idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-09.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 13 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 21, 2017) is 2593 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: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 514, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 518, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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 Samer Salam 6 Cisco Systems 7 John Drake 8 Juniper Networks 9 J. Rabadan 10 Nokia 12 Expires: August 25, 2017 February 21, 2017 14 VPWS support in EVPN 15 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-09.txt 17 Abstract 19 This document describes how EVPN can be used to support Virtual 20 Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN enables the 21 following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well as all- 22 active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates the 23 need for traditional way of PW signaling, and provides fast 24 protection convergence upon node or link failure. 26 Status of this Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 33 other groups may also distribute working documents as 34 Internet-Drafts. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 42 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 44 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 45 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 47 Copyright and License Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2 Service interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community . . . . . . . . . 7 72 4 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 6 Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 6.1 Single-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 6.2 Multi-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 79 9 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 1 Introduction 88 This document describes how EVPN can be used to support Virtual 89 Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. The use of EVPN 90 mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS) brings the benefits of EVPN to p2p 91 services. These benefits include single-active redundancy as well as 92 all-active redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore, 93 the use of EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for traditional way of 94 PW signaling for p2p Ethernet services, as described in section 4. 96 [RFC7432] has the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a given 97 customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any MAC lookup. This 98 capability is ideal in providing p2p services (aka VPWS services). 99 [MEF] defines Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service as p2p 100 service between a pair of ACs (designated by VLANs) and Ethernet 101 Private Line (EPL) service, in which all traffic flows are between a 102 single pair of ports, that in EVPN terminology would mean a single 103 pair of Ethernet Segments ES(es). EVPL can be considered as a VPWS 104 with only two ACs. In delivering an EVPL service, the traffic 105 forwarding capability of EVPN based on the exchange of a pair of 106 Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes is used; whereas, for more 107 general VPWS as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding capability of EVPN 108 based on the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD routes (one Ethernet 109 AD route per AC/ES) is used. In a VPWS service, the traffic from an 110 originating Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to a single 111 destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed and the 112 MPLS label associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI) Ethernet A-D 113 route can be used in forwarding user traffic to the destination AC. 115 For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is 116 identified by a pair of per EVI Ethernet A-D routes which together 117 identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service 118 instance. In the control plane the VPWS service instance is 119 identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by 120 each PE and in the data plane the value of the MPLS label advertised 121 by one PE is used by the other PE to send traffic for that VPWS 122 service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS 123 service instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance. 125 Unlike EVPN where Ethernet Tag ID in EVPN routes are set to zero for 126 Port-based, vlan-based, and vlan-bundle interface mode and it is set 127 to non-zero Ethernet tag ID for vlan-aware bundle mode, in EVPN-VPWS, 128 for all the four interface modes, Ethernet tag ID in the Ethernet A-D 129 route MUST be set to a non-zero value in all the service interface 130 types. 132 In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- 133 VPWS resembles the vlan-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when 134 a PE advertises per EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance 135 serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet tag ID. The value of the MPLS 136 label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service 137 instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the 138 disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the lookup of the MPLS 139 label alone and perform any required tag translation. For EVPL 140 service, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network 141 SHOULD remain tagged with the originating Vlan-ID (VID) and any VID 142 translation MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service, 143 the Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not 144 altered. 146 The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the 147 VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VxLAN encap, and this VNI may have 148 a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be made equal to 149 the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. 151 The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per EVI 152 route is not used to identify the service, however it can be used for 153 flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per 154 [RFC7432] baseline. 156 As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per ES route is used for fast 157 convergence upon link or node failure and the Ethernet Segment route 158 is used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed 159 CE and to synchronize state between them. 161 1.1 Terminology 163 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 164 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 165 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 167 MAC: Media Access Control 169 MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching. 171 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. 173 PE: Provide Edge Node. 175 CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch. 177 EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line. 179 EPL: Ethernet Private Line. 181 EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN. 183 EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN. 185 S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier. 187 C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier. 189 VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service. 191 EVI: EVPN Instance. 193 ES: Ethernet Segment on a PE refers to the link attached to it, this 194 link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs in multi 195 homed cases, or could be a single link in single homed cases. 197 ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier. 199 Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multi-homed to two 200 or more PEs and when only a single PE in such redundancy group can 201 forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given 202 VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single- 203 Active". 205 All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when 206 all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the 207 multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or 208 redundancy is referred to as "All-Active". 210 VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service 211 labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream 212 assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D 213 per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the 214 disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only 215 one VPWS service identifier. 217 2 Service interface 219 2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface 221 With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds 222 to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a 223 one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS 224 service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect 225 functionality between MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service 226 instance identifier and a specific . If the VLAN is 227 represented by different VIDs on different PEs. (e.g., a different 228 VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE needs to perform VID 229 translation for frames destined to its Ethernet segment. In such 230 scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network 231 SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a VID translation 232 MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be performed on the 233 disposition PE. 235 2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface 237 With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier 238 corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE 239 provides the cross-connect functionality between MPLS label 240 identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of 241 VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN 242 is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is 243 allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label 244 alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross connect 245 traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label. 246 The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating 247 VID. 249 2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface 251 This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service 252 interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same 253 VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to 254 those described in Section 2.2. 256 2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface 258 Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to VLAN- 259 based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this 260 service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one 261 tries to define data-plane and control plane behavior for this 262 service interface, he would realize that it is the same as that of 263 VLAN-based service. 265 3. BGP Extensions 267 This document specifies the use of the per EVI Ethernet A-D route to 268 signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to 269 the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to 270 the VPWS service instance identifier value. For both EPL and EVPL 271 services, for a given VPWS service instance the pair of PEs 272 instantiating that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per 273 EVI Ethernet A-D route with its VPWS service instance identifier and 274 will each be configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance 275 identifier. When each PE has received the other PE's per EVI Ethernet 276 A-D route the VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be 277 noted that the same VPWS service instance identifier may be 278 configured on both PEs. 280 The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per EVI 281 Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which 282 the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice 283 as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a 284 given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be 285 configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi- 286 point services. 288 3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 290 This draft proposes a new extended community, defined below as per 291 [RFC7432] in addition to the values specified in [RFC4360], to be 292 included with the per EVI Ethernet A-D route. This attribute is 293 mandatory if multihoming is enabled. 295 +------------------------------------+ 296 | Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)| 297 +------------------------------------+ 298 | Control Flags (2 octets) | 299 +------------------------------------+ 300 | L2 MTU (2 octets) | 301 +------------------------------------+ 302 | Reserved (2 octets) | 303 +------------------------------------+ 305 Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 307 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 308 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 309 | MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) 310 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 312 Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags 314 The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining 315 bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when 316 receiving this community. 318 Name Meaning 320 P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it 321 indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE. 322 MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by 323 all active PE(s). 325 B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it 326 indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE. 328 C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present 329 when sending EVPN packets to this PE. 331 L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the 332 MTU in bytes. 334 A received L2 MTU=0 means no MTU checking against local MTU is 335 needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and 336 if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as 337 the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance. 339 The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its 340 usage in [RFC7432], i.e. the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the 341 ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all- 342 active redundancy is used for this ES. 344 In multihoming scenarios, both B and P flags MUST NOT be both set. A 345 PE that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the 346 route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P 347 unset, it MUST discard the received route from the sender PE. 349 In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election, and 350 all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic 351 to/from the CE will set the P Flag to 1. A remote PE will do per-flow 352 load balancing to the PEs that send P=1 for the same Ethernet Tag and 353 ESI. B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming 354 all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving PE(s) if set. 356 In multihoming single-active scenario, for a given VPWS service 357 instance, in steady state, as result of DF election, the Primary 358 elected PE for the VPWS service instance should signal P=1,B=0, the 359 Backup elected PE should signal P=0,B=1, and the rest of the PEs in 360 the same ES should signal P=0,B=0. When the primary PE/ES fails, the 361 primary PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the 362 VPWS service instance from the remote PE, the remote PEs should then 363 send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF 364 re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there 365 will be a new elected primary PE and new elected backup PE that will 366 signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD receive P=1 367 from only one Primary PE and a B-1 from only one Backup PE. However 368 during transient situations, a remote PE receiving P=1 from more than 369 one PE will select the last advertising PE as the primary PE when 370 forwarding traffic. A remote PE receiving B=1 from more than one PE 371 will select only one backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P=1 from at 372 least one PE before forwarding traffic. 374 If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST 375 NOT be set to 1 and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN- 376 encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP. 378 4 Operation 380 The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with 381 EVPN. 382 Ethernet Ethernet 383 Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native 384 Service | | Service 385 (AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC) 386 | V V V V V V | 387 | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | 388 +----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+ 389 | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | 390 | CE1| | | |CE2 | 391 | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | 392 +----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+ 393 ^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^ 394 | Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | 395 | | | 396 | | | 397 | EVPN Inter-provider point | 398 | | 399 |<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->| 401 Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model 402 iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3, 403 possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are 404 established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are 405 established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4. 407 All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per EVI 408 Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- 409 AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with NEXT_HOP 410 attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link 411 between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, 412 as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two 413 nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, 414 one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID 415 used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to 416 identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't 417 perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS 418 label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is 419 needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service. 421 For single-homed CE, in an advertised per EVI Ethernet A-D route the 422 ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS 423 service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service. 425 For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per EVI Ethernet A-D route the 426 ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to 427 the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value 428 on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE to perform 429 flow-based load-balancing of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached 430 to that ES. In all cases traffic follows the transport paths, which 431 may be asymmetric. 433 The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID 434 in an advertised per EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique 435 across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the 436 per EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS 437 to the other AS. 439 Per ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw 440 all per EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site 441 on a given PE. 443 5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling 445 In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done 446 concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label 447 signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either 448 through manual provisioning or through BGP. 450 In existing implementation of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), redundancy 451 is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN implementation of 452 VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy modes can be 453 supported. 455 In existing implementation with PWs, backup PWs are not used to carry 456 traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among 457 different PEs multi-homed to a single CE. 459 Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the 460 withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL 461 services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence 462 requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to 463 deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate 464 the group of backup PWs associated with the access link. 466 Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms 467 not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local 468 AC down) using the label advertised in the per EVI Ethernet A-D route 469 by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to backup 470 PE. 472 6 Failure Scenarios 474 On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single 475 and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the 476 associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the 477 failed port or link. 479 6.1 Single-Homed CEs 481 Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements 482 for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port 483 failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw 484 the associated per EVI Ethernet A-D routes. 486 6.2 Multi-Homed CEs 488 For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- 489 Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, mass withdraw technique 490 is used. A PE previously advertising a per ES Ethernet A-D route, can 491 withdraw this route signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the 492 VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the 493 backup PE 495 7 Acknowledgements 497 The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin 498 Singh, Senthil Sathappan and Vinod Prabhu for their feedback and 499 contributions to this document. 501 8 Security Considerations 503 The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in 504 [RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally 505 applicable. 507 This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support 508 data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] 509 and in [ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable. 511 9 IANA Considerations 512 IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type: 513 SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference 514 0x04 EVPN Layer 2 attributes [RFCXXXX] 516 This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 attributes 517 Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC 518 Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226]. 520 Initial registrations are as follows: 522 P Advertising PE is the Primary PE. 523 B Advertising PE is the Backup PE. 524 C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present 526 10 References 528 10.1 Normative References 530 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 531 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 532 1997, . 534 [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., 535 Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet 536 VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, . 539 [RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 540 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", 541 RFC 4448, April 2006. 543 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. 544 Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012. 546 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border 547 Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, . 550 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 551 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, . 554 10.2 Informative References 556 [MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 557 2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008, 558 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 559 3A__www.mef.net_Assets_Technical-5FSpecifications_PDF_MEF- 560 5F6.1.pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX- 561 2K-LV98&m=GH5FIfqtBUACPwx-LVV2v5zPrGcNzhCEjfj8-0- 562 R2OI&s=5b19ceQDqdsz0TepqsV7daJoYm9uDMyco7BZ4NeICWU&e= 564 [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for 565 Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006, 566 . 568 [ietf-evpn-overlay] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization 569 Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07.txt, 570 work in progress, December, 2016 572 Contributors 574 In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following 575 co-authors have also contributed to this document: 577 Daniel Voyer Bell Canada 579 Authors' Addresses 581 Sami Boutros 582 VMware, Inc. 583 Email: sboutros@vmware.com 585 Ali Sajassi 586 Cisco 587 Email: sajassi@cisco.com 589 Samer Salam 590 Cisco 591 Email: ssalam@cisco.com 593 John Drake 594 Juniper Networks 595 Email: jdrake@juniper.net 597 Jeff Tantsura 598 Individual 599 Email: jefftant@gmail.com 601 Dirk Steinberg 602 Steinberg Consulting 603 Email: dws@steinbergnet.net 604 Patrice Brissette 605 Cisco 606 Email: pbrisset@cisco.com 608 Thomas Beckhaus 609 Deutsche Telecom 610 Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de 612 Jorge Rabadan 613 Nokia 614 Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com 616 Ryan Bickhart 617 Juniper Networks 618 Email: rbickhart@juniper.net