idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-12.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 (April 14, 2017) is 2569 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 523, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7348 Summary: 2 errors (**), 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: October 16, 2017 April 14, 2017 14 VPWS support in EVPN 15 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-12.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 as per [RFC7348], and 146 this VNI will have a local scope per PE and may also be equal to the 147 VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. When 148 using VXLAN encap, the BGP Encapsulation extended community is 149 included in the Ethernet A-D route as described in [ietf-evpn- 150 overlay]. 152 The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI 153 route is not used to identify the service. However it can be used for 154 flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the 155 [RFC7432] baseline. 157 As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast 158 convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is 159 used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed CE 160 and to synchronize state between them. 162 1.1 Terminology 164 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 165 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 166 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 168 MAC: Media Access Control 170 MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching. 172 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. 174 PE: Provide Edge Node. 176 ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router 178 CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch. 180 EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line. 182 EPL: Ethernet Private Line. 184 EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN. 186 EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN. 188 S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier. 190 C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier. 192 VID: VLAN-ID. 194 VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service. 196 EVI: EVPN Instance. 198 ES: Ethernet Segment on a PE refers to the link attached to it, this 199 link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs in multi 200 homed cases, or could be a single link in single homed cases. 202 ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier. 204 Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multi-homed to two 205 or more PEs and when only a single PE in such redundancy group can 206 forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given 207 VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single- 208 Active". 210 All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when 211 all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the 212 multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or 213 redundancy is referred to as "All-Active". 215 VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service 216 labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream 217 assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D 218 per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the 219 disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only 220 one VPWS service identifier. 222 2 Service interface 224 2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface 226 With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds 227 to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a 228 one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS 229 service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect 230 functionality between an MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service 231 instance identifier and a specific . If the VLAN is 232 represented by different VIDs on different PEs and different ES(es), 233 (e.g., a different VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE 234 needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to its Ethernet 235 segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an 236 MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a 237 VID translation MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be 238 performed on the disposition PE. 240 2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface 242 With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier 243 corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE 244 provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label 245 identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of 246 VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN 247 is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is 248 allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label 249 alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross-connect 250 traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label. 251 The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating 252 VID. 254 2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface 256 This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service 257 interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same 258 VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to 259 those described in Section 2.2. 261 2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface 263 Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN- 264 based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this 265 service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one 266 tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this 267 service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of 268 VLAN-based service. 270 3. BGP Extensions 272 This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to 273 signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to 274 the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to 275 the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance 276 identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit value 277 is used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services 278 using a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating 279 that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D 280 route with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be 281 configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier. When 282 each PE has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the 283 VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be noted that the 284 same VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs. 286 The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI 287 Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which 288 the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice 289 as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a 290 given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be 291 configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi- 292 point services. 294 3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 296 This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be 297 included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is 298 mandatory if multihoming is enabled. 300 +------------------------------------+ 301 | Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)| 302 +------------------------------------+ 303 | Control Flags (2 octets) | 304 +------------------------------------+ 305 | L2 MTU (2 octets) | 306 +------------------------------------+ 307 | Reserved (2 octets) | 308 +------------------------------------+ 310 Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 312 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 313 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 314 | MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) 315 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 317 Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags 319 The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining 320 bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when 321 receiving this community. 323 Name Meaning 324 P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it 325 indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE. 326 MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by 327 all active PE(s). 329 B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it 330 indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE. 332 C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present 333 when sending EVPN packets to this PE. 335 L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the 336 MTU in bytes. 338 A received L2 MTU of zero means no MTU checking against local MTU is 339 needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and 340 if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as 341 the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance. 343 The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its 344 usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the 345 ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all- 346 active redundancy is used for this ES. 348 In multihoming scenarios, both B and P flags MUST NOT be both set. A 349 PE that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the 350 route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P 351 clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE. 353 In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election, and 354 all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic 355 to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A remote PE will do per-flow 356 load-balancing to the PEs that set the P Flag for the same Ethernet 357 Tag and ESI. The B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the 358 multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving 359 PE(s) if set. 361 In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service 362 instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for 363 the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag 364 clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and 365 the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal 366 both P and B Flags clear. When the primary PE/ES fails, the primary 367 PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS 368 service instance from the remote PE and the remote PEs should then 369 send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF 370 re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there 371 will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected backup PE that 372 will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD 373 receive the P Flag set from only one Primary PE and the B Flag set 374 from only one Backup PE. However during transient situations, a 375 remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE will select 376 the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding traffic. A 377 remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE will select 378 the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P 379 Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding traffic. 381 If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST 382 NOT be set and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN- 383 encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP. 385 4 Operation 387 The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with 388 EVPN. 389 Ethernet Ethernet 390 Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native 391 Service | | Service 392 (AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC) 393 | V V V V V V | 394 | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | 395 +----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+ 396 | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | 397 | CE1| | | |CE2 | 398 | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | 399 +----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+ 400 ^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^ 401 | Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | 402 | | | 403 | | | 404 | EVPN Inter-provider point | 405 | | 406 |<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->| 408 Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model 409 iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3, 410 possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are 411 established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are 412 established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4. 414 All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI 415 Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- 416 AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP 417 attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link 418 between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, 419 as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two 420 nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, 421 one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID 422 used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to 423 identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't 424 perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS 425 label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is 426 needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service. 428 For single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the 429 ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS 430 service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service. 432 For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the 433 ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to 434 the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value 435 on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a 436 multihoming all-active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing 437 of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all cases 438 traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric. 440 The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID 441 in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique 442 across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the 443 per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS 444 to the other AS. 446 A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw 447 all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site 448 on a given PE. 450 5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling 452 In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done 453 concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label 454 signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either 455 through manual provisioning or through BGP. 457 In existing implementations of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), 458 redundancy is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN 459 implementation of VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy 460 modes can be supported. 462 In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to 463 carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among 464 different PEs multi-homed to a single CE. 466 Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the 467 withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL 468 services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence 469 requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to 470 deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate 471 the group of backup PWs associated with the access link. 473 Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms 474 not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local 475 AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route 476 by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the 477 backup PE. 479 6 Failure Scenarios 481 On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single 482 and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the 483 associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the 484 failed port or link. 486 6.1 Single-Homed CEs 488 Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements 489 for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port 490 failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw 491 the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. 493 6.2 Multi-Homed CEs 495 For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- 496 Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique 497 is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can 498 withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the 499 VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the 500 backup PE. 502 7 Acknowledgements 504 The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin 505 Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar 506 Hussain, Alvaro Retana and Acee Lindem for their feedback and 507 contributions to this document. 509 8 Security Considerations 511 The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in 512 [RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally 513 applicable. 515 This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support 516 data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] 517 and in [ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable. 519 9 IANA Considerations 521 IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type: 522 SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference 523 0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes [RFCXXXX] 525 This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes 526 Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC 527 Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226]. 529 Initial registrations are as follows: 531 P Advertising PE is the Primary PE. 532 B Advertising PE is the Backup PE. 533 C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present. 535 10 References 537 10.1 Normative References 539 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 540 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 541 1997, . 543 [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., 544 Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet 545 VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, . 548 [RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 549 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", 550 RFC 4448, April 2006. 552 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. 553 Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012. 555 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border 556 Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, . 559 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 560 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, . 563 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 564 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008, 565 . 567 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., et al, "VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying 568 Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, August 569 2014 571 10.2 Informative References 573 [MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 574 2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008, 575 https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf 577 [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for 578 Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006, 579 . 581 [ietf-evpn-overlay] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization 582 Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07.txt, 583 work in progress, December, 2016 585 Contributors 587 In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following 588 co-authors have also contributed to this document: 590 Daniel Voyer Bell Canada 592 Authors' Addresses 594 Sami Boutros 595 VMware, Inc. 596 Email: sboutros@vmware.com 598 Ali Sajassi 599 Cisco 600 Email: sajassi@cisco.com 602 Samer Salam 603 Cisco 604 Email: ssalam@cisco.com 606 John Drake 607 Juniper Networks 608 Email: jdrake@juniper.net 610 Jeff Tantsura 611 Individual 612 Email: jefftant@gmail.com 614 Dirk Steinberg 615 Steinberg Consulting 616 Email: dws@steinbergnet.net 618 Patrice Brissette 619 Cisco 620 Email: pbrisset@cisco.com 622 Thomas Beckhaus 623 Deutsche Telecom 624 Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de 626 Jorge Rabadan 627 Nokia 628 Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com 630 Ryan Bickhart 631 Juniper Networks 632 Email: rbickhart@juniper.net