attached to more than one PE). An
ethernet segment 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.
o 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.
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 Ethernet
Segment. 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 Ethernet Segment advertise an A-D per ES route for the
ES, including this extended community that conveys the information
for the multi-homing 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ESI Label extended community
[RFC7432] defines the low-order bit of the Flags octet (bit 0) as the
"Single-Active" bit:
o A value of 0 means that the multi-homed Ethernet Segment is
operating in All-Active mode.
o A value of 1 means that the multi-homed Ethernet Segment is
operating in Single-Active mode.
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
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
that Local Bias is used only for non-MPLS NVO tunnels, and ESI Label
based Split Horizon for MPLS NVO 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:
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
o 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 NVO 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).
o SHT = 01 indicates that the advertising NVE intends to use Local
Bias procedures in the Ethernet Segment for which the AD per-ES
route is advertised.
o SHT = 10 indicates that the advertising NVE intends to use the ESI
Label based Split Horizon method procedures in the Ethernet
Segment for which the AD per-ES route is advertised.
2.2. Use of the Split Horizon Type In A-D Per ES Routes
The following must be observed:
o 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.
o An SHT value different than 00 expresses the intend 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.
o 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.
o 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].
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
o 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 MPLS NVO tunnels, E.g.,
MPLSoGRE or MPLSoUDP, will advertise A-D per ES route(s) for the ES
along with the [RFC5512] BGP Encapsulation extended community
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]indicating the encapsulation (MPLSoGRE or
MPLSoUDP) and MAY use the SHT = 01 or 10 to indicate the intend 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 [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] BGP tunnel encapsulation extended
community. 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.
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 intend 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 intend 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:
o 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).
o The A-D per ES route(s) for an ES MAY have an ESI Label value of
zero for VXLAN or NVGRE encapsulations.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
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.
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 Ethernet Segment 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 to 00 (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.
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
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] with all EVPN routes. This section
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
clarifies the multi-homing 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
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] BGP Encapsulation extended communities,
with x and y being different encapsulation values.
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:
o An A-D per ES route for ES-x may be advertised with {VXLAN, NVGRE}
encapsulations.
o An A-D per ES route for ES-y may be advertised with {MPLS,
MPLSoUDP, MPLSoGRE} encapsulations (or a subset).
o 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.
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
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:
o the EVIs corresponding to (RT1..RTi) support VXLAN,
o the ones for (RTi+1..RTm) (with i<m) support MPLSoUDP with
Local Bias,
o 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:
o A-D per ES route group 1, including (RT1..RTi), with
encapsulation {VXLAN}, SHT = 00. The ESI Label MAY be zero.
o A-D per ES route group 2, including (RTi+1..RTm), with
encapsulation {MPLSoUDP}, SHT = 01. The ESI Label MAY be
zero.
o 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
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] 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
Multi-Homing 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
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
not cause traffic disruption, only a change in the forwarding
behavior.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the SHT bits (6 and 7) in the Flags
Octet of the EVPN ESI Label extended community. This field is called
"Split Horizon Type" bits.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-geneve]
Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., and S.
Aldrin, "EVPN control plane for Geneve", draft-ietf-bess-
evpn-geneve-01 (work in progress), June 2020.
[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 March 13, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
[RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5512>.
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-
nvo3-geneve-16 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Patel, K., Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder, "The BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-
encaps-17 (work in progress), July 2020.
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., Zhuang,
S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based Overlay services",
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04 (work in progress), July
2020.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Rabadan, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH Split Horizon Extensions September 2020
Appendix B. Contributors
Authors' Addresses
Jorge Rabadan (editor)
Nokia
777 Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Kiran Nagaraj
Nokia
701 Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
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 March 13, 2021 [Page 15]
