Internet DRAFT - draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-optimized-ir
draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-optimized-ir
L2VPN Workgroup J. Rabadan
Internet Draft S. Sathappan
Intended status: Standards Track W. Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
R. Shekhar
N. Sheth M. Katiyar
W. Lin Nuage Networks
Juniper
Expires: January 5, 2015 July 4, 2014
Optimized Ingress Replication solution for EVPN
draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-optimized-ir-00
Abstract
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks using EVPN as control
plane may use ingress replication (IR) or PIM-based trees to convey
the overlay multicast traffic. PIM provides an efficient solution to
avoid sending multiple copies of the same packet over the same
physical link, however it may not always be deployed in the NVO core
network. IR avoids the dependency on PIM in the NVO network core.
While IR provides a simple multicast transport, some NVO networks
with demanding multicast applications require a more efficient
solution without PIM in the core. This document describes a solution
to optimize the efficiency of IR in NVO networks.
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
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
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 January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Solution requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. EVPN BGP Attributes for optimized-IR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Assisted-Replication (AR) Solution Description . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. AR roles and control plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. AR-REPLICATOR procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. AR-LEAF procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. RNVE procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Multi-destination traffic forwarding behavior in AR EVIs . 10
4.2.1. Broadcast and Multicast forwarding behavior . . . . . . 10
4.2.1.1. REPLICATOR BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1.2. LEAF BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1.3. RNVE BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. Unknown unicast forwarding behavior . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2.1. REPLICATOR/LEAF Unknown unicast forwarding . . . . 12
4.4.2.2. RNVE Unknown unicast forwarding . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. An example use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Benefits of the optimized-IR solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Problem Statement
EVPN may be used as the control plane for a Network Virtualization
Overlay (NVO) network. Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) devices and
PEs that are part of the same EVI use Ingress Replication (IR) or
PIM-based trees to transport the tenant's multicast traffic. In NVO
networks where PIM-based trees cannot be used, IR is the only
alternative. Examples of these situations are NVO networks where the
core nodes don't support PIM or the network operator does not want to
run PIM in the core.
In some use-cases, the amount of replication for BUM (Broadcast,
Unknown unicast and Multicast traffic) is kept under control on the
NVEs due to the following fairly common assumptions:
a) Broadcast is greatly reduced due to the proxy-ARP and proxy-ND
capabilities supported by EVPN on the NVEs. Some NVEs can even
provide DHCP-server functions for the attached Tenant Systems (TS)
reducing the broadcast even further.
b) Unknown unicast traffic is greatly reduced in virtualized NVO
networks where all the MAC and IP addresses are learnt in the
control plane.
c) Multicast applications are not used.
If the above assumptions are true for a given NVO network, then IR
provides a simple solution for multi-destination traffic. However,
the statement c) above is not always true and multicast applications
are required in many use-cases.
When the multicast sources are attached to NVEs residing in
hypervisors or low-performance-replication TORs, the ingress
replication of large amounts of multicast traffic to a significant
number of remote NVEs/PEs can seriously degrade the performance of
the NVE and impact the application.
This document describes a solution that makes use of two IR
optimizations:
i) Assisted-Replication (AR)
ii) Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL)
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
Both optimizations may be used together or independently so that the
performance and efficiency of the network to transport multicast can
be improved. Both solutions require some extensions to [EVPN] that
are described in section 3.
Section 2 lists the requirements of the combined optimized-IR
solution, whereas section 4 describes the Assisted-Replication (AR)
solution and section 5 the Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL) solution.
2. Solution requirements
The IR optimization solution (optimized-IR hereafter) MUST meet the
following requirements:
a) The solution MUST provide an IR optimization for BM (Broadcast and
Multicast) traffic, while preserving the packet order for unicast
applications, i.e. known and unknown unicast traffic SHALL follow
the same path.
b) The solution MUST be compatible with [EVPN] and [EVPN-OVERLAY] and
not have any impact on the EVPN procedures for BM traffic. In
particular, the solution MUST support the following EVPN
functions:
o All-active multi-homing, including the split-horizon and
Designated Forwarder (DF) functions.
o Single-active multi-homing, including the DF function.
o Handling of multi-destination traffic and processing of
broadcast and multicast as per [EVPN].
c) The solution MUST be backwards compatible with existing NVEs using
a non-optimized version of IR. A given EVI can have NVEs/PEs
supporting regular-IR and optimized-IR.
d) The solution MUST be independent of the NVO specific data plane
encapsulation and the virtual identifiers being used, e.g.: VXLAN
VNIs, NVGRE VSIDs or MPLS labels.
3. EVPN BGP Attributes for optimized-IR
This solution proposes some changes to the [EVPN] inclusive multicast
routes and attributes so that an NVE/PE can signal its optimized-IR
capabilities.
The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route and its PMSI Tunnel
attribute's format used in EVPN are shown below:
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
+---------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Addr |
| (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
+---------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| MPLS Label (3 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+---------------------------------+
Where:
o Originating Router's IP Address, Tunnel Type (0x06), MPLS Label and
Tunnel Identifier MUST be used as described in [EVPN] for non-
optimized-IR behavior.
o A different Originating Router's IP Address, a new Tunnel Type
(TBD), MPLS Label and Tunnel Identifier may be used for
Assisted-Replication (AR).
o The Flags field is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+
|rsved| T |BM|U|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+
Where a new type field (for AR) and two new flags (for PFL
signaling) are defined:
- T is the AR Type field (2 bits):
+ 00 (decimal 0) = RNVE (non-AR support)
+ 01 (decimal 1) = AR REPLICATOR
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
+ 10 (decimal 2) = AR LEAF
- New PFL (Pruned-Flood-Lists) flags:
+ BM= Broadcast and Multicast (BM) flag. BM=1 means "prune-
me" from the BM flooding list. BM=0 means regular
behavior.
+ U= Unknown flag. U=1 means "prune-me" from the Unknown
flooding list. U=0 means regular behavior.
- Flag L is an existing flag defined in RFC6514 (L=Leaf
Information Required) and it has no use in this solution.
Each AR-enabled EVI node MUST understand and process the AR type
field in the PMSI attribute (Flags field) and MUST signal the
corresponding type (1 or 2) according to its administrative choice.
Each EVI node MAY understand and process the BM/U flags. Note that
these BM/U flags may be used to optimize the delivery of multi-
destination traffic and its use SHOULD be an administrative choice,
regardless of the AR settings.
The T field and BM/U flags MAY be used individually or together, i.e.
a given PMSI attribute may only convey the AR type information, or
only the BM/U flags, or both pieces of information at the same time.
Non-optimized-IR nodes will be unaware of the new PMSI attribute flag
definition, i.e. they will ignore the information contained in the
flags field.
4. Assisted-Replication (AR) Solution Description
The following figure illustrates an example NVO network where the AR
function is enabled. This scenario will be used to describe the
solution throughout the rest of the document.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
( )
(_ WAN _)
+---(_ _)----+
| (_ _) |
PE1 | PE2 |
+------+----+ +----+------+
TS1--+ (EVI-1) | | (EVI-1) +--TS2
|REPLICATOR | |REPLICATOR |
+--------+--+ +--+--------+
| |
+--+----------------+--+
| |
| |
+----+ VXLAN/nvGRE/MPLSoGRE +----+
| | IP Fabric | |
| | | |
NVE1 | +-----------+----------+ | NVE3
Hypervisor| TOR | NVE2 |Hypervisor
+---------+-+ +-----+-----+ +-+---------+
| (EVI-1) | | (EVI-1) | | (EVI-1) |
| LEAF | | RNVE | | LEAF |
+--+-----+--+ +--+-----+--+ +--+-----+--+
| | | | | |
VM11 VM12 TS3 TS4 VM31 VM32
Figure 1 Optimized-IR scenario
4.1. AR roles and control plane
The solution defines three different roles in an AR EVI service:
a) AR-REPLICATOR (REPLICATOR)
b) AR-LEAF (LEAF)
c) Regular NVE (RNVE)
4.1.1. AR-REPLICATOR procedures
REPLICATOR is defined as an NVE/PE capable of replicating ingress BM
(Broadcast and Multicast) traffic received on an overlay tunnel to
other overlay tunnels and local Attachment Circuits (ACs). The
REPLICATOR signals its REPLICATOR role in the control plane and
understands where the other roles (LEAF nodes, RNVEs and other
REPLICATORs) are located. A given AR EVI service may have zero, one
or more REPLICATORs. In our example in figure 1, PE1 and PE2 are
defined as REPLICATORs. The following considerations apply to the
REPLICATOR role:
a) The AR-REPLICATOR role SHOULD be an administrative choice in any
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
NVE/PE that is part of an AR EVI. This administrative option to
enable REPLICATOR capabilities MAY be implemented as a system
level option as opposed to as per-EVI option.
b) An AR-REPLICATOR MUST advertise an AR inclusive multicast route
and MAY advertise an IR inclusive multicast route.
c) An IR Inclusive Multicast Route is an Inclusive Multicast Route as
defined in [EVPN] and MUST NOT be generated by the AR REPLICATOR
if it does not have local attachment circuits (AC).
d) An AR Inclusive Multicast Route MUST be generated by the AR
REPLICATOR and it is comprised of:
o AR Originating Router's IP Address, which is different from
the IR IP address used in the IR Inclusive Multicast Route.
o T = 1 (AR REPLICATOR)
o Tunnel type = TBD (AR tunnel)
o Tunnel Identifier MUST contain the same value as the AR
Originating Router's IP Address.
o The rest of the route fields are used as per [EVPN].
e) When a node defined as REPLICATOR receives a packet from an
overlay tunnel, it will do a tunnel destination IP lookup and
follow the following procedures:
o If the destination IP is the IR Originating Router's IP
Address the node will process the packet normally as in
[EVPN].
o If the destination IP is the AR Originating Router's IP
Address, the node MUST replicate the packet to local ACs and
overlay tunnels (excluding the overlay tunnel to the source of
the packet). Selective replication to only interested AR-LEAF
nodes will be added in a future revision of this document.
4.1.2. AR-LEAF procedures
LEAF is defined as an NVE/PE that - given its poor replication
performance - sends all the BM traffic to a REPLICATOR that can
replicate the traffic further on its behalf. It signals its LEAF
capability in the control plane and understands where the other roles
are located (REPLICATOR and RNVEs). A given service can have zero,
one or more LEAF nodes. Figure 1 shows NVE1 and NVE2 (both residing
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
in hypervisors) acting as LEAF. The following considerations apply to
the LEAF role:
a) The AR-LEAF role SHOULD be an administrative choice in any NVE/PE
that is part of an AR EVI. This administrative option to enable
LEAF capabilities MAY be implemented as a system level option as
opposed to as per-EVI option.
b) An AR-LEAF MUST advertise a single inclusive multicast route where
the AR type is set to T = 2 (AR LEAF) and the rest of fields
follow [EVPN].
c) In a service where there are no REPLICATORs, the LEAF MUST use
regular ingress replication. This will happen when a new update
from the last former REPLICATOR is received and contains a non-
REPLICATOR AR type, or when the LEAF detects that the last
REPLICATOR is down (next-hop tracking in the IGP or any other
detection mechanism). Ingress replication MUST use the forwarding
information given by the IR Inclusive Multicast Routes as
described in [EVPN].
d) In a service where there is more than one or more REPLICATORs, the
LEAF can locally select which REPLICATOR it sends the BM traffic
to:
o A single REPLICATOR may be selected for all the BM packets
received on LEAF attachment circuits (ACs). This selection is
a local decision and it does not have to match other LEAF's
selection within the same service.
o A LEAF may select more than one REPLICATOR and do either per-
flow or per-service load balancing.
o In case of a failure on the selected REPLICATOR, another
REPLICATOR will be selected.
o When a REPLICATOR is selected, the LEAF MUST send all the BM
packets to that REPLICATOR using the forwarding information
given by the AR Inclusive Multicast Route previously sent by
the REPLICATOR, with tunnel type = TBD (AR tunnel). The
underlay destination IP address MUST be the AR Originating
Router's IP Address signaled by the REPLICATOR for the AR
tunnel type.
o LEAF nodes SHALL send service-level BM control plane packets
following regular IR procedures. An example would be IGMP, MLD
or PIM multicast packets. The REPLICATORs MUST not replicate
these control plane packets to other overlay tunnels since
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
they will use the regular Originating Router's IP Address.
4.1.3. RNVE procedures
RNVE (Regular Network Virtualization Edge node) is defined as an
NVE/PE without REPLICATOR or LEAF capabilities that does IR as
described in [EVPN]. The RNVE does not signal any special role and is
unaware of the REPLICATOR/LEAF roles in the EVI. The RNVE will ignore
AR Inclusive Multicast Routes (due to an unknown tunnel type in the
PMSI attribute).
This role provides EVPN with the backwards compatibility required in
optimized-IR EVIs. Figure 1 shows NVE2 as RNVE.
4.2. Multi-destination traffic forwarding behavior in AR EVIs
In AR EVIs, BM (Broadcast and Multicast) traffic between two NVEs may
follow a different path than unicast traffic. This solution proposes
the replication of BM through the REPLICATOR node, whereas
unknown/known unicast will be delivered directly from the source node
to the destination node without being replicated by any intermediate
node. Unknown unicast SHALL follow the same path as known unicast
traffic in order to avoid packet reordering for unicast applications
and simplify the control and data plane procedures. Section 4.2.1
describes the expected forwarding behavior for BM traffic in nodes
acting as REPLICATOR, LEAF and RNVE. Section 4.2.2 describes the
forwarding behavior for unknown unicast traffic.
Note that known unicast forwarding is not impacted by this solution.
4.2.1. Broadcast and Multicast forwarding behavior
The expected behavior per role is described in this section.
4.2.1.1. REPLICATOR BM forwarding
The REPLICATORs will build a flooding list composed of ACs and
overlay tunnels to remote nodes in the EVI. Some of those overlay
tunnels MAY be flagged as non-BM receivers based on the BM flag
received from the remote nodes in the EVI. The REPLICATOR will also
build a list of remote REPLICATORs, LEAF nodes and RNVEs for the EVI.
o When a REPLICATOR receives a BM packet on an AC, it will forward
the BM packet to its flooding list (including local ACs and remote
NVE/PEs), skipping the non-BM overlay tunnels.
o When a REPLICATOR receives a BM packet on an overlay tunnel, it
will check the destination IP of the underlay IP header and:
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
- If the destination IP matches its AR Originating Router IP, the
REPLICATOR will forward the BM packet to its flooding list (ACs
and overlay tunnels) excluding the non-BM overlay tunnels. The
REPLICATOR will do source squelching to ensure the traffic is
not sent back to the originating LEAF. If the overlay
encapsulation is MPLS and the EVI label is not the bottom of the
stack, the REPLICATOR MUST copy the rest of the labels and
forward them to the egress overlay tunnels.
- If the destination IP matches its IR Originating Router IP, the
REPLICATOR will skip all the overlay tunnels from the flooding
list, i.e. it will only replicate to local ACs. This is the
regular IR behavior described in [EVPN].
4.2.1.2. LEAF BM forwarding
The LEAF nodes will build two flood-lists:
1) Flood-list #1 - composed of ACs and a REPLICATOR-set of overlay
tunnels. The REPLICATOR-set is defined as one or more overlay
tunnels to the AR Originating Router's IP Addresses of the
remote REPLICATOR(s) in the EVI. The selection of more than one
REPLICATOR is described in section 4.1.2 and it is a local LEAF
decision.
2) Flood-list #2 - composed of ACs and overlay tunnels to the
remote IR Originating Router's IP Addresses.
When a LEAF receives a BM packet on an AC, it will check the
REPLICATOR-set:
o If the REPLICATOR-set is empty, the LEAF will send the packet to
flood-list #2.
o If the REPLICATOR-set is NOT empty, the LEAF will send the packet
to flood-list #1.
When a LEAF receives a BM packet on an overlay tunnel, will forward
the BM packet to its local ACs and never to an overlay tunnel. This
is the regular IR behavior described in [EVPN].
4.2.1.3. RNVE BM forwarding
The RNVE is completely unaware of the REPLICATORs, LEAF nodes and
BM/U flags (that information is ignored). Its forwarding behavior is
the regular IR behavior described in [EVPN]. Any regular non-AR node
is fully compatible with the RNVE role described in this document.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
4.2.2. Unknown unicast forwarding behavior
The expected behavior is described in this section.
4.2.2.1. REPLICATOR/LEAF Unknown unicast forwarding
While the forwarding behavior in REPLICATORs and LEAF nodes is
different for BM traffic, as far as Unknown unicast traffic
forwarding is concerned, LEAF nodes behave exactly in the same way as
REPLICATORs do.
The REPLICATOR/LEAF nodes will build a flood-list composed of ACs and
overlay tunnels to the IR Originating Router's IP Addresses of the
remote nodes in the EVI. Some of those overlay tunnels MAY be flagged
as non-U (Unknown unicast) receivers based on the U flag received
from the remote nodes in the EVI.
o When a REPLICATOR/LEAF receives an unknown packet on an AC, it will
forward the unknown packet to its flood-list, skipping the non-U
overlay tunnels.
o When a REPLICATOR/LEAF receives an unknown packet on an overlay
tunnel will forward the unknown packet to its local ACs and never
to an overlay tunnel. This is the regular IR behavior described in
[EVPN].
4.4.2.2. RNVE Unknown unicast forwarding
As described for BM traffic, the RNVE is completely unaware of the
REPLICATORs, LEAF nodes and BM/U flags (that information is ignored).
Its forwarding behavior is the regular IR behavior described in
[EVPN], also for Unknown unicast traffic. Any regular non-AR node is
fully compatible with the RNVE role described in this document.
5. Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL)
The second optimization supported by this solution is the ability for
the all the EVI nodes to signal Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL). As
described in section 3, an EVPN node can signal a given value for the
BM and U PFL flags in the IR Inclusive Multicast Routes, where:
+ BM= Broadcast and Multicast (BM) flag. BM=1 means "prune-me" from
the BM flood-list. BM=0 means regular behavior.
+ U= Unknown flag. U=1 means "prune-me" from the Unknown flood-list.
U=0 means regular behavior.
The ability to signal these PFL flags is an administrative choice.
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
Upon receiving a non-zero PFL flag, a node MAY decide to honor the
PFL flag and remove the sender from the corresponding flood-list. A
given EVI node receiving BUM traffic on an overlay tunnel MUST
replicate the traffic normally, regardless of the signaled PFL
flags.
This optimization MAY be used along with the AR solution.
6. An example use-case
In order to illustrate the use of the solution described in this
document, we will assume that EVI-1 in figure 1 is optimized-IR
enabled and:
o PE1 and PE2 are administratively configured as REPLICATORs, due to
their high-performance replication capabilities. PE1 and PE2 will
signal AR type = 1 and BM/U flags = 00.
o NVE1 and NVE3 are administratively configured as LEAF nodes, due to
their low-performance software-based replication capabilities. They
will signal AR type = 2. Assuming both NVEs advertise all the
attached VMs in EVPN as soon as they come up and don't have any VMs
interested in multicast applications, they will be configured to
signal BM/U flags = 11 for EVI-1.
o NVE2 is optimized-IR unaware; therefore it takes on the RNVE role
in EVI-1.
Based on the above assumptions the following forwarding behavior will
take place:
(1) Any BM packets sent from VM11 will be sent to VM12 and PE1. PE1
will forward further the BM packets to TS1, WAN link, PE2 and
NVE2, but not to NVE3. PE2 and NVE2 will replicate the BM packets
to their local ACs but we will avoid NVE3 having to replicate
unnecessarily those BM packets to VM31 and VM32.
(2) Any BM packets received on PE2 from the WAN will be sent to PE1
and NVE2, but not to NVE1 and NVE3, sparing the two hypervisors
from replicating unnecessarily to their local VMs. PE1 and NVE2
will replicate to their local ACs only.
(3) Any Unknown unicast packet sent from VM31 will be forwarded by
NVE3 to NVE2, PE1 and PE2 but not NVE1. The solution avoids the
unnecessary replication to NVE1, since the destination of the
unknown traffic cannot be at NVE1.
(4) Any Unknown unicast packet sent from TS1 will be forwarded by PE1
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
to the WAN link, PE2 and NVE2 but not to NVE1 and NVE3, since the
target of the unknown traffic cannot be at those NVEs.
5. Benefits of the optimized-IR solution
A solution for the optimization of Ingress Replication in EVPN is
described in this document (optimized-IR). The solution brings the
following benefits:
o Optimizes the multicast forwarding in low-performance NVEs, by
relaying the replication to high-performance NVEs (REPLICATORs) and
while preserving the packet ordering for unicast applications.
o Reduces the flooded traffic in NVO networks where some NVEs do not
need broadcast/multicast and/or unknown unicast traffic.
o It is fully compatible with existing EVPN implementations and EVPN
functions for NVO overlay tunnels. Optimized-IR NVEs and regular
NVEs can be even part of the same EVI.
o It does not require any PIM-based tree in the NVO core of the
network.
6. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
indicates a compliance requirement statement using the key words
listed above. This convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying
or finding the explicit compliance requirements of this RFC.
7. Security Considerations
This section will be added in future versions.
8. IANA Considerations
8. References
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR July 4, 2014
[EVPN] Sajassi et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-ietf-
l2vpn-evpn-07.txt, work in progress, May, 2014
[EVPN-OVERLAY] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay-02.txt,
work in progress, October, 2013
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Neil Hart and David Motz for their
valuable feedback and contributions.
10. Authors' Addresses
Jorge Rabadan
Alcatel-Lucent
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com
Senthil Sathappan
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: senthil.sathappan@alcatel-lucent.com
Mukul Katiyar
Nuage Networks
Email:
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Ravi Shekhar
Juniper Networks
Email: rshekhar@juniper.net
Nischal Sheth
Juniper Networks
Email: nsheth@juniper.net
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks
Email: wlin@juniper.net
Rabadan et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 15]
