idnits 2.17.1 draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 173 has weird spacing: '...so that a) ...' == Line 174 has weird spacing: '...pes and b) t...' -- The document date (March 6, 2019) is 1870 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC8174' is mentioned on line 123, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5512' is mentioned on line 326, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5512 (Obsoleted by RFC 9012) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 385, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nvo3-encap (ref. 'DT-ENCAP') == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Sami Boutros 3 Intended Status: Standard Track VMware 4 Ali Sajassi 5 Cisco Systems 6 John Drake 7 Juniper Networks 8 Jorge Rabadan 9 Nokia 10 Sam Aldrin 11 Google 13 Expires: September 7, 2019 March 6, 2019 15 EVPN control plane for Geneve 16 draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-04.txt 18 Abstract 20 This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) control plane can be 21 used with Network Virtualization Overlay over Layer 3 (NVO3) Generic 22 Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve) encapsulation for NVO3 23 solutions. EVPN control plane can also be used by a Network 24 Virtualization Endpoints (NVEs) to express Geneve tunnel option 25 TLV(s)supported in transmission and/or reception of Geneve 26 encapsulated data packets. 28 Status of this Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 35 other groups may also distribute working documents as 36 Internet-Drafts. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 44 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 45 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 46 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 48 Copyright and License Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 61 described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2. GENEVE extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2.1 Ethernet option TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 3.1 Geneve Tunnel Option Types sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 1 Introduction 82 The Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3) solutions for network 83 virtualization in data center (DC) environment are based on an IP- 84 based underlay. An NVO3 solution provides layer 2 and/or layer 3 85 overlay services for virtual networks enabling multi-tenancy and 86 workload mobility. The NVO3 working group have been working on 87 different dataplane encapsulations. The Generic Network 88 Virtualization Encapsulation [GENEVE] have been recently recommended 89 to be the proposed standard for network virtualization overlay 90 encapsulation. 92 This document describes how the EVPN control plane can signal Geneve 93 encapsulation type in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Extended Community 94 defined in [TUNNEL-ENCAP]. In addition, this document defines how to 95 communicate the Geneve tunnel option types in a new BGP Tunnel 96 Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLV. The Geneve tunnel options are 97 encapsulated as TLVs after the Geneve base header in the Geneve 98 packet as described in [GENEVE]. 100 [DT-ENCAP] recommends that a control plane determines how Network 101 Virtualization Edge devices (NVEs) use the GENEVE option TLVs when 102 sending/receiving packets. In particular, the control plane 103 negotiates the subset of option TLVs supported, their order and the 104 total number of option TLVs allowed in the packets. This negotiation 105 capability allows, for example, interoperability with hardware-based 106 NVEs that can process fewer options than software-based NVEs. 108 This EVPN control plane extension will allow a Network Virtualization 109 Edge (NVE) to express what Geneve option TLV types it is capable to 110 receive or to send over the Geneve tunnel to its peers. 112 In the datapath, a transmitting NVE MUST NOT encapsulate a packet 113 destined to another NVE with any option TLV(s) the receiving NVE is 114 not capable of processing. 116 1.1 Terminology 118 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 119 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 120 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 121 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 122 capitals, as shown here. 124 Most of the terminology used in this documents comes from [RFC7432] 125 and [NVO3-FRWK]. 127 NVO3: Network Virtualization Overlay over Layer 3 128 GENEVE: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation. 130 NVE: Network Virtualization Edge. 132 VNI: Virtual Network Identifier. 134 MAC: Media Access Control. 136 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. 138 PE: Provide Edge Node. 140 CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch. 142 EVPN: Ethernet VPN. 144 EVI: An EVPN instance spanning the Provider Edge (PE) devices 145 participating in that EVPN. 147 MAC-VRF: A Virtual Routing and Forwarding table for Media Access 148 Control (MAC) addresses on a PE. 149 2. GENEVE extensions 151 This document adds some extensions to the [GENEVE] encapsulation that 152 are relevant to the operation of EVPN. 154 2.1 Ethernet option TLV 156 [EVPN-OVERLAY] describes when an ingress NVE uses ingress replication 157 to flood unknown unicast traffic to the egress NVEs, the ingress NVE 158 needs to indicate to the egress NVE that the Encapsulated packet is a 159 BUM traffic type. This is required to avoid transient packet 160 duplication in all-active multi-homing scenarios. For GENVE 161 encapsulation we need a bit to for this purpose. 163 [RFC8317] uses MPLS label for leaf indication of BUM traffic 164 originated from a leaf AC in an ingress NVE so that the egress NVEs 165 can filter BUM traffic toward their leaf ACs. For GENVE encapsulation 166 we need a bit for this purpose. 168 Although the default mechanism for split-horizon filtering of BUM 169 traffic on an Ethernet segment for IP-based ecnapsulations such as 170 VxLAN, GPE, NVGRE, and GENVE, is local-bias as defined in section 171 8.3.1 of [EVPN-OVERLAY], there can be an incentive to leverage the 172 same split-horizon filtering mechanism of [RFC7432] that uses a 20- 173 bit MPLS label so that a) the a single filtering mechanism is used 174 for all encapsulation types and b) the same PE can participate in a 175 mix of MPLS and IP encapsulations. For this purpose a 20-bit label 176 field MAY be defined for GENVE encapsulation. The support for this 177 label is optional. 179 If an NVE wants to use local-bias procedure, then it sends the new 180 option TLV without ESI-label (e.g., length=4): 181 0 1 2 3 182 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 1 183 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 184 | Option Class=Ethernet |Type=0 |B|L|R| Len=0x1 | 185 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 187 If an NVE wants to use ESI-label, then it sends the new option TLV 188 with ESI-label (e.g., length=8) 190 0 1 2 3 191 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 1 192 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 193 | Option Class=Ethernet |Typ=EVPN-OPTION|B|L|R| Len=0x2 | 194 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 | Rsvd | Source-ID | 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 198 Where: 199 - Option Class is set to Ethernet (new Option Class requested 200 to IANA) 201 - Type is set to EVPN-OPTION (new type requested to IANA) and 202 C bit must be set. 203 - B bit is set to 1 for BUM traffic. 204 - L bit is set to 1 for Leaf-Indication. 205 - Source-ID is a 24-bit value that encodes the ESI-label value 206 signaled on the EVPN Autodiscovery per-ES routes, as described 207 in [RFC7432] for multi-homing and [RFC8317] for leaf-to-leaf 208 BUM filtering. The ESI-label value is encoded in the high-order 209 20 bits of the Source-ESI field. 211 The egress NVEs that make use of ESIs in the data path (because they 212 have a local multi-homed ES or support [RFC8317]) SHOULD advertise 213 their Ethernet A-D per-ES routes along with the Geneve tunnel sub-TLV 214 and in addition to the ESI-label Extended Community. The ingress NVE 215 can then use the Ethernet option-TLV when sending GENEVE packets 216 based on the [RFC7432] and [RFC8317] procedures. The egress NVE will 217 use the Source-ID field in the received packets to make filtering 218 decisions. 220 Note that [EVPN-OVERLAY] modifies the [RFC7432] split-horizon 221 procedures for NVO3 tunnels using the "local-bias" procedure. "Local- 222 bias" relies on tunnel IP source address checks (instead of ESI- 223 labels) to determine whether a packet can be forwarded to a local ES. 225 While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with GENEVE encapsulation, 226 the use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow the same 227 procedures used by EVPN MPLS. 229 An ingress NVE using ingress replication to flood BUM traffic MUST 230 send B=1 in all the GENEVE packets that encapsulate BUM frames. An 231 egress NVE SHOULD determine whether a received packet encapsulates a 232 BUM frame based on the B bit. The use of the B bit is only relevant 233 to GENEVE packets with Protocol Type 0x6558 (Bridged Ethernet). 235 3. BGP Extensions 237 As per [EVPN-OVERLAY] the BGP Encapsulation extended community 238 defined in [TUNNEL-ENCAP] is included with all EVPN routes advertised 239 by an egress NVE. 241 This document specifies a new BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type for 242 Geneve and a new Geneve tunnel option types sub-TLV as described 243 below. 245 3.1 Geneve Tunnel Option Types sub-TLV 247 The Geneve tunnel option types is a new BGP Tunnel Encapsulation 248 Attribute Sub-TLV. 250 +-----------------------------------+ 251 | Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet) | 252 +-----------------------------------+ 253 | Sub-TLV Length (1 or 2 Octets)| 254 +-----------------------------------+ 255 | Sub-TLV Value (Variable) | 256 | | 257 +-----------------------------------+ 259 Figure 1: Geneve tunnel option types sub-TLV 261 The Sub-TLV Type field contains a value in the range from 192-252. 262 To be allocated by IANA. 264 Sub-TLV value MUST match exactly the first 4-octets of the option TLV 265 format. For instance, if we need to signal support for two option 266 TLVs: 268 0 1 2 3 269 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 1 270 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 271 | Option Class | Type |R|R|R| Length | 272 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 273 | Option Class | Type |R|R|R| Length | 274 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 276 Where, an NVE receiving the above sub-TLV, will send GENEVE packets 277 to the originator NVE with with only the option TLVs the receiver NVE 278 is capable of receiving, and following the same order. Also the high 279 order bit in the type, is the critical bit, MUST be set accordingly. 281 The above sub-TLV(s) MAY be included with only Ethernet A-D per-ES 282 routes. 284 4. Operation 286 The following figure shows an example of an NVO3 deployment with 287 EVPN. 289 +--------------+ 290 | | 291 +---------+ | WAN | +---------+ 292 +----+ | | +----+ +----+ | | +----+ 293 |NVE1|--| | |ASBR| |ASBR| | |--|NVE3| 294 +----+ |IP Fabric|---| 1 | | 2 |--|IP Fabric| +----+ 295 +----+ | | +----+ +----+ | | +----+ 296 |NVE2|--| | | | | |--|NVE4| 297 +----+ +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ +----+ 299 |<------ DC 1 -----> <---- DC2 ------>| 301 Figure 2: Data Center Interconnect with ASBR 303 iBGP sessions are established between NVE1, NVE2, ASBR1, possibly via 304 a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are established 305 between NVE3, NVE4, ASBR2. 307 eBGP sessions are established among ASBR1 and ASBR2. 309 All NVEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange EVPN 310 routes. For inter-AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes 311 with NEXT_HOP attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. 313 NVE1 sets the BGP Encapsulation extended community defined in all 314 EVPN routes advertised. NVE1 sets the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation 315 Attribute Tunnel Type to Geneve tunnel encapsulation, and sets the 316 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel sub-TLV for the Geneve tunnel 317 option types with all the Geneve option types it can transmit and 318 receive. 320 All other NVE(s) learn what Geneve option types are supported by NVE1 321 through the EVPN control plane. In the datapath, NVE2, NVE3 and NVE4 322 only encapsulate overlay packets with the Geneve option TLV(s) that 323 NVE1 is capable of receiving. 325 A PE advertises the BGP Encapsulation extended community defined in 326 [RFC5512] if it supports any of the encapsulations defined in [EVPN- 327 OVERLAY]. A PE advertises the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute 328 defined in [TUNNEL-ENCAP] if it supports Geneve encapsulation. 330 5. Security Considerations 332 The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in 333 [RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally 334 applicable. 336 This document uses IP-based tunnel technologies to support data plane 337 transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] and in 338 [EVPN-OVERLAY] are equally applicable. 340 6. IANA Considerations 342 IANA is requested to allocate the following: 344 BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute 345 Tunnel Type: 347 XX Geneve Encapsulation 349 BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs a Code point from the 350 range of 192-252 for Geneve tunnel option types sub-TLV. 352 IANA is requested to assign a new option class from the "Geneve 353 Option Class" registry for the Ethernet option TLV. 355 Option Class Description 356 ------------ --------------- 357 XXXX Ethernet option 359 7. Acknowledgements 361 The authors wish to thank T. Sridhar, for his input, feedback, and 362 helpful suggestions. 364 8. References 366 8.1 Normative References 368 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 369 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 370 1997, . 372 [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., 373 Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet 374 VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, . 377 [RFC8317] Sajassi, et al. "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Ethernet 378 VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 8317, 379 January 2018, . 381 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border 382 Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, . 385 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 386 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008, 387 . 389 [GENEVE] Gross, et al. "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization 390 Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-05, work in progress, 391 September, 2017. 393 [DT-ENCAP] Boutros, et al. "NVO3 Encapsulation Considerations", 394 draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-01, work in progress, October, 2017. 396 [TUNNEL-ENCAP] Rosen et al., "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation 397 Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07, work in progress, July, 398 2017. 400 [EVPN-OVERLAY] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization 401 Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10.txt, 402 work in progress, December, 2017 404 8.2 Informative References 406 [NVO3-FRWK] Lasserre et al., "Framework for DC Network 407 Virtualization", RFC 7365, October 2014. 409 Authors' Addresses 411 Sami Boutros 412 VMware, Inc. 413 Email: boutross@vmware.com 415 Ali Sajassi 416 Cisco 417 Email: sajassi@cisco.com 419 John Drake 420 Juniper Networks 421 Email: jdrake@juniper.net 423 Jorge Rabadan 424 Nokia 425 Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com 427 Sam Aldrin 428 Google 429 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com