GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8214

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Boutros Request for Comments: 8214 VMware Category: Standards Track A. Sajassi ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Salam

                                                                 Cisco
                                                              J. Drake
                                                      Juniper Networks
                                                            J. Rabadan
                                                                 Nokia
                                                           August 2017
        Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN

Abstract

 This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used to
 support the Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks.
 EVPN accomplishes the following for VPWS: provides Single-Active as
 well as All-Active multihoming with flow-based load-balancing,
 eliminates the need for Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides fast
 protection convergence upon node or link failure.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
    1.1. Terminology ................................................5
 2. Service Interface ...............................................6
    2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface ...............................6
    2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface ..............................7
         2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface ........................7
    2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface ........................7
 3. BGP Extensions ..................................................7
    3.1. EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community .................8
 4. Operation ......................................................10
 5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling ................................11
 6. Failure Scenarios ..............................................12
    6.1. Single-Homed CEs ..........................................12
    6.2. Multihomed CEs ............................................12
 7. Security Considerations ........................................13
 8. IANA Considerations ............................................13
 9. References .....................................................13
    9.1. Normative References ......................................13
    9.2. Informative References ....................................14
 Acknowledgements ..................................................16
 Contributors ......................................................16
 Authors' Addresses ................................................17

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

1. Introduction

 This document describes how EVPN can be used to support VPWS in
 MPLS/IP networks.  The use of EVPN mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS)
 brings the benefits of EVPN to Point-to-Point (P2P) services.  These
 benefits include Single-Active redundancy as well as All-Active
 redundancy with flow-based load-balancing.  Furthermore, the use of
 EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for the traditional way of PW
 signaling for P2P Ethernet services, as described in Section 4.
 [RFC7432] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a
 given customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any Media Access
 Control (MAC) lookup.  This capability is ideal in providing P2P
 services (aka VPWS services).  [MEF] defines the Ethernet Virtual
 Private Line (EVPL) service as a P2P service between a pair of ACs
 (designated by VLANs) and the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service,
 in which all traffic flows are between a single pair of ports that,
 in EVPN terminology, would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments
 ES(es).  EVPL can be considered as a VPWS with only two ACs.  In
 delivering an EVPL service, the traffic-forwarding capability of EVPN
 is based on the exchange of a pair of Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D)
 routes, whereas for more general VPWS as per [RFC4664], the
 traffic-forwarding capability of EVPN is based on the exchange of a
 group of Ethernet A-D routes (one Ethernet A-D route per AC/ES).  In
 a VPWS service, the traffic from an originating Ethernet Segment can
 be forwarded only to a single destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no
 MAC lookup is needed, and the MPLS label associated with the per-EVPN
 instance (EVI) Ethernet A-D route can be used in forwarding user
 traffic to the destination AC.
 For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is
 identified by a pair of per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes that together
 identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service
 instance.  In the control plane, the VPWS service instance is
 identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by
 each Provider Edge (PE) node.  In the data plane, the value of the
 MPLS label advertised by one PE is used by the other PE to send
 traffic for that VPWS service instance.  As with the Ethernet Tag in
 standard EVPN, the VPWS service instance identifier has uniqueness
 within an EVPN instance.
 For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for port-based,
 VLAN-based, and VLAN bundle interface mode and set to non-zero
 Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode.  Conversely, for
 EVPN-VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set
 to a non-zero value for all four service interface types.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior,
 EVPN-VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that
 when a PE advertises a per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service
 instance serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID.  The value of
 the MPLS label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS
 service instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS-encapsulated packet,
 the disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and
 subsequently perform any required tag translation.  For the EVPL
 service, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network
 SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VLAN ID (VID), and any VID
 translation MUST be performed at the disposition PE.  For the EPL
 service, the Ethernet frames are transported as is, and the tags
 are not altered.
 The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the
 Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN
 encapsulation as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope
 per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier
 set in the Ethernet A-D route.  When using VXLAN encapsulation, the
 BGP Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D
 route as described in [EVPN-OVERLAY].  The VNI is like the MPLS label
 that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel Ethernet packets
 from all the service interface types defined in Section 2.  The
 EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document have no dependency on
 the tunneling technology.
 The Ethernet Segment Identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI
 route is not used to identify the service.  However, it can be used
 for flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the
 [RFC7432] baseline.
 As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast
 convergence upon link or node failure.  The Ethernet Segment route is
 used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multihomed
 Customer Edge node (CE) and to synchronize state between them.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

1.1. Terminology

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
 capitals, as shown here.
 EVPN: Ethernet VPN.
 MAC: Media Access Control.
 MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
 OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
 PE: Provider Edge Node.
 AS: Autonomous System.
 ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router.
 CE: Customer Edge device (e.g., host, router, or switch).
 EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line.
 EPL: Ethernet Private Line.
 EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN.
 EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN.
 S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier.
 C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier.
 VID: VLAN ID.
 VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service.
 EVI: EVPN Instance.
 P2P: Point to Point.
 VXLAN: Virtual Extensible LAN.
 DF: Designated Forwarder.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 L2: Layer 2.
 MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit.
 eBGP: External Border Gateway Protocol.
 iBGP: Internal Border Gateway Protocol.
 ES: "Ethernet Segment" on a PE refers to the link attached to it.
    This link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs
    in multihomed cases or could be a single link in single-homed
    cases.
 ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier.
 Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multihomed to two
    or more PEs and when only a single PE in such a redundancy group
    can forward traffic to/from the multihomed device or network for a
    given VLAN, then such multihoming or redundancy is referred to as
    "Single-Active".
 All-Active Mode: When a device is multihomed to two or more PEs and
    when all PEs in such a redundancy group can forward traffic
    to/from the multihomed device for a given VLAN, then such
    multihoming or redundancy is referred to as "All-Active".
 VPWS Service Instance: A VPWS service instance is represented by a
    pair of EVPN service labels associated with a pair of endpoints.
    Each label is downstream-assigned and advertised by the
    disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D per-EVI route.  The
    downstream label identifies the endpoint on the disposition PE.  A
    VPWS service instance can be associated with only one VPWS service
    identifier.

2. Service Interface

2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface

 With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds
 to only a single VLAN on a specific interface.  Therefore, there is a
 one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS
 service instance identifier.  The PE provides the cross-connect
 functionality between an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) identified by
 the VPWS service instance identifier and a specific <port, VLAN>.  If
 the VLAN is represented by different VIDs on different PEs and
 different ES(es) (e.g., a different VID per Ethernet Segment per PE),
 then each PE needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to
 its Ethernet Segment.  In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the
 originating VID, and a VID translation MUST be supported in the data
 path and MUST be performed on the disposition PE.

2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface

 With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier
 corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface.  The PE
 provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label
 identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of
 VLANs on a specific interface.  For this service interface, each VLAN
 is presented by a single VID, which means that no VLAN translation is
 allowed.  The receiving PE can direct the traffic, based on the EVPN
 label alone, to a specific port.  The transmitting PE can
 cross-connect traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the
 MPLS label.  The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the
 originating VID.

2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface

 This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service
 interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same
 VPWS service instance identifier.  The procedures are identical to
 those described in Section 2.2.

2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface

 Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a
 VLAN-based service interface (defined in Section 2.1); thus, this
 service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS.  In other words, if one
 tries to define data-plane and control-plane behavior for this
 service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of
 the VLAN-based service.

3. BGP Extensions

 This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to
 signal VPWS services.  The ESI field is set to the customer ES, and
 the 32-bit Ethernet Tag ID field MUST be set to the VPWS service
 instance identifier value.  The VPWS service instance identifier
 value MAY be set to a 24-bit value, and when a 24-bit value is used,
 it MUST be right-aligned.  For both EPL and EVPL services using a
 given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating that VPWS
 service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D route
 with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be configured
 with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier.  When each PE

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS
 service instance is instantiated.  It should be noted that the same
 VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs.
 The Route Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI
 Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which
 the VPWS service instance is configured.  It is the operator's choice
 as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a
 given EVPN instance.  However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be
 configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN
 multipoint services.

3.1. EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community

 This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be
 included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.  This attribute is
 mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
             +-------------------------------------------+
             |  Type (0x06) / Sub-type (0x04) (2 octets) |
             +-------------------------------------------+
             |  Control Flags  (2 octets)                |
             +-------------------------------------------+
             |  L2 MTU (2 octets)                        |
             +-------------------------------------------+
             |  Reserved (2 octets)                      |
             +-------------------------------------------+
         Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community
          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |   MBZ                   |C|P|B|  (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control Flags

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

       The following bits in Control Flags are defined; the remaining
       bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when
       receiving this community.
       Name     Meaning
       ---------------------------------------------------------------
       P        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios,
                this flag indicates that the advertising PE is the
                primary PE.  MUST be set to 1 for multihoming
                All-Active scenarios by all active PE(s).
       B        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios,
                this flag indicates that the advertising PE is the
                backup PE.
       C        If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
                when sending EVPN packets to this PE.  It is
                recommended that the control word be included in the
                absence of an entropy label [RFC6790].
 L2 MTU is a 2-octet value indicating the MTU in bytes.
 A received L2 MTU of zero means that no MTU checking against the
 local MTU is needed.  A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against
 the local MTU, and if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add
 the remote PE as the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS
 service instance.
 The usage of the per-ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its
 usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the
 ESI Label extended community will indicate if Single-Active or
 All-Active redundancy is used for this ES.
 In a multihoming All-Active scenario, there is no Designated
 Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active
 and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag.  A
 remote PE will do per-flow load-balancing to the PEs that set the
 P Flag for the same Ethernet Tag and ESI.  The B Flag in
 Control Flags SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming All-Active
 scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving PE(s) if set.
 In a multihoming Single-Active scenario for a given VPWS service
 instance, the DF election should result in the primary-elected PE for
 the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag
 clear, the backup-elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and
 the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal
 both the P Flag and the B Flag clear.  When the primary PE/ES fails,
 the primary PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 the VPWS service instance from the remote PE, and the remote PE
 should then send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the
 backup PE.  DF re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same
 ES, and there will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected
 backup PE that will signal the P and B Flags as described.  A remote
 PE SHOULD receive the P Flag set from only one primary PE and the B
 Flag set from only one backup PE.  However, during transient
 situations, a remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE
 will select the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding
 traffic.  A remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE
 will select the last advertising PE as the backup PE.  A remote PE
 MUST receive a P Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding
 traffic.
 If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790], then the C Flag
 MUST NOT be set, and the control word MUST NOT be used when sending
 EVPN-encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP.

4. Operation

 The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed
 with EVPN.
        Ethernet                                          Ethernet
        Native   |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->|  Native
        Service  |                                     |  Service
        (AC)     |     |<-PSN1->|       |<-PSN2->|     |  (AC)
           |     V     V        V       V        V     V  |
           |     +-----+      +-----+  +-----+   +-----+  |
    +----+ |     | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 |  |    +----+
    |    |-------+-----+      +-----+  +-----+   +-----+-------|    |
    | CE1| |                                              |    |CE2 |
    |    |-------+-----+      +-----+  +-----+   +-----+-------|    |
    +----+ |     | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 |  |    +----+
         ^       +-----+      +-----+  +-----+   +-----+          ^
         |   Provider Edge 1        ^        Provider Edge 2      |
         |                          |                             |
         |                          |                             |
         |              EVPN Inter-provider point                 |
         |                                                        |
         |<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->|
                 Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model
 iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1, and ASBR3,
 possibly via a BGP route reflector.  Similarly, iBGP sessions are
 established among PE3, PE4, ASBR2, and ASBR4.  eBGP sessions are
 established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN Subsequent Address Family
 Identifier (SAFI) and exchange per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes, one route
 per VPWS service instance.  For inter-AS option B, the ASBRs
 re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP attribute set to their IP
 addresses as per [RFC4271].  The link between the CE and the PE is
 either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, as described in [802.1Q],
 that can carry a single VLAN tag or two nested VLAN tags, and it is
 configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, one per VPWS service
 instance.  It should be noted that the VLAN ID used by the customer
 at either end of a VPWS service instance to identify that service
 instance may be different, and EVPN doesn't perform that translation
 between the two values.  Rather, the MPLS label will identify the
 VPWS service instance, and if translation is needed, it should be
 done by the Ethernet interface for each service.
 For a single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route,
 the ESI field is set to zero and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the
 VPWS service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL
 service.
 For a multihomed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the
 ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to
 the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value
 on all PEs attached to that ES.  This allows an ingress PE in a
 multihoming All-Active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing
 of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES.  In all
 cases, traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric.
 Either (1) the VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the
 Ethernet Tag ID in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST be
 unique across all ASes or (2) an ASBR needs to perform a translation
 when the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from
 one AS to the other AS.
 A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw
 all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multihomed site
 on a given PE.

5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling

 In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done
 concurrently using BGP, whereas with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label
 signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either
 through manual provisioning or through BGP.
 In existing implementations of VPWS using PWs, redundancy is limited
 to Single-Active mode, while with EVPN implementations of VPWS, both
 Single-Active and All-Active redundancy modes can be supported.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to
 carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among
 different PEs multihomed to a single CE.
 Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the
 withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL
 services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence
 requires the exchange of two control-plane messages: one message to
 deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate
 the group of backup PWs associated with the access link.
 Finally, EVPN may employ data-plane egress link protection mechanisms
 not available in VPWS.  This can be done by the primary PE (on local
 AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route
 by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the
 backup PE.

6. Failure Scenarios

 On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both
 single-homed and multihomed CEs, unlike [RFC7432], the PE MUST
 withdraw all the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service
 instances on the failed port or link.

6.1. Single-Homed CEs

 Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements
 for single-homed Ethernet Segments.  Therefore, upon a link/port
 failure of a given single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST
 withdraw the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.

6.2. Multihomed CEs

 For a faster convergence in multihomed scenarios with either
 Single-Active redundancy or All-Active redundancy, a mass withdraw
 technique is used.  A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D
 route can withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to
 switch all the VPWS service instances associated with this multihomed
 ES to the backup PE.
 Just like RFC 7432, the Ethernet A-D per-EVI route MUST NOT be used
 for traffic forwarding by a remote PE until it also receives the
 associated set of Ethernet A-D per-ES routes.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

7. Security Considerations

 The mechanisms in this document use the EVPN control plane as defined
 in [RFC7432].  The security considerations described in [RFC7432] are
 equally applicable.
 This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support
 data-plane transport.  The security considerations described in
 [RFC7432] and in [EVPN-OVERLAY] are equally applicable.

8. IANA Considerations

 IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type:
    Sub-Type Value     Name                        Reference
    --------------------------------------------------------
    0x04               EVPN Layer 2 Attributes     RFC 8214
 This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes
 Control Flags".  New registrations will be made through the
 "RFC Required" procedure defined in [RFC8126].
 Initial registrations are as follows:
      P      Advertising PE is the primary PE.
      B      Advertising PE is the backup PE.
      C      Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
            RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
 [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
            Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
            Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432,
            February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
            "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
            Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.
 [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
            L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
            RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
 [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
            Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
 [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
            Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
            February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
 [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
            Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
            RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
 [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
            L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
            eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
            Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
            Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

9.2. Informative References

 [MEF]      Metro Ethernet Forum, "EVC Ethernet Services Definitions
            Phase 3", Technical Specification MEF 6.2, August 2014,
            <https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/
            PDF/MEF_6.2.pdf>.
 [RFC4664]  Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
            Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

 [EVPN-OVERLAY]
            Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
            Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
            Overlay Solution using EVPN", Work in Progress,
            draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08, March 2017.
 [802.1Q]   IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
            networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
            Bridge Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011,
            DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6009146.

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin
 Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar
 Hussain, Alvaro Retana, and Acee Lindem for their feedback and
 contributions to this document.

Contributors

 In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
 coauthors have also contributed to this document:
 Jeff Tantsura
 Individual
 Email: jefftant@gmail.com
 Dirk Steinberg
 Steinberg Consulting
 Email: dws@steinbergnet.net
 Patrice Brissette
 Cisco Systems
 Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
 Thomas Beckhaus
 Deutsche Telecom
 Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de
 Ryan Bickhart
 Juniper Networks
 Email: rbickhart@juniper.net
 Daniel Voyer
 Bell Canada

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 8214 VPWS Support in EVPN August 2017

Authors' Addresses

 Sami Boutros
 VMware, Inc.
 Email: sboutros@vmware.com
 Ali Sajassi
 Cisco Systems
 Email: sajassi@cisco.com
 Samer Salam
 Cisco Systems
 Email: ssalam@cisco.com
 John Drake
 Juniper Networks
 Email: jdrake@juniper.net
 Jorge Rabadan
 Nokia
 Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com

Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8214.txt · Last modified: 2017/08/23 20:27 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki