GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8560

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Sajassi, Ed. Request for Comments: 8560 S. Salam Category: Standards Track Cisco ISSN: 2070-1721 N. Del Regno

                                                               Verizon
                                                            J. Rabadan
                                                                 Nokia
                                                              May 2019
          Seamless Integration of Ethernet VPN (EVPN) with
               Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) and
          Their Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) Equivalents

Abstract

 This document specifies mechanisms for backward compatibility of
 Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone Bridge Ethernet VPN
 (PBB-EVPN) solutions with Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) and
 Provider Backbone Bridge VPLS (PBB-VPLS) solutions.  It also provides
 mechanisms for the seamless integration of these two technologies in
 the same MPLS/IP network on a per-VPN-instance basis.  Implementation
 of this document enables service providers to introduce EVPN/PBB-EVPN
 Provider Edges (PEs) in their brownfield deployments of VPLS/PBB-VPLS
 networks.  This document specifies the control-plane and forwarding
 behavior needed for the auto-discovery of the following: 1) a VPN
 instance, 2) multicast and unicast operation, and 3) a Media Access
 Control (MAC) mobility operation.  This enables seamless integration
 between EVPN and VPLS PEs as well as between PBB-VPLS and PBB-EVPN
 PEs.

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/rfc8560.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2019 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.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   1.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   1.3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 3.  VPLS Integration with EVPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.1.  Capability Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.2.  Forwarding Setup and Unicast Operation  . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.3.  MAC Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.4.  Multicast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.1.  Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.2.  P2MP Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 4.  PBB-VPLS Integration with PBB-EVPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.1.  Capability Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.2.  Forwarding Setup and Unicast Operation  . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.3.  MAC Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.4.  Multicast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.1.  Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.2.  P2MP Tunnel: Inclusive Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

1. Introduction

 Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) and Provider Backbone Bridging
 VPLS (PBB-VPLS) are widely deployed Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) technologies.
 Many service providers who are looking at adopting Ethernet VPN
 (EVPN) and Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN) want to
 preserve their investments in the VPLS and PBB-VPLS networks.  Hence,
 they require mechanisms by which EVPN and PBB-EVPN technologies can
 be introduced into their brownfield VPLS and PBB-VPLS networks
 without requiring any upgrades (software or hardware) to these
 networks.  This document specifies procedures for the seamless
 integration of the two technologies in the same MPLS/IP network.
 Throughout this document, we use the term "(PBB-)EVPN" to correspond
 to both EVPN and PBB-EVPN, and we use the term "(PBB-)VPLS" to
 correspond to both VPLS and PBB-VPLS.  This document specifies the
 control-plane and forwarding behavior needed for 1) auto-discovery of
 a VPN instance, 2) multicast and unicast operations, and 3) a MAC
 mobility operation.  This enables seamless integration between
 (PBB-)EVPN Provider Edge (PE) devices and (PBB-)VPLS PEs.
                          VPLS PE
                           +---+
                           |PE1|
                           +---+
                             /
      EVPN/VPLS PE  +---------------+   EVPN/VPLS PE
           +---+    |               |   +---+
           |PE4|----|    MPLS/IP    |---|PE5|
           +---+    |     Core      |   +---+
                    |               |
                    +---------------+
                      /        \
                   +---+     +---+
                   |PE2|     |PE3|
                   +---+     +---+
                 VPLS PE     VPLS PE
      Figure 1: Seamless Integration of (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS
 Section 2 provides the details of the requirements.  Section 3
 specifies procedures for the seamless integration of VPLS and EVPN
 networks.  Section 4 specifies procedures for the seamless
 integration of PBB-VPLS and PBB-EVPN networks.
 It should be noted that the scenarios for both PBB-VPLS integration
 with EVPN and VPLS integration with PBB-EVPN are not covered in this
 document because there haven't been any requirements from service
 providers for these scenarios; deployments that employ PBB-VPLS

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 typically require PBB encapsulation for various reasons.  Hence, it
 is expected that for those deployments, the evolution path would move
 from PBB-VPLS towards PBB-EVPN.  Furthermore, the evolution path from
 VPLS is expected to move towards EVPN.
 The seamless integration solution described in this document has the
 following attributes:
  1. When ingress replication is used for multi-destination traffic

delivery, the solution reduces the scope of MMRP (which is a soft-

    state protocol defined in Clause 10 of [IEEE.802.1Q]) to only that
    of existing VPLS PEs and uses the more robust BGP-based mechanism
    for multicast pruning among new EVPN PEs.
  1. It is completely backward compatible.
  1. New PEs can leverage the extensive multihoming mechanisms and

provisioning simplifications of (PBB-)EVPN:

    (a)  Auto-sensing of Multihomed Networks (MHNs) / Multihomed
         Devices (MHDs)
    (b)  Auto-discovery of redundancy groups
    (c)  Auto-provisioning of Designated Forwarder election and VLAN
         carving

1.1. Specification of Requirements

 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.

1.2. Abbreviations

 B-MAC:      Backbone MAC, e.g., the PE's MAC address
 C-MAC:      Customer MAC, e.g., a host or CE's MAC address
 CE:         A Customer Edge device, e.g., a host, router, or switch
 ES:         Ethernet Segment -- refers to the set of Ethernet links
             that connects a customer site (device or network) to one
             or more PEs
 FEC:        Forwarding Equivalence Class

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 FIB:        Forwarding Information Base -- an instantiation of a
             forwarding table on a MAC-VRF
 I-SID:      Service Instance Identifier
 LSP:        Label Switched Path
 MAC:        Media Access Control
 MAC-VRF:    A Virtual Routing and Forwarding table for Media Access
             Control (MAC) addresses on an EVPN PE
 MHD:        Multihomed Device
 MHN:        Multihomed Network
 MP2P:       Multipoint to Point -- an MP2P LSP typically refers to an
             LSP for unicast traffic as the result of a downstream-
             assigned label
 P2MP:       Point to Multipoint -- a P2MP LSP typically refers to an
             LSP for multicast traffic
 PBB:        Provider Backbone Bridge
 (PBB-)EVPN: Both PBB-EVPN and EVPN -- this document uses this
             abbreviation when a given description applies to both
             technologies
 (PBB-)VPLS: Both PBB-VPLS and VPLS -- this document uses this
             abbreviation when a given description applies to both
             technologies
 PE:         Provider Edge device
 PW:         Pseudowire
 RIB:        Routing Information Base -- an instantiation of a routing
             table on a MAC-VRF
 VSI:        Virtual Switch Instance
 VPLS:       Virtual Private LAN Service
 VPLS A-D:   Virtual Private LAN Service with BGP-based auto-discovery
             as in [RFC6074]

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

1.3. Terminology

 All-Active redundancy mode:  When all PEs attached to an Ethernet
    segment are allowed to forward known unicast traffic to/from that
    Ethernet segment for a given VLAN, then the Ethernet segment is
    defined as operating in All-Active redundancy mode.
 Bridge table:  An instantiation of a broadcast domain on a MAC-VRF
    (VPN Routing and Forwarding).
 Broadcast domain:  In a bridged network, the broadcast domain
    corresponds to a Virtual LAN (VLAN), where a VLAN is typically
    represented by a single VLAN ID (VID) but can be represented by
    several VIDs where Shared VLAN Learning (SVL) is used, per
    [IEEE.802.1Q].
 Ethernet Tag:  An Ethernet Tag identifies a particular broadcast
    domain, e.g., a VLAN.  An EVPN instance consists of one or more
    broadcast domains.
 Single-Active redundancy mode:  When only a single PE, among all the
    PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is allowed to forward traffic
    to/from that Ethernet segment for a given VLAN, then the Ethernet
    segment is defined as operating in Single-Active redundancy mode.

2. Requirements

 The following are the key requirements for backward compatibility
 between (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS:
 1.  The solution must allow for staged migration towards (PBB-)EVPN
     on a site-by-site basis per VPN instance, e.g., new EVPN sites to
     be provisioned on (PBB-)EVPN Provider Edge devices (PEs).
 2.  The solution must not require any changes to existing VPLS or
     PBB-VPLS PEs, not even a software upgrade.
 3.  The solution must allow for the coexistence of PE devices running
     (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS for the same VPN instance and single-
     homed segments.
 4.  The solution must support single-active redundancy of multihomed
     networks and multihomed devices for (PBB-)EVPN PEs.
 5.  In cases of single-active redundancy, the participant VPN
     instances may span across both (PBB-)EVPN PEs and (PBB-)VPLS PEs
     as long as the MHD or MHN is connected to (PBB-)EVPN PEs.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 6.  Support of the All-Active redundancy mode across both (PBB-)EVPN
     PEs and (PBB-)VPLS PEs is outside the scope of this document.
     All-Active redundancy is not applicable to VPLS and PBB-VPLS.
     Therefore, when EVPN (or PBB-EVPN) PEs need to operate seamlessly
     with VPLS (or PBB-VPLS) PEs, they MUST use a redundancy mode that
     is applicable to VPLS (or PBB-VPLS).  This redundancy mode is
     Single-Active.
 These requirements collectively allow for the seamless insertion of
 (PBB-)EVPN technology into brownfield (PBB-)VPLS deployments.

3. VPLS Integration with EVPN

 In order to support seamless integration with VPLS PEs, this document
 requires that VPLS PEs support VPLS A-D per [RFC6074], and it
 requires EVPN PEs to support both BGP EVPN routes per [RFC7432] and
 VPLS A-D per [RFC6074].  All the logic for seamless integration shall
 reside on the EVPN PEs.  If a VPLS instance is set up without the use
 of VPLS A-D, it is still possible (but cumbersome) for EVPN PEs to
 integrate that VPLS instance by manually configuring pseudowires
 (PWs) to all the VPLS PEs in that instance (i.e., the integration is
 no longer seamless).

3.1. Capability Discovery

 The EVPN PEs MUST advertise both the BGP VPLS auto-discovery (A-D)
 route as well as the BGP EVPN Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET)
 route for a given VPN instance.  The VPLS PEs only advertise the BGP
 VPLS A-D route, per the procedures specified in [RFC4761], [RFC4762]
 and [RFC6074].  The operator may decide to use the same Route Target
 (RT) to identify a VPN on both EVPN and VPLS networks.  In this case,
 when a VPLS PE receives the EVPN IMET route, it MUST ignore it on the
 basis that it belongs to an unknown Subsequent Address Family
 Identifier (SAFI).  However, the operator may choose to use two RTs
 -- one to identify the VPN on the VPLS network and another for the
 EVPN network -- and employ RT Constrain mechanisms [RFC4684] in order
 to prevent BGP EVPN routes from reaching the VPLS PEs.
 When an EVPN PE receives both a VPLS A-D route as well as an EVPN
 IMET route from a given remote PE for the same VPN instance, it MUST
 give preference to the EVPN route for the purpose of discovery.  This
 ensures that, at the end of the route exchanges, all EVPN-capable PEs
 discover other EVPN-capable PEs in addition to the VPLS-only PEs for
 that VPN instance.  Furthermore, all the VPLS-only PEs will discover
 the EVPN PEs as if they were standard VPLS PEs.  In other words, when
 the discovery phase is complete, the EVPN PEs will have discovered
 all the PEs in the VPN instance along with their associated

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 capability (EVPN or VPLS-only), whereas the VPLS PEs will have
 discovered all the PEs in the VPN instance as if they were all VPLS-
 only PEs.

3.2. Forwarding Setup and Unicast Operation

 The procedures for the forwarding state setup and unicast operation
 on the VPLS PE are per [RFC8077], [RFC4761], and [RFC4762].
 The procedures for forwarding state setup and unicast operation on
 the EVPN PE are as follows:
  1. The EVPN PE MUST establish a PW to each remote PE from which it

has received only a VPLS A-D route for the corresponding VPN

    instance and MUST set up the label stack corresponding to the PW
    FEC.  For seamless integration between EVPN and VPLS PEs, the PW
    that is set up between a pair of VPLS and EVPN PEs is between the
    VSI of the VPLS PE and the MAC-VRF of the EVPN PE.
  1. The EVPN PE MUST set up the label stack corresponding to the MP2P

VPN unicast FEC to any remote PE that has advertised an EVPN IMET

    route.
  1. If an EVPN PE receives a VPLS A-D route from a given PE, it sets

up a PW to that PE. If it then receives an EVPN IMET route from

    the same PE, the EVPN PE MUST bring that PW operationally down.
  1. If an EVPN PE receives an EVPN IMET route followed by a VPLS A-D

route from the same PE, then the EVPN PE will set up the PW but

    MUST keep it operationally down.
  1. In case VPLS A-D is not used in some VPLS PEs, the EVPN PEs need

to be provisioned manually with PWs to those remote VPLS PEs for

    each VPN instance.  In that case, if an EVPN PE receives an EVPN
    IMET route from a PE to which a PW exists, the EVPN PE MUST bring
    the PW operationally down.
 When the EVPN PE receives traffic over the VPLS PWs, it learns the
 associated C-MAC addresses in the data plane.  The C-MAC addresses
 learned over these PWs MUST be injected into the bridge table of the
 associated MAC-VRF on that EVPN PE.  The learned C-MAC addresses MAY
 also be injected into the RIB/FIB tables of the associated MAC-VRF on
 that EVPN PE.  For seamless integration between EVPN and VPLS PEs,
 because these PWs belong to the same split-horizon group (see
 [RFC4761] and [RFC4762]) as the MP2P EVPN service tunnels, the C-MAC
 addresses learned and associated with the PWs MUST NOT be advertised
 in the control plane to any remote EVPN PEs.  This is because every

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 EVPN PE can send and receive traffic directly to/from every VPLS PE
 belonging to the same VPN instance; thus, every EVPN PE can learn the
 C-MAC addresses over the corresponding PWs directly.
 The C-MAC addresses learned over local Attachment Circuits (ACs) by
 an EVPN PE are learned in the data plane.  For EVPN PEs, these C-MAC
 addresses MUST be injected into the corresponding MAC-VRF and
 advertised in the control plane using BGP EVPN routes.  Furthermore,
 the C-MAC addresses learned in the control plane via the BGP EVPN
 routes sent by remote EVPN PEs are injected into the corresponding
 MAC-VRF table.
 In case of a link failure in a single-active Ethernet segment, the
 EVPN PEs MUST perform both of the following tasks:
 1.  send a BGP mass withdraw to the EVPN peers
 2.  follow existing VPLS MAC Flush procedures with the VPLS peers

3.3. MAC Mobility

 In EVPN, host addresses (C-MAC addresses) can move around among EVPN
 PEs or even between EVPN and VPLS PEs.
 When a C-MAC address moves from an EVPN PE to a VPLS PE, as soon as
 Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) traffic is initiated
 from that MAC address, it is flooded to all other PEs (both VPLS and
 EVPN PEs), and the receiving PEs update their MAC tables (VSI or
 MAC-VRF).  The EVPN PEs do not advertise the C-MAC addresses learned
 over the PW to each other because every EVPN PE learns them directly
 over its associated PW to that VPLS PE.  If only known unicast
 traffic is initiated from the moved C-MAC address toward a known
 C-MAC, the result can be the black-holing of traffic destined to the
 C-MAC that has moved until there is BUM traffic that has been
 originated with the moved C-MAC address as the source MAC address
 (e.g., as a result of the MAC age-out timer expiring).  Such
 black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC from
 both EVPN and VPLS PEs and is typical for VPLS PEs.
 When a C-MAC address moves from a VPLS PE to an EVPN PE, then as soon
 as any traffic is initiated from that C-MAC address, the C-MAC is
 learned and advertised in the BGP to other EVPN PEs, and the MAC
 mobility procedure is performed among EVPN PEs.  For BUM traffic,
 both EVPN and VPLS PEs learn the new location of the moved C-MAC
 address; however, if there is only known unicast traffic, then only
 EVPN PEs learn the new location of the C-MAC that has moved and not
 VPLS PEs.  This can result in the black-holing of traffic sent from
 VPLS PEs destined to the C-MAC that has moved until there is BUM

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 traffic originated with the moved C-MAC address as the source MAC
 address (e.g., as a result of the MAC age-out timer expiring).  Such
 black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC for only
 VPLS PEs but not for EVPN PEs and is typical for VPLS PEs.

3.4. Multicast Operation

3.4.1. Ingress Replication

 The procedures for multicast operation on the VPLS PE using ingress
 replication are per [RFC4761], [RFC4762], and [RFC7080].
 The procedures for multicast operation on the EVPN PE for ingress
 replication are as follows:
  1. The EVPN PE builds a replication sub-list to all the remote EVPN

PEs per EVPN instance as the result of the exchange of the EVPN

    IMET routes per [RFC7432].  This will be referred to as sub-list
    A.  It comprises MP2P service tunnels (for ingress replication)
    used for delivering EVPN BUM traffic [RFC7432].
  1. The EVPN PE builds a replication sub-list per VPLS instance to all

the remote VPLS PEs. This will be referred to as sub-list B. It

    comprises PWs from the EVPN PE in question to all the remote VPLS
    PEs in the same VPLS instance.
 The replication list, maintained per VPN instance, on a given EVPN PE
 will be the union of sub-list A and sub-list B.  The EVPN PE MUST
 enable split horizon over all the entries in the replication list
 across both PWs and MP2P service tunnels.

3.4.2. P2MP Tunnel

 The procedures for multicast operation on the EVPN PEs using P2MP
 tunnels are outside of the scope of this document.

4. PBB-VPLS Integration with PBB-EVPN

 In order to support seamless integration between PBB-VPLS and
 PBB-EVPN PEs, this document requires that PBB-VPLS PEs support VPLS
 A-D per [RFC6074] and PBB-EVPN PEs support both BGP EVPN routes per
 [RFC7432] and VPLS A-D per [RFC6074].  All the logic for this
 seamless integration shall reside on the PBB-EVPN PEs.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

4.1. Capability Discovery

 The procedures for capability discovery are per Section 3.1.

4.2. Forwarding Setup and Unicast Operation

 The procedures for forwarding state setup and unicast operation on
 the PBB-VPLS PE are per [RFC8077] and [RFC7080].
 The procedures for forwarding state setup and unicast operation on
 the PBB-EVPN PE are as follows:
  1. The PBB-EVPN PE MUST establish a PW to each remote PBB-VPLS PE

from which it has received only a VPLS A-D route for the

    corresponding VPN instance and MUST set up the label stack
    corresponding to the PW FEC.  For seamless integration between
    PBB-EVPN and PBB-VPLS PEs, the PW that is set up between a pair of
    PBB-VPLS and PBB-EVPN PEs is between the B-components of PBB-EVPN
    PE and PBB-VPLS PE per Section 4 of [RFC7041].
  1. The PBB-EVPN PE MUST set up the label stack corresponding to the

MP2P VPN unicast FEC to any remote PBB-EVPN PE that has advertised

    an EVPN IMET route.
  1. If a PBB-EVPN PE receives a VPLS A-D route from a given PE, it

sets up a PW to that PE. If it then receives an EVPN IMET route

    from the same PE, the PBB-EVPN PE MUST bring that PW operationally
    down.
  1. If a PBB-EVPN PE receives an EVPN IMET route followed by a VPLS

A-D route from the same PE, then the PBB-EVPN PE will set up the

    PW but MUST keep it operationally down.
  1. In case VPLS A-D is not used in some PBB-VPLS PEs, the PBB-EVPN

PEs need to be provisioned manually with PWs to those remote

    PBB-VPLS PEs for each VPN instance.  In that case, if a PBB-EVPN
    PE receives an EVPN IMET route from a PE to which a PW exists, the
    PBB-EVPN PE MUST bring the PW operationally down.
  1. When the PBB-EVPN PE receives traffic over the PBB-VPLS PWs, it

learns the associated B-MAC addresses in the data plane. The

    B-MAC addresses learned over these PWs MUST be injected into the
    bridge table of the associated MAC-VRF on that PBB-EVPN PE.  The
    learned B-MAC addresses MAY also be injected into the RIB/FIB
    tables of the associated MAC-VRF on that BPP-EVPN PE.  For
    seamless integration between PBB-EVPN and PBB-VPLS PEs, since
    these PWs belong to the same split-horizon group as the MP2P EVPN
    service tunnels, the B-MAC addresses learned and associated with

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

    the PWs MUST NOT be advertised in the control plane to any remote
    PBB-EVPN PEs.  This is because every PBB-EVPN PE can send and
    receive traffic directly to/from every PBB-VPLS PE belonging to
    the same VPN instance.
  1. The C-MAC addresses learned over local Attachment Circuits (ACs)

by a PBB-EVPN PE are learned in the data plane. For PBB-EVPN PEs,

    these C-MAC addresses are learned in the I-component of PBB-EVPN
    PEs and are not advertised in the control plane, per [RFC7623].
  1. The B-MAC addresses learned in the control plane via the BGP EVPN

routes sent by remote PBB-EVPN PEs are injected into the

    corresponding MAC-VRF table.
 In case of a link failure in a single-active Ethernet segment, the
 PBB-EVPN PEs MUST perform both of the following tasks:
 1.  send a BGP B-MAC withdraw message to the PBB-EVPN peers *or* MAC
     advertisement with the MAC Mobility extended community
 2.  follow existing VPLS MAC Flush procedures with the PBB-VPLS peers

4.3. MAC Mobility

 In PBB-EVPN, a given B-MAC address can be learned either over the BGP
 control plane from a remote PBB-EVPN PE or in the data plane over a
 PW from a remote PBB-VPLS PE.  There is no mobility associated with
 B-MAC addresses in this context.  Hence, when the same B-MAC address
 shows up behind both a remote PBB-VPLS PE as well as a PBB-EVPN PE,
 the local PE can deduce that it is an anomaly and SHOULD notify the
 operator.

4.4. Multicast Operation

4.4.1. Ingress Replication

 The procedures for multicast operation on the PBB-VPLS PE using
 ingress replication are per [RFC7041] and [RFC7080].
 The procedures for multicast operation on the PBB-EVPN PE for ingress
 replication are as follows:
  1. The PBB-EVPN PE builds a replication sub-list per I-SID to all the

remote PBB-EVPN PEs in a given VPN instance as a result of the

    exchange of the EVPN IMET routes, as described in [RFC7623].  This
    will be referred to as sub-list A.  It comprises MP2P service
    tunnels used for delivering PBB-EVPN BUM traffic.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

  1. The PBB-EVPN PE builds a replication sub-list per VPN instance to

all the remote PBB-VPLS PEs. This will be referred to as sub-list

    B.  It comprises PWs from the PBB-EVPN PE in question to all the
    remote PBB-VPLS PEs in the same VPN instance.
  1. The PBB-EVPN PE may further prune sub-list B on a per-I-SID basis

by running MMRP (see Clause 10 of [IEEE.802.1Q]) over the PBB-VPLS

    network.  This will be referred to as sub-list C.  This list
    comprises a pruned set of the PWs in sub-list B.
 The replication list maintained per I-SID on a given PBB-EVPN PE will
 be the union of sub-list A and sub-list B if MMRP is not used and the
 union of sub-list A and sub-list C if MMRP is used.  Note that the PE
 MUST enable split horizon over all the entries in the replication
 list, across both pseudowires and MP2P service tunnels.

4.4.2. P2MP Tunnel: Inclusive Tree

 The procedures for multicast operation on the PBB-EVPN PEs using P2MP
 tunnels are outside of the scope of this document.

5. Security Considerations

 All the security considerations in [RFC4761], [RFC4762], [RFC7080],
 [RFC7432], and [RFC7623] apply directly to this document because it
 leverages the control-plane and data-plane procedures described in
 those RFCs.
 This document does not introduce any new security considerations
 beyond those of the above RFCs because the advertisements and
 processing of MAC addresses in BGP follow [RFC7432], and the
 processing of MAC addresses learned over PWs follows [RFC4761],
 [RFC4762], and [RFC7080].

6. IANA Considerations

 This document has no IANA actions.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

7. References

7.1. 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>.
 [RFC4761]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
            LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
            Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
 [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
            LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
            Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
 [RFC6074]  Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
            "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
            Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
 [RFC7041]  Balus, F., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., and N. Bitar, Ed.,
            "Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
            Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging",
            RFC 7041, DOI 10.17487/RFC7041, November 2013,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7041>.
 [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>.
 [RFC7623]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and
            W. Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
            Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
            September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
 [RFC8077]  Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and
            Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)",
            STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

 [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>.

7.2. Informative References

 [IEEE.802.1Q]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
            Network -- Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE
            Standard 802.1Q, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927, July
            2018.
 [RFC4684]  Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
            R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
            Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
            Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
            Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
            November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
 [RFC7080]  Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Bitar, N., and F. Balus, "Virtual
            Private LAN Service (VPLS) Interoperability with Provider
            Backbone Bridges", RFC 7080, DOI 10.17487/RFC7080,
            December 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7080>.

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 8560 (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS Integration May 2019

Authors' Addresses

 Ali Sajassi (editor)
 Cisco
 Email: sajassi@cisco.com
 Samer Salam
 Cisco
 Email: ssalam@cisco.com
 Nick Del Regno
 Verizon
 Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com
 Jorge Rabadan
 Nokia
 Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com

Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8560.txt · Last modified: 2019/05/09 16:45 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki