Internet DRAFT - draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source
draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Kotalwar
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sathappan
Expires: May 6, 2021 Nokia
Z. Zhang
W. Lin
Juniper
E. Rosen
Individual
November 2, 2020
Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks
draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-02
Abstract
EVPN supports intra and inter-subnet IP multicast forwarding.
However, EVPN (or conventional IP multicast techniques for that
matter) do not have a solution for the case where: a) a given
multicast group carries more than one flow (i.e., more than one
source), and b) it is desired that each receiver gets only one of the
several flows. Existing multicast techniques assume there are no
redundant sources sending the same flow to the same IP multicast
group, and, in case there were redundant sources, the receiver's
application would deal with the received duplicated packets. This
document extends the existing EVPN specifications and assumes that IP
Multicast source redundancy may exist. It also assumes that, in case
two or more sources send the same IP Multicast flows into the tenant
domain, the EVPN PEs need to avoid that the receivers get packet
duplication by following the described procedures.
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 May 6, 2021.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Background on IP Multicast Delivery in EVPN Networks . . 6
1.2.1. Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2. Inter-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding . . . . . . . . 7
1.3. Multi-Homed IP Multicast Sources in EVPN . . . . . . . . 8
1.4. The Need for Redundant IP Multicast Sources in EVPN . . . 10
2. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. BGP EVPN Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Warm Standby (WS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources . . . . . 13
4.1. WS Example in an OISM Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. WS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network . . . . . . . . 17
5. Hot Standby (HS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources . . . . . . 18
5.1. Use of BFD in the HS Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. HS Example in an OISM Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3. HS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network . . . . . . . . 26
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
Intra and Inter-subnet IP Multicast forwarding are supported in EVPN
networks. [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] describes the
procedures required to optimize the delivery of IP Multicast flows
when Sources and Receivers are connected to the same EVPN BD
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
(Broadcast Domain), whereas [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] specifies
the procedures to support Inter-subnet IP Multicast in a tenant
network. Inter-subnet IP Multicast means that IP Multicast Source
and Receivers of the same multicast flow are connected to different
BDs of the same tenant.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast]
or conventional IP multicast techniques do not have a solution for
the case where a given multicast group carries more than one flow
(i.e., more than one source) and it is desired that each receiver
gets only one of the several flows. Multicast techniques assume
there are no redundant sources sending the same flows to the same IP
multicast group, and, in case there were redundant sources, the
receiver's application would deal with the received duplicated
packets.
As a workaround in conventional IP multicast (PIM or MVPN networks),
if all the redundant sources are given the same IP address, each
receiver will get only one flow. The reason is that, in conventional
IP multicast, (S,G) state is always created by the RP (Rendezvous
Point), and sometimes by the Last Hop Router (LHR). The (S,G) state
always binds the (S,G) flow to a source-specific tree, rooted at the
source IP address. If multiple sources have the same IP address, one
may end up with multiple (S,G) trees. However, the way the trees are
constructed ensures that any given LHR or RP is on at most one of
them. The use of an anycast address assigned to multiple sources may
be useful for warm standby redundancy solutions. However, on one
hand, it's not really helpful for hot standby redundancy solutions
and on the other hand, configuring the same IP address (in particular
IPv4 address) in multiple sources may bring issues if the sources
need to be reached by IP unicast traffic or if the sources are
attached to the same Broadcast Domain.
In addition, in the scenario where several G-sources are attached via
EVPN/OISM, there is not necessarily any (S,G) state created for the
redundant sources. The LHRs may have only (*,G) state, and there may
not be an RP (creating (S,G) state) either. Therefore, this document
extends the above two specifications and assumes that IP Multicast
source redundancy may exist. It also assumes that, in case two or
more sources send the same IP Multicast flows into the tenant domain,
the EVPN PEs need to avoid that the receivers get packet duplication.
The solution provides support for Warm Standby (WS) and Hot Standby
(HS) redundancy. WS is defined as the redundancy scenario in which
the upstream PEs attached to the redundant sources of the same
tenant, make sure that only one source of the same flow can send
multicast to the interested downstream PEs at the same time. In HS
the upstream PEs forward the redundant multicast flows to the
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
downstream PEs, and the downstream PEs make sure only one flow is
forwarded to the interested attached receivers.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
o PIM: Protocol Independent Multicast.
o MVPN: Multicast Virtual Private Networks.
o OISM: Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast, as in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast].
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.
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 Upstream PE: in this document an Upstream PE is referred to as the
EVPN PE that is connected to the IP Multicast source or closest to
it. It receives the IP Multicast flows on local ACs (Attachment
Circuits).
o Downstream PE: in this document a Downstream PE is referred to as
the EVPN PE that is connected to the IP Multicast receivers and
gets the IP Multicast flows from remote EVPN PEs.
o G-traffic: any frame with an IP payload whose IP Destination
Address (IP DA) is a multicast group G.
o G-source: any system sourcing IP multicast traffic to G.
o SFG: Single Flow Group, i.e., a multicast group address G which
represents traffic that contains only a single flow. However,
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
multiple sources - with the same or different IP - may be
transmitting an SFG.
o Redundant G-source: a host or router that transmits an SFG in a
tenant network where there are more hosts or routers transmitting
the same SFG. Redundant G-sources for the same SFG SHOULD have
different IP addresses, although they MAY have the same IP address
when in different BDs of the same tenant network. Redundant
G-sources are assumed NOT to be "bursty" in this document (typical
example are Broadcast TV G-sources or similar).
o P-tunnel: Provider tunnel refers to the type of tree a given
upstream EVPN PE uses to forward multicast traffic to downstream
PEs. Examples of P-tunnels supported in this document are Ingress
Replication (IR), Assisted Replication (AR), Bit Indexed Explicit
Replication (BIER), multicast Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP)
or Point to Multi-Point Resource Reservation protocol with Traffic
Engineering extensions (P2MP RSVP-TE).
o Inclusive Multicast Tree or Inclusive Provider Multicast Service
Interface (I-PMSI): defined in [RFC6513], in this document it is
applicable only to EVPN and refers to the default multicast tree
for a given BD. All the EVPN PEs that are attached to a specific
BD belong to the I-PMSI for the BD. The I-PMSI trees are signaled
by EVPN Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) routes.
o Selective Multicast Tree or Selective Provider Multicast Service
Interface (S-PMSI): defined in [RFC6513], in this document it is
applicable only to EVPN and refers to the multicast tree to which
only the interested PEs of a given BD belong to. There are two
types of EVPN S-PMSIs:
* EVPN S-PMSIs that require the advertisement of S-PMSI AD routes
from the upstream PE, as in [EVPN-BUM]. The interested
downstream PEs join the S-PMSI tree as in [EVPN-BUM].
* EVPN S-PMSIs that don't require the advertisement of S-PMSI AD
routes. They use the forwarding information of the IMET
routes, but upstream PEs send IP Multicast flows only to
downstream PEs issuing Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET)
routes for the flow. These S-PMSIs are only supported with the
following P-tunnels: Ingress Replication (IR), Assisted
Replication (AR) and BIER.
This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
[RFC7432], [RFC4364], [RFC6513], [RFC6514],
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast],
[EVPN-RT5] and [EVPN-BUM].
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
1.2. Background on IP Multicast Delivery in EVPN Networks
IP Multicast is all about forwarding a single copy of a packet from a
source S to a group of receivers G along a multicast tree. That
multicast tree can be created in an EVPN tenant domain where S and
the receivers for G are connected to the same BD or different BD. In
the former case, we refer to Intra-subnet IP Multicast forwarding,
whereas the latter case will be referred to as Inter-subnet IP
Multicast forwarding.
1.2.1. Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding
When the source S1 and receivers interested in G1 are attached to the
same BD, the EVPN network can deliver the IP Multicast traffic to the
receivers in two different ways (Figure 1):
S1 + S1 +
(a) + | (b) + |
| | (S1,G1) | | (S1,G1)
PE1 | | PE1 | |
+-----+ v +-----+ v
|+---+| |+---+|
||BD1|| ||BD1||
|+---+| |+---+|
+-----+ +-----+
+-------|-------+ +-------|
| | | | |
v v v v v
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|+---+| |-----| |-----| |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|
||BD1|| ||BD1|| ||BD1|| ||BD1|| ||BD1|| ||BD1||
|+---+| |-----| |-----| |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
PE2| PE3| PE4| PE2| PE3| PE4
- | - - - | - | - | - - - | -
| | | | | | | | |
v v v v v
| R1 R2 | R3 | R1 R2 | R3
- - - G1- - - - - - G1- - -
Figure 1: Intra-subnet IP Multicast
Model (a) illustrated in Figure 1 is referred to as "IP Multicast
delivery as BUM traffic". This way of delivering IP Multicast
traffic does not require any extensions to [RFC7432], however, it
sends the IP Multicast flows to non-interested receivers, such as
e.g., R3 in Figure 1. In this example, downstream PEs can snoop
IGMP/MLD messages from the receivers so that layer-2 multicast state
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
is created and, for instance, PE4 can avoid sending (S1,G1) to R3,
since R3 is not interested in (S1,G1).
Model (b) in Figure 1 uses an S-PMSI to optimize the delivery of the
(S1,G1) flow. For instance, assuming PE1 uses IR, PE1 sends (S1,G1)
only to the downstream PEs that issued an SMET route for (S1,G1),
that is, PE2 and PE3. In case PE1 uses any P-tunnel different than
IR, AR or BIER, PE1 will advertise an S-PMSI A-D route for (S1,G1)
and PE2/PE2 will join that tree.
Procedures for Model (b) are specified in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy].
1.2.2. Inter-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding
If the source and receivers are attached to different BDs of the same
tenant domain, the EVPN network can also use Inclusive or Selective
Trees as depicted in Figure 2, models (a) and (b) respectively.
S1 + S1 +
(a) + | (b) + |
| | (S1,G1) | | (S1,G1)
PE1 | | PE1 | |
+-----+ v +-----+ v
|+---+| |+---+|
||BD1|| ||BD1||
|+---+| |+---+|
+-----+ +-----+
+-------|-------+ +-------|
| | | | |
v v v v v
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|+---+| |+---+| |+---+| |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|
||SBD|| ||SBD|| ||SBD|| ||SBD|| ||SBD|| ||SBD||
|+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+| |+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+|
| VRF | | VRF | | VRF | | VRF | | VRF | | VRF |
|+-v-+| |+-v-+| |+---+| |+-v-+| |+-v-+| |+---+|
||BD2|| ||BD3|| ||BD4|| ||BD2|| ||BD3|| ||BD4||
|+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+| |+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+|
+--|--+ +--|--+ +-----+ +--|--+ +--|--+ +-----+
PE2| PE3| PE4 PE2| PE3| PE4
- | - - - | - - | - - - | -
| | | | | | | |
v v v v
| R1 R2 | R3 | R1 R2 | R3
- - - G1- - - - - - G1- - -
Figure 2: Inter-subnet IP Multicast
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] specifies the procedures to optimize
the Inter-subnet Multicast forwarding in an EVPN network. The IP
Multicast flows are always sent in the context of the source BD. As
described in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast], if the downstream PE is
not attached to the source BD, the IP Multicast flow is received on
the SBD (Supplementary Broadcast Domain), as in the example in
Figure 2.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] supports Inclusive or Selective
Multicast Trees, and as explained in Section 1.2.1, the Selective
Multicast Trees are setup in a different way, depending on the
P-tunnel being used by the source BD. As an example, model (a) in
Figure 2 illustrates the use of an Inclusive Multicast Tree for BD1
on PE1. Since the downstream PEs are not attached to BD1, they will
all receive (S1,G1) in the context of the SBD and will locally route
the flow to the local ACs. Model (b) uses a similar forwarding
model, however PE1 sends the (S1,G1) flow in a Selective Multicast
Tree. If the P-tunnel is IR, AR or BIER, PE1 does not need to
advertise an S-PMSI A-D route.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] is a superset of the procedures in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], in which sources and receivers
can be in the same or different BD of the same tenant.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] ensures every upstream PE attached to
a source will learn of all other PEs (attached to the same Tenant
Domain) that have interest in a particular set of flows. This is
because the downstream PEs advertise SMET routes for a set of flows
with the SBD's Route Target and they are imported by all the Upstream
PEs of the tenant. As a result of that, inter-subnet multicasting
can be done within the Tenant Domain, without requiring any
Rendezvous Points (RP), shared trees, UMH selection or any other
complex aspects of conventional multicast routing techniques.
1.3. Multi-Homed IP Multicast Sources in EVPN
Contrary to conventional multicast routing technologies, multi-homing
PEs attached to the same source can never create IP Multicast packet
duplication if the PEs use a multi-homed Ethernet Segment (ES).
Figure 3 illustrates this by showing two multi-homing PEs (PE1 and
PE2) that are attached to the same source (S1). We assume that S1 is
connected to an all-active ES by a layer-2 switch (SW1) with a Link
Aggregation Group (LAG) to PE1 and PE2.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
S1
|
v
+-----+
| SW1 |
+-----+
+---- | |
(S1,G1)| +----+ +----+
IGMP | | all-active |
J(S1,G1) PE1 v | ES-1 | PE2
+----> +-----------|---+ +---|-----------+
| +---+ +---+ | | +---+ |
R1 <-----|BD2| |BD1| | | |BD1| |
| +---+---+---+ | | +---+---+ |
+----| |VRF| | | | |VRF| |----+
| | +---+---+ | | | +---+---+ | |
| | |SBD| | | | |SBD| | |
| | +---+ | | | +---+ | |
| +------------|--+ +---------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| EVPN | ^ |
| OISM v PE3 | SMET |
| +---------------+ | (*,G1) |
| | +---+ | | |
| | |SBD| | |
| | +---+---+ | |
+--------------| |VRF| |----------------+
| +---+---+---+ |
| |BD2| |BD3| |
| +-|-+ +-|-+ |
+---|-------|---+
^ | | ^
IGMP | v v | IGMP
J(*,G1) | R2 R3 | J(S1,G1)
Figure 3: All-active Multi-homing and OISM
When receiving the (S1,G1) flow from S1, SW1 will choose only one
link to send the flow, as per [RFC7432]. Assuming PE1 is the
receiving PE on BD1, the IP Multicast flow will be forwarded as soon
as BD1 creates multicast state for (S1,G1) or (*,G1). In the example
of Figure 3, receivers R1, R2 and R3 are interested in the multicast
flow to G1. R1 will receive (S1,G1) directly via the IRB interface
as per [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast]. Upon receiving IGMP reports
from R2 and R3, PE3 will issue an SMET (*,G1) route that will create
state in PE1's BD1. PE1 will therefore forward the IP Multicast flow
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
to PE3's SBD and PE3 will forward to R2 and R3, as per
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] procedures.
When IP Multicast source multi-homing is required, EVPN multi-homed
Ethernet Segments MUST be used. EVPN multi-homing guarantees that
only one Upstream PE will forward a given multicast flow at the time,
avoiding packet duplication at the Downstream PEs. In addition, the
SMET route for a given flow creates state in all the multi-homing
Upstream PEs. Therefore, in case of failure on the Upstream PE
forwarding the flow, the backup Upstream PE can forward the flow
immediately.
This document assumes that multi-homing PEs attached to the same
source always use multi-homed Ethernet Segments.
1.4. The Need for Redundant IP Multicast Sources in EVPN
While multi-homing PEs to the same IP Multicast G-source provides
certain level of resiliency, multicast applications are often
critical in the Operator's network and greater level of redundancy is
required. This document assumes that:
a. Redundant G-sources for an SFG may exist in the EVPN tenant
network. A Redundant G-source is a host or a router that sends
an SFG in a tenant network where there is another host or router
sending traffic to the same SFG.
b. Those redundant G-sources may be in the same BD or different BDs
of the tenant. There must not be restrictions imposed on the
location of the receiver systems either.
c. The redundant G-sources can be single-homed to only one EVPN PE
or multi-homed to multiple EVPN PEs.
d. The EVPN PEs must avoid duplication of the same SFG on the
receiver systems.
2. Solution Overview
An SFG is represented as (*,G) if any source that issues multicast
traffic to G is a redundant G-source. Alternatively, this document
allows an SFG to be represented as (S,G), where S is a prefix of any
length. In this case, a source is considered a redundant G-source
for the SFG if it is contained in the prefix. This document allows
variable length prefixes in the Sources advertised in S-PMSI A-D
routes only for the particular application of redundant G-sources.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
There are two redundant G-source solutions described in this
document:
o Warm Standby (WS) Solution
o Hot Standby (HS) Solution
The WS solution is considered an upstream-PE-based solution (since
downstream PEs do not participate in the procedures), in which all
the upstream PEs attached to redundant G-sources for an SFG
represented by (*,G) or (S,G) will elect a "Single Forwarder" (SF)
among themselves. Once a SF is elected, the upstream PEs add an
Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check to the (*,G) or (S,G) state for
the SFG:
o A non-SF upstream PE discards any (*,G)/(S,G) packets received
over a local AC.
o The SF accepts and forwards any (*,G)/(S,G) packets it receives
over a single local AC (for the SFG). In case (*,G)/(S,G) packets
for the SFG are received over multiple local ACs, they will be
discarded in all the local ACs but one. The procedure to choose
the local AC that accepts packets is a local implementation
matter.
A failure on the SF will result in the election of a new SF. The
Election requires BGP extensions on the existing EVPN routes. These
extensions and associated procedures are described in Section 3 and
Section 4 respectively.
In the HS solution the downstream PEs are the ones avoiding the SFG
duplication. The upstream PEs are aware of the locally attached
G-sources and add a unique Ethernet Segment Identifier label (ESI-
label) per SFG to the SFG packets forwarded to downstream PEs. The
downstream PEs pull the SFG from all the upstream PEs attached to the
redundant G-sources and avoid duplication on the receiver systems by
adding an RPF check to the (*,G) state for the SFG:
o A downstream PE discards any (*,G) packets it receives from the
"wrong G-source".
o The wrong G-source is identified in the data path by an ESI-label
that is different than the ESI-label used for the selected G-
source.
o Note that the ESI-label is used here for "ingress filtering" (at
the egress/downstream PE) as opposed to the [RFC7432] "egress
filtering" (at the egress/downstream PE) used in the split-horizon
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
procedures. In [RFC7432] the ESI-label indicates what egress ACs
must be skipped when forwarding BUM traffic to the egress. In
this document, the ESI-label indicates what ingress traffic must
be discarded at the downstream PE.
The use of ESI-labels for SFGs forwarded by upstream PEs require some
control plane and data plane extensions in the procedures used by
[RFC7432] for multi-homing. Upon failure of the selected G-source,
the downstream PE will switch over to a different selected G-source,
and will therefore change the RPF check for the (*,G) state. The
extensions and associated procedures are described in Section 3 and
Section 5 respectively.
An operator should use the HS solution if they require a fast fail-
over time and the additional bandwidth consumption is acceptable (SFG
packets are received multiple times on the downstream PEs).
Otherwise the operator should use the WS solution, at the expense of
a slower fail-over time in case of a G-source or upstream PE failure.
Besides bandwidth efficiency, another advantage of the WS solution is
that only the upstream PEs attached to the redundant G-sources for
the same SFG need to be upgraded to support the new procedures.
This document does not impose the support of both solutions on a
system. If one solution is supported, the support of the other
solution is OPTIONAL.
3. BGP EVPN Extensions
This document makes use of the following BGP EVPN extensions:
1. SFG flag in the Multicast Flags Extended Community
The Single Flow Group (SFG) flag is a new bit requested to IANA
out of the registry Multicast Flags Extended Community Flag
Values. This new flag is set for S-PMSI A-D routes that carry a
(*,G)/(S,G) SFG in the NLRI.
2. ESI Label Extended Community is used in S-PMSI A-D routes
The HS solution requires the advertisement of one or more ESI
Label Extended Communities [RFC7432] that encode the Ethernet
Segment Identifier(s) associated to an S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G)
route that advertises the presence of an SFG. Only the ESI Label
value in the extended community is relevant to the procedures in
this document. The Flags field in the extended community will be
advertised as 0x00 and ignored on reception. [RFC7432] specifies
that the ESI Label Extended Community is advertised along with
the A-D per ES route. This documents extends the use of this
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
extended community so that it can be advertised multiple times
(with different ESI values) along with the S-PMSI A-D route.
4. Warm Standby (WS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources
The general procedure is described as follows:
1. Configuration of the upstream PEs
Upstream PEs (possibly attached to redundant G-sources) need to
be configured to know which groups are carrying only flows from
redundant G-sources, that is, the SFGs in the tenant domain.
They will also be configured to know which local BDs may be
attached to a redundant G-source. The SFGs can be configured for
any source, E.g., SFG for "*", or for a prefix that contains
multiple sources that will issue the same SFG, i.e.,
"10.0.0.0/30". In the latter case sources 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2
are considered as Redundant G-sources, whereas 10.0.0.10 is not
considered a redundant G-source for the same SFG.
As an example:
* PE1 is configured to know that G1 is an SFG for any source and
redundant G-sources for G1 may be attached to BD1 or BD2.
* Or PE1 can also be configured to know that G1 is an SFG for
the sources contained in 10.0.0.0/30, and those redundant
G-sources may be attached to BD1 or BD2.
2. Signaling the location of a G-source for a given SFG
Upon receiving G-traffic for a configured SFG on a BD, an
upstream PE configured to follow this procedure, e.g., PE1:
* Originates an S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G) route for the SFG. An
(*,G) route is advertised if the SFG is configured for any
source, and an (S,G) route is advertised (where the Source can
have any length) if the SFG is configured for a prefix.
* The S-PMSI A-D route is imported by all the PEs attached to
the tenant domain. In order to do that, the route will use
the SBD-RT (Supplementary Broadcast Domain Route-Target) in
addition to the BD-RT of the BD over which the G-traffic is
received. The route SHOULD also carry a DF Election Extended
Community (EC) and a flag indicating that it conveys an SFG.
The DF Election EC and its use is specified in [RFC8584].
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
* The above S-PMSI A-D route MAY be advertised with or without
PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA):
+ With no PTA if an I-PMSI or S-PMSI A-D with IR/AR/BIER are
to be used.
+ With PTA in any other case.
* The S-PMSI A-D route is triggered by the first packet of the
SFG and withdrawn when the flow is not received anymore.
Detecting when the G-source is no longer active is a local
implementation matter. The use of a timer is RECOMMENDED.
The timer is started when the traffic to G1 is not received.
Upon expiration of the timer, the PE will withdraw the route
3. Single Forwarder (SF) Election
If the PE with a local G-source receives one or more S-PMSI A-D
routes for the same SFG from a remote PE, it will run a Single
Forwarder (SF) Election based on the information encoded in the
DF Election EC. Two S-PMSI A-D routes are considered for the
same SFG if they are advertised for the same tenant, and their
Multicast Source Length, Multicast Source, Multicast Group Length
and Multicast Group fields match.
1. A given DF Alg can only be used if all the PEs running the DF
Alg have consistent input. For example, in an OISM network,
if the redundant G-sources for an SFG are attached to BDs
with different Ethernet Tags, the Default DF Election Alg
MUST NOT be used.
2. In case the there is a mismatch in the DF Election Alg or
capabilities advertised by two PEs competing for the SF, the
lowest PE IP address (given by the Originator Address in the
S- PMSI A-D route) will be used as a tie-breaker.
4. RPF check on the PEs attached to a redundant G-source
All the PEs with a local G-source for the SFG will add an RPF
check to the (*,G)/(S,G) state for the SFG. That RPF check
depends on the SF Election result:
1. The non-SF PEs discard any (*,G)/(S,G) packets for the SFG
received over a local AC.
2. The SF accepts any (*,G)/(S,G) packets for the SFG it
receives over one (and only one) local AC.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
The solution above provides redundancy for SFGs and it does not
require an upgrade of the downstream PEs (PEs where there is
certainty that no redundant G-sources are connected). Other
G-sources for non-SFGs may exist in the same tenant domain. This
document does not change the existing procedures for non-SFG
G-sources.
The redundant G-sources can be single-homed or multi-homed to a BD in
the tenant domain. Multi-homing does not change the above
procedures.
Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 show two examples of the WS solution.
4.1. WS Example in an OISM Network
Figure 4 illustrates an example in which S1 and S2 are redundant G-
sources for the SFG (*,G1).
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
S1 (Single S2
| Forwarder) |
(S1,G1)| (S2,G1)|
| |
PE1 | PE2 |
+--------v---+ +--------v---+
S-PMSI | +---+ | | +---+ | S-PMSI
(*,G1) | +---|BD1| | | +---|BD2| | (*,G1)
Pref200 | |VRF+---+ | | |VRF+---+ | Pref100
|SFG |+---+ | | | |+---+ | | SFG|
| +----|SBD|--+ | |-----------||SBD|--+ |---+ |
v | |+---+ | | |+---+ | | v
| +---------|--+ +------------+ |
SMET | | | SMET
(*,G1) | | (S1,G1) | (*,G1)
| +--------+------------------+ |
^ | | | | ^
| | | EVPN | | |
| | | OISM | | |
| | | | | |
PE3 | | PE4 | | PE5
+--------v---+ +------------+ | +------------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | | | +---+ |
| +---|SBD| |-------| +---|SBD| |--|---| +---|SBD| |
| |VRF+---+ | | |VRF+---+ | | | |VRF+---+ |
|+---+ | | |+---+ | | | |+---+ | |
||BD3|--+ | ||BD4|--+ | +--->|BD1|--+ |
|+---+ | |+---+ | |+---+ |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ^ | ^
| | IGMP | | IGMP
R1 | J(*,G1) R3 | J(*,G1)
Figure 4: WS Solution for Redundant G-Sources
The WS solution works as follows:
1. Configuration of the upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2
PE1 and PE2 are configured to know that G1 is an SFG for any
source and redundant G-sources for G1 may be attached to BD1 or
BD2, respectively.
2. Signaling the location of S1 and S2 for (*,G1)
Upon receiving (S1,G1) traffic on a local AC, PE1 and PE2
originate S-PMSI A-D (*,G1) routes with the SBD-RT, DF Election
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
Extended Community (EC) and a flag indicating that it conveys an
SFG.
3. Single Forwarder (SF) Election
Based on the DF Election EC content, PE1 and PE2 elect an SF for
(*,G1). Assuming both PEs agree on e.g., Preference based
Election as the algorithm to use [DF-PREF], and PE1 has a higher
preference, PE1 becomes the SF for (*,G1).
4. RPF check on the PEs attached to a redundant G-source
A. The non-SF, PE2, discards any (*,G1) packets received over a
local AC.
B. The SF, PE1 accepts (*,G1) packets it receives over one (and
only one) local AC.
The end result is that, upon receiving reports for (*,G1) or (S,G1),
the downstream PEs (PE3 and PE5) will issue SMET routes and will pull
the multicast SFG from PE1, and PE1 only. Upon a failure on S1, the
AC connected to S1 or PE1 itself will trigger the S-PMSI A-D (*,G1)
withdrawal from PE1 and PE2 will be promoted to SF.
4.2. WS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network
Figure 5 illustrates an example in which S1 and S2 are redundant
G-sources for the SFG (*,G1), however, now all the G-sources and
receivers are connected to the same BD1 and there is no SBD.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
S1 (Single S2
| Forwarder) |
(S1,G1)| (S2,G1)|
| |
PE1 | PE2 |
+--------v---+ +--------v---+
S-PMSI | +---+ | | +---+ | S-PMSI
(*,G1) | |BD1| | | |BD1| | (*,G1)
Pref200 | +---+ | | +---+ | Pref100
|SFG | | | | | SFG|
| +---| | |-----------| |---+ |
v | | | | | | | v
| +---------|--+ +------------+ |
SMET | | | SMET
(*,G1) | | (S1,G1) | (*,G1)
| +--------+------------------------+ |
^ | | | | ^
| | | EVPN | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
PE3 | | PE4 | | PE5
+--------v---+ +------------+ +-|----------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | | | +---+ |
| |BD1| |-------| |BD1| |------| +--->|BD1| |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ^ | ^
| | IGMP | | IGMP
R1 | J(*,G1) R3 | J(*,G1)
Figure 5: WS Solution for Redundant G-Sources in the same BD
The same procedure as in Section 4.1 is valid here, being this a sub-
case of the one in Section 4.1. Upon receiving traffic for the SFG
G1, PE1 and PE2 advertise the S-PMSI A-D routes with BD1-RT only,
since there is no SBD.
5. Hot Standby (HS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources
If fast-failover is required upon the failure of a G-source or PE
attached to the G-source and the extra bandwidth consumption in the
tenant network is not an issue, the HS solution should be used. The
procedure is as follows:
1. Configuration of the PEs
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
As in the WS case, the upstream PEs where redundant G-sources may
exist need to be configured to know which groups (for any source
or a prefix containing the intended sources) are carrying only
flows from redundant G-sources, that is, the SFGs in the tenant
domain.
In addition (and this is not done in WS mode), the individual
redundant G-sources for an SFG need to be associated with an
Ethernet Segment (ES) on the upstream PEs. This is irrespective
of the redundant G-source being multi-homed or single-homed.
Even for single-homed redundant G-sources the HS procedure relies
on the ESI labels for the RPF check on downstream PEs. The term
"S-ESI" is used in this document to refer to an ESI associated to
a redundant G-source.
Contrary to what is specified in the WS method (that is
transparent to the downstream PEs), the support of the HS
procedure is required not only on the upstream PEs but also on
all downstream PEs connected to the receivers in the tenant
network. The downstream PEs do not need to be configured to know
the connected SFGs or their ESIs, since they get that information
from the upstream PEs. The downstream PEs will locally select an
ESI for a given SFG, and will program an RPF check to the
(*,G)/(S,G) state for the SFG that will discard (*,G)/(S,G)
packets from the rest of the ESIs. The selection of the ESI for
the SFG is based on local policy.
2. Signaling the location of a G-source for a given SFG and its
association to the local ESIs
Based on the configuration in step 1, an upstream PE configured
to follow the HS procedures:
A. Advertises an S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G) route per each
configured SFG. These routes need to be imported by all the
PEs of the tenant domain, therefore they will carry the BD-RT
and SBD-RT (if the SBD exists). The route also carries the
ESI Label Extended Communities needed to convey all the
S-ESIs associated to the SFG in the PE.
B. The S-PMSI A-D route will convey a PTA in the same cases as
in the WS procedure.
C. The S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G) route is triggered by the
configuration of the SFG and not by the reception of
G-traffic.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
3. Distribution of DCB (Domain-wide Common Block) ESI-labels and
G-source ES routes
An upstream PE advertises the corresponding ES, A-D per EVI and
A-D per ES routes for the local S-ESIs.
A. ES routes are used for regular DF Election for the S-ES.
This document does not introduce any change in the procedures
related to the ES routes.
B. The A-D per EVI and A-D per ES routes MUST include the SBD-RT
since they have to be imported by all the PEs in the tenant
domain.
C. The A-D per ES routes convey the S-ESI labels that the
downstream PEs use to add the RPF check for the (*,G)/(S,G)
associated to the SFGs. This RPF check requires that all the
packets for a given G-source are received with the same S-ESI
label value on the downstream PEs. For example, if two
redundant G-sources are multi-homed to PE1 and PE2 via S-ES-1
and S-ES-2, PE1 and PE2 MUST allocate the same ESI label "Lx"
for S-ES-1 and they MUST allocate the same ESI label "Ly" for
S-ES-2. In addition, Lx and Ly MUST be different. These ESI
labels are Domain-wide Common Block (DCB) labels and follow
the allocation procedures in
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label].
4. Processing of A-D per ES/EVI routes and RPF check on the
downstream PEs
The A-D per ES/EVI routes are received and imported in all the
PEs in the tenant domain. The processing of the A-D per ES/EVI
routes on a given PE depends on its configuration:
A. The PEs attached to the same BD of the BD-RT that is included
in the A-D per ES/EVI routes will process the routes as in
[RFC7432] and [RFC8584]. If the receiving PE is attached to
the same ES as indicated in the route, [RFC7432] split-
horizon procedures will be followed and the DF Election
candidate list may be modified as in [RFC8584] if the ES
supports the AC-DF capability.
B. The PEs that are not attached to the BD-RT but are attached
to the SBD of the received SBD-RT, will import the A-D per
ES/EVI routes and use them for redundant G-source mass
withdrawal, as explained later.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
C. Upon importing A-D per ES routes corresponding to different
S-ESes, a PE MUST select a primary S-ES and add an RPF check
to the (*,G)/(S,G) state in the BD or SBD. This RPF check
will discard all ingress packets to (*,G)/(S,G) that are not
received with the ESI-label of the primary S-ES. The
selection of the primary S-ES is a matter of local policy.
5. G-traffic forwarding for redundant G-sources and fault detection
Assuming there is (*,G) or (S,G) state for the SFG with OIF
(Ouput Interface) list entries associated to remote EVPN PEs,
upon receiving G-traffic on a S-ES, the upstream PE will add a
S-ESI label at the bottom of the stack before forwarding the
traffic to the remote EVPN PEs. This label is allocated from a
DCB as described in step 3. If P2MP or BIER PMSIs are used, this
is not adding any new data path procedures on the upstream PEs
(except that the ESI-label is allocated from a DCB). However, if
IR/AR are used, this document extends the [RFC7432] procedures by
pushing the S-ESI labels not only on packets sent to the PEs that
shared the ES but also to the rest of the PEs in the tenant
domain. This allows the downstream PEs to receive all the
multicast packets from the redundant G-sources with a S-ESI label
(irrespective of the PMSI type and the local ESes), and discard
any packet that conveys a S-ESI label different from the primary
S-ESI label (that is, the label associated to the selected
primary S-ES), as discussed in step 4.
If the last A-D per EVI or the last A-D per ES route for the
primary S-ES is withdrawn, the downstream PE will immediately
select a new primary S-ES and will change the RPF check. Note
that if the S-ES is re-used for multiple tenant domains by the
upstream PEs, the withdrawal of all the A-D per-ES routes for a
S-ES provides a mass withdrawal capability that makes a
downstream PE to change the RPF check in all the tenant domains
using the same S-ES.
The withdrawal of the last S-PMSI A-D route for a given
(*,G)/(S,G) that represents a SFG SHOULD make the downstream PE
remove the S-ESI label based RPF check on (*,G)/(S,G).
5.1. Use of BFD in the HS Solution
In addition to using the state of the A-D per EVI, A-D per ES or
S-PMSI A-D routes to modify the RPF check on (*,G)/(S,G) as discussed
in Section 5, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol MAY
be used to find the status of the multipoint tunnels used to forward
the SFG from the redundant G-sources.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
The BGP-BFD Attribute is advertised along with the S-PMSI A-D or IMET
routes (depending on whether I-PMSI or S-PMSI trees are used) and the
procedures described in [EVPN-BFD] are used to bootstrap multipoint
BFD sessions on the downstream PEs.
5.2. HS Example in an OISM Network
Figure 6 illustrates the HS model in an OISM network. Consider S1
and S2 are redundant G-sources for the SFG (*,G1) in BD1 (any source
using G1 is assumed to transmit an SFG). S1 and S2 are (all-active)
multi-homed to upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2. The receivers are attached
to downstream PEs, PE3 and PE5, in BD3 and BD1, respectively. S1 and
S2 are assumed to be connected by a LAG to the multi-homing PEs, and
the multicast traffic can use the link to either upstream PE. The
diagram illustrates how S1 sends the G-traffic to PE1 and PE1
forwards to the remote interested downstream PEs, whereas S2 sends to
PE2 and PE2 forwards further. In this HS model, the interested
downstream PEs will get duplicate G-traffic from the two G-sources
for the same SFG. While the diagram shows that the two flows are
forwarded by different upstream PEs, the all-active multi-homing
procedures may cause that the two flows come from the same upstream
PE. Therefore, finding out the upstream PE for the flow is not
enough for the downstream PEs to program the required RPF check to
avoid duplicate packets on the receiver.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
S1(ESI-1) S2(ESI-2)
| |
| +----------------------+
(S1,G1)| | (S2,G1)|
+----------------------+ |
PE1 | | PE2 | |
+--------v---+ +--------v---+
| +---+ | | +---+ | S-PMSI
S-PMSI | +---|BD1| | | +---|BD1| | (*,G1)
(*,G1) | |VRF+---+ | | |VRF+---+ | SFG
SFG |+---+ | | | |+---+ | | | ESI1,2
ESI1,2 +---||SBD|--+ | |-----------||SBD|--+ | |---+ |
| | |+---+ | | EVPN |+---+ | | | v
v | +---------|--+ OISM +---------|--+ |
| | | |
| | (S1,G1) | |
SMET | +---------+------------------+ | | SMET
(*,G1) | | | | | (*,G1)
^ | | +----------------------------+---+ | ^
| | | | (S2,G1) | | | |
| | | | | | | |
PE3 | | | PE4 | | | PE5
+-------v-v--+ +------------+ | | +------------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | | | | +---+ |
| +---|SBD| +-------| +---|SBD| |--|-|-| +---|SBD| |
| |VRF+---+ | | |VRF+---+ | | | | |VRF+---+ |
|+---+ | | |+---+ | | | | |+---+ | |
||BD3|--+ | ||BD4|--+ | | +->|BD1|--+ |
|+---+ | |+---+ | +--->+---+ |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ^ | ^
| | IGMP | | IGMP
R1 | J(*,G1) R3 | J(*,G1)
Figure 6: HS Solution for Multi-homed Redundant G-Sources in OISM
In this scenario, the HS solution works as follows:
1. Configuration of the upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2
PE1 and PE2 are configured to know that G1 is an SFG for any
source (a source prefix length could have been configured
instead) and the redundant G-sources for G1 use S-ESIs ESI-1 and
ESI-2 respectively. Both ESes are configured in both PEs and the
ESI value can be configured or auto-derived. The ESI-label
values are allocated from a DCB
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label] and are configured
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
either locally or by a centralized controller. We assume ESI-1
is configured to use ESI-label-1 and ESI-2 to use ESI-label-2.
The downstream PEs, PE3, PE4 and PE5 are configured to support HS
mode and select the G-source with e.g., lowest ESI value.
2. PE1 and PE2 advertise S-PMSI A-D (*,G1) and ES/A-D per ES/EVI
routes
Based on the configuration of step 1, PE1 and PE2 advertise an
S-PMSI A-D (*,G1) route each. The route from each of the two PEs
will include TWO ESI Label Extended Communities with ESI-1 and
ESI-2 respectively, as well as BD1-RT plus SBD-RT and a flag that
indicates that (*,G1) is an SFG.
In addition, PE1 and PE2 advertise ES and A-D per ES/EVI routes
for ESI-1 and ESI-2. The A-D per ES and per EVI routes will
include the SBD-RT so that they can be imported by the downstream
PEs that are not attached to BD1, e.g., PE3 and PE4. The A-D per
ES routes will convey ESI-label-1 for ESI-1 (on both PEs) and
ESI-label-2 for ESI-2 (also on both PEs).
3. Processing of A-D per ES/EVI routes and RPF check
PE1 and PE2 received each other's ES and A-D per ES/EVI routes.
Regular [RFC7432] [RFC8584] procedures will be followed for DF
Election and programming of the ESI-labels for egress split-
horizon filtering. PE3/PE4 import the A-D per ES/EVI routes in
the SBD. Since PE3 has created a (*,G1) state based on local
interest, PE3 will add an RPF check to (*,G1) so that packets
coming with ESI-label-2 are discarded (lowest ESI value is
assumed to give the primary S-ES).
4. G-traffic forwarding and fault detection
PE1 receives G-traffic (S1,G1) on ES-1 that is forwarded within
the context of BD1. Irrespective of the tunnel type, PE1 pushes
ESI-label-1 at the bottom of the stack and the traffic gets to
PE3 and PE5 with the mentioned ESI-label (PE4 has no local
interested receivers). The G-traffic with ESI-label-1 passes the
RPF check and it is forwarded to R1. In the same way, PE2 sends
(S2,G1) with ESI-label-2, but this G-traffic does not pass the
RPF check and gets discarded at PE3/PE5.
If the link from S1 to PE1 fails, S1 will forward the (S1,G1)
traffic to PE2 instead. PE1 withdraws the ES and A-D routes for
ESI-1. Now both flows will be originated by PE2, however the RPF
checks don't change in PE3/PE5.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
If subsequently, the link from S1 to PE2 fails, PE2 also
withdraws the ES and A-D routes for ESI-1. Since PE3 and PE5
have no longer A-D per ES/EVI routes for ESI-1, they immediately
change the RPF check so that packets with ESI-label-2 are now
accepted.
Figure 7 illustrates a scenario where S1 and S2 are single-homed to
PE1 and PE2 respectively. This scenario is a sub-case of the one in
Figure 6. Now ES-1 only exists in PE1, hence only PE1 advertises the
A-D per ES/EVI routes for ESI-1. Similarly, ES-2 only exists in PE2
and PE2 is the only PE advertising A-D routes for ESI-2. The same
procedures as in Figure 6 applies to this use-case.
S1(ESI-1) S2(ESI-2)
| |
(S1,G1)| (S2,G1)|
| |
PE1 | PE2 |
+--------v---+ +--------v---+
| +---+ | | +---+ | S-PMSI
S-PMSI | +---|BD1| | | +---|BD2| | (*,G1)
(*,G1) | |VRF+---+ | | |VRF+---+ | SFG
SFG |+---+ | | | |+---+ | | | ESI2
ESI1 +---||SBD|--+ | |-----------||SBD|--+ | |---+ |
| | |+---+ | | EVPN |+---+ | | | v
v | +---------|--+ OISM +---------|--+ |
| | | |
| | (S1,G1) | |
SMET | +---------+------------------+ | | SMET
(*,G1) | | | | | (*,G1)
^ | | +--------------------------------+----+ | ^
| | | | (S2,G1) | | | |
| | | | | | | |
PE3 | | | PE4 | | | PE5
+-------v-v--+ +------------+ | +------v-----+
| +---+ | | +---+ | | | +---+ |
| +---|SBD| |-------| +---|SBD| |--|---| +---|SBD| |
| |VRF+---+ | | |VRF+---+ | | | |VRF+---+ |
|+---+ | | |+---+ | | | |+---+ | |
||BD3|--+ | ||BD4|--+ | +--->|BD1|--+ |
|+---+ | |+---+ | |+---+ |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ^ | ^
| | IGMP | | IGMP
R1 | J(*,G1) R3 | J(*,G1)
Figure 7: HS Solution for single-homed Redundant G-Sources in OISM
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
5.3. HS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network
Irrespective of the redundant G-sources being multi-homed or single-
homed, if the tenant network has only one BD, e.g., BD1, the
procedures of Section 5.2 still apply, only that routes do not
include any SBD-RT and all the procedures apply to BD1 only.
6. Security Considerations
The same Security Considerations described in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] are valid for this document.
From a security perspective, out of the two methods described in this
document, the WS method is considered lighter in terms of control
plane and therefore its impact is low on the processing capabilities
of the PEs. The HS method adds more burden on the control plane of
all the PEs of the tenant with sources and receivers.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a Bit in the Multicast Flags Extended
Community to indicate that a given (*,G) or (S,G) in an S-PMSI A-D
route is associated with an SFG.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Drake, J., and W. Lin,
"IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-
mld-proxy-05 (work in progress), April 2020.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast]
Lin, W., Zhang, Z., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Rabadan, J., and
A. Sajassi, "EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM)
Forwarding", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-05 (work in
progress), October 2020.
[RFC8584] Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake,
J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet
VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility",
RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>.
[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>.
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label]
Zhang, Z., Rosen, E., Lin, W., Li, Z., and I. Wijnands,
"MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels", draft-
zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01 (work in
progress), April 2018.
8.2. Informative References
[EVPN-RT5]
Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A.
Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", internet-
draft ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11.txt, May
2018.
[EVPN-BUM]
Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., and K. Patel, "Updates on
EVPN BUM Procedures", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-bum-
procedure-updates-06, June 2019.
[DF-PREF] Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Przygienda, T., Lin, W.,
Drake, J., Sajassi, A., and S. Mohanty, "Preference-based
EVPN DF Election", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-
04.txt, June 2019.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
[EVPN-BFD]
Govindan, V., Mallik, M., Sajassi, A., and G. Mirsky,
"Fault Management for EVPN networks", internet-draft ietf-
bess-evpn-bfd-01.txt, October 2020.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mankamana Mishra and Ali Sajassi for
their review and valuable comments.
Appendix B. Contributors
Authors' Addresses
Jorge Rabadan (editor)
Nokia
777 Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Jayant Kotalwar
Nokia
701 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com
Senthil Sathappan
Nokia
701 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft EVPN Redundant Sources November 2020
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks
Email: wlin@juniper.net
Eric C. Rosen
Individual
Email: erosen52@gmail.com
Rabadan, et al. Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 29]
