idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11.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 -- The document date (March 12, 2017) is 2595 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 521, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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: September 13, 2017 March 12, 2017 14 VPWS support in EVPN 15 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11.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 Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides 24 fast 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 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] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a 97 given 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 is based on the exchange of a pair of 106 Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes; whereas, for more general VPWS 107 as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding capability of EVPN is based on 108 the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD routes (one Ethernet AD route 109 per AC/ES). In a VPWS service, the traffic from an originating 110 Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to a single destination 111 Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed and the MPLS label 112 associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI) Ethernet A-D route can be 113 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. In the data plane the value of the MPLS label advertised by 121 one PE is used by the other PE to send traffic for that VPWS service 122 instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS service 123 instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance. 125 For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for Port-based, 126 VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero 127 Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN- 128 VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a 129 non-zero value for all four service interface types. 131 In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- 132 VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when 133 a PE advertises per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance 134 serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of the MPLS 135 label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service 136 instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the 137 disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and 138 subsequently perform any required tag translation. For EVPL service, 139 the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain 140 tagged with the originating VLAN-ID (VID) and any VID translation 141 MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service, the 142 Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered. 144 The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the 145 VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encap, and this VNI may have 146 a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be equal to the 147 VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. 149 The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI 150 route is not used to identify the service. However it can be used for 151 flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the 152 [RFC7432] baseline. 154 As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast 155 convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is 156 used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed CE 157 and to synchronize state between them. 159 1.1 Terminology 161 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 162 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 163 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 165 MAC: Media Access Control 167 MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching. 169 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. 171 PE: Provide Edge Node. 173 ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router 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 VID: VLAN-ID. 191 VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service. 193 EVI: EVPN Instance. 195 ES: Ethernet Segment on a PE refers to the link attached to it, this 196 link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs in multi 197 homed cases, or could be a single link in single homed cases. 199 ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier. 201 Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multi-homed to two 202 or more PEs and when only a single PE in such redundancy group can 203 forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given 204 VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single- 205 Active". 207 All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when 208 all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the 209 multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or 210 redundancy is referred to as "All-Active". 212 VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service 213 labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream 214 assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D 215 per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the 216 disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only 217 one VPWS service identifier. 219 2 Service interface 221 2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface 223 With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds 224 to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a 225 one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS 226 service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect 227 functionality between an MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service 228 instance identifier and a specific . If the VLAN is 229 represented by different VIDs on different PEs and different ES(es), 230 (e.g., a different VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE 231 needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to its Ethernet 232 segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an 233 MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a 234 VID translation MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be 235 performed on the disposition PE. 237 2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface 239 With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier 240 corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE 241 provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label 242 identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of 243 VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN 244 is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is 245 allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label 246 alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross-connect 247 traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label. 248 The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating 249 VID. 251 2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface 253 This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service 254 interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same 255 VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to 256 those described in Section 2.2. 258 2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface 260 Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN- 261 based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this 262 service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one 263 tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this 264 service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of 265 VLAN-based service. 267 3. BGP Extensions 269 This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to 270 signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to 271 the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to 272 the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance 273 identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit value 274 is used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services 275 using a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating 276 that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D 277 route with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be 278 configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier. When 279 each PE has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the 280 VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be noted that the 281 same VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs. 283 The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI 284 Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which 285 the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice 286 as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a 287 given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be 288 configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi- 289 point services. 291 3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 293 This draft defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be included 294 with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is mandatory if 295 multihoming is enabled. 297 +------------------------------------+ 298 | Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)| 299 +------------------------------------+ 300 | Control Flags (2 octets) | 301 +------------------------------------+ 302 | L2 MTU (2 octets) | 303 +------------------------------------+ 304 | Reserved (2 octets) | 305 +------------------------------------+ 307 Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 309 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 310 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 311 | MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) 312 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 314 Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags 316 The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining 317 bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when 318 receiving this community. 320 Name Meaning 322 P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it 323 indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE. 324 MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by 325 all active PE(s). 327 B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it 328 indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE. 330 C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present 331 when sending EVPN packets to this PE. 333 L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the 334 MTU in bytes. 336 A received L2 MTU of zero means no MTU checking against local MTU is 337 needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and 338 if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as 339 the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance. 341 The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its 342 usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the 343 ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all- 344 active redundancy is used for this ES. 346 In multihoming scenarios, both B and P flags MUST NOT be both set. A 347 PE that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the 348 route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P 349 clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE. 351 In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election, and 352 all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic 353 to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A remote PE will do per-flow 354 load-balancing to the PEs that set the P Flag for the same Ethernet 355 Tag and ESI. The B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the 356 multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving 357 PE(s) if set. 359 In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service 360 instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for 361 the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag 362 clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and 363 the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal 364 both P and B Flags clear. When the primary PE/ES fails, the primary 365 PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS 366 service instance from the remote PE and the remote PEs should then 367 send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF 368 re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there 369 will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected backup PE that 370 will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD 371 receive the P Flag set from only one Primary PE and the B Flag set 372 from only one Backup PE. However during transient situations, a 373 remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE will select 374 the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding traffic. A 375 remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE will select 376 the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P 377 Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding traffic. 379 If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST 380 NOT be set and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN- 381 encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP. 383 4 Operation 385 The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with 386 EVPN. 387 Ethernet Ethernet 388 Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native 389 Service | | Service 390 (AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC) 391 | V V V V V V | 392 | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | 393 +----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+ 394 | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | 395 | CE1| | | |CE2 | 396 | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | 397 +----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+ 398 ^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^ 399 | Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | 400 | | | 401 | | | 402 | EVPN Inter-provider point | 403 | | 404 |<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->| 406 Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model 407 iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3, 408 possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are 409 established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are 410 established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4. 412 All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI 413 Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- 414 AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP 415 attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link 416 between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, 417 as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two 418 nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, 419 one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID 420 used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to 421 identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't 422 perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS 423 label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is 424 needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service. 426 For single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the 427 ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS 428 service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service. 430 For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the 431 ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to 432 the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value 433 on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a 434 multihoming all-active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing 435 of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all cases 436 traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric. 438 The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID 439 in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique 440 across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the 441 per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS 442 to the other AS. 444 A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw 445 all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site 446 on a given PE. 448 5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling 450 In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done 451 concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label 452 signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either 453 through manual provisioning or through BGP. 455 In existing implementations of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), 456 redundancy is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN 457 implementation of VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy 458 modes can be supported. 460 In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to 461 carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among 462 different PEs multi-homed to a single CE. 464 Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the 465 withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL 466 services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence 467 requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to 468 deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate 469 the group of backup PWs associated with the access link. 471 Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms 472 not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local 473 AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route 474 by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the 475 backup PE. 477 6 Failure Scenarios 479 On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single 480 and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the 481 associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the 482 failed port or link. 484 6.1 Single-Homed CEs 486 Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements 487 for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port 488 failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw 489 the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. 491 6.2 Multi-Homed CEs 493 For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- 494 Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique 495 is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can 496 withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the 497 VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the 498 backup PE. 500 7 Acknowledgements 502 The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin 503 Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar 504 Hussain, Alvaro Retana and Acee Lindem for their feedback and 505 contributions to this document. 507 8 Security Considerations 509 The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in 510 [RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally 511 applicable. 513 This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support 514 data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] 515 and in [ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable. 517 9 IANA Considerations 519 IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type: 520 SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference 521 0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes [RFCXXXX] 523 This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes 524 Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC 525 Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226]. 527 Initial registrations are as follows: 529 P Advertising PE is the Primary PE. 530 B Advertising PE is the Backup PE. 531 C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present. 533 10 References 535 10.1 Normative References 537 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 538 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 539 1997, . 541 [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., 542 Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet 543 VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, . 546 [RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 547 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", 548 RFC 4448, April 2006. 550 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. 551 Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012. 553 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border 554 Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, . 557 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 558 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, . 561 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 562 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008, 563 . 565 10.2 Informative References 567 [MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 568 2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008, 569 https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf 571 [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for 572 Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006, 573 . 575 [ietf-evpn-overlay] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization 576 Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07.txt, 577 work in progress, December, 2016 579 Contributors 581 In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following 582 co-authors have also contributed to this document: 584 Daniel Voyer Bell Canada 586 Authors' Addresses 588 Sami Boutros 589 VMware, Inc. 590 Email: sboutros@vmware.com 592 Ali Sajassi 593 Cisco 594 Email: sajassi@cisco.com 596 Samer Salam 597 Cisco 598 Email: ssalam@cisco.com 600 John Drake 601 Juniper Networks 602 Email: jdrake@juniper.net 604 Jeff Tantsura 605 Individual 606 Email: jefftant@gmail.com 608 Dirk Steinberg 609 Steinberg Consulting 610 Email: dws@steinbergnet.net 612 Patrice Brissette 613 Cisco 614 Email: pbrisset@cisco.com 616 Thomas Beckhaus 617 Deutsche Telecom 618 Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de 620 Jorge Rabadan 621 Nokia 622 Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com 624 Ryan Bickhart 625 Juniper Networks 626 Email: rbickhart@juniper.net