[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 7209

Internet Working Group                                        A. Sajassi
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                     Cisco
Category: Informational
                                                             R. Aggarwal
J. Uttaro                                                         Arktan
AT&T
                                                                N. Bitar
W. Henderickx                                                    Verizon
Alcatel-Lucent
                                                            Aldrin Isaac
                                                               Bloomberg


Expires: August 4, 2014                                 February 4, 2014


                 Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
                   draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-07.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   (http://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.

Abstract

   The widespread adoption of Ethernet L2VPN services and the advent of
   new applications for the technology (e.g., data center interconnect)
   have culminated in a new set of requirements that are not readily
   addressable by the current Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
   solution. In particular, multi-homing with all-active forwarding is
   not supported and there's no existing solution to leverage
   Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs for optimizing the delivery of
   multi-destination frames. Furthermore, the provisioning of VPLS, even
   in the context of BGP-based auto-discovery, requires network
   operators to specify various network parameters on top of the access
   configuration. This document specifies the requirements for an
   Ethernet VPN (EVPN) solution which addresses the above issues.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Specification of requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4. Redundancy Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Flow-based Load Balancing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Flow-based Multi-pathing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Geo-redundant PE Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  Optimal Traffic Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.5.  Flexible Redundancy Grouping Support . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.6.   Multi-homed Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5. Multicast Optimization Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6. Ease of Provisioning Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7. New Service Interface Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8. Fast Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9. Flood Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. Supporting Flexible VPN Topologies and Policies  . . . . . . . 13
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   13. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   14. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   15. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15




Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014





















































Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


1. Introduction

   VIrtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), as defined in
   [RFC4664][RFC4761][RFC4762], is a proven and widely deployed
   technology. However, the existing solution has a number of
   limitations when it comes to redundancy, multicast optimization and
   provisioning simplicity. Furthermore, new applications are driving
   several new requirements for other L2VPN services such as Ethernet-
   Tree (E-Tree), and Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS).

   In the area of multi-homing current VPLS can only support multi-
   homing with active/standby resiliency model, for example as described
   in [VPLS-BGP-MH]. Flexible multi-homing with all-active Attachment
   Circuits (ACs) cannot be supported by current VPLS solution.

   In the area of multicast optimization, [VPLS-MCAST] describes how
   multicast LSPs can be used in conjunction with VPLS. However, this
   solution is limited to Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) LSPs, as there's no
   defined solution for leveraging Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs
   with VPLS.

   In the area of provisioning simplicity, current VPLS does offer a
   mechanism for single-sided provisioning by relying on BGP-based
   service auto-discovery [RFC4761][RFC6074]. This, however, still
   requires the operator to configure a number of network-side
   parameters on top of the access-side Ethernet configuration.

   In the area of data center interconnect, applications are driving the
   need for new service interface types which are a hybrid combination
   of VLAN Bundling and VLAN-based service interfaces. These are
   referred to as "VLAN-aware Bundling" service interfaces.

   Virtualization applications are also fueling an increase in the
   volume of MAC addresses that are to be handled by the network, which
   gives rise to the requirement for having the network re-convergence
   upon failure be independent of the number of MAC addresses learned by
   the PE.

   There are requirements for minimizing the amount of flooding of
   multi-destination frames and localizing the flooding to the confines
   of a given site.

   There are also requirements for supporting flexible VPN topologies
   and policies beyond those currently covered by (H-)VPLS.

   The focus of this document is on defining the requirements for a new
   solution, namely Ethernet VPN (EVPN), which addresses the above
   issues.



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   Section 4 discusses the redundancy requirements. Section 5 describes
   the multicast optimization requirements. Section 6 articulates the
   ease of provisioning requirements. Section 7 focuses on the new
   service interface requirements. Section 8 highlights the fast
   convergence requirements. Section 9 describes the flood suppression
   requirement, and finally section 10 discusses the requirements for
   supporting flexible VPN topologies and policies.


2. Specification of requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document is not a protocol specification and the key words in
   this document are used for clarity and emphasis of requirements
   language.


3. Terminology

   AS: Autonomous System

   CE: Customer Edge

   E-Tree: Ethernet tree

   MAC address: Media Access Control address - referred to as MAC

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   PE: Provider Edge

   MP2MP: Multipoint to Multipoint

   VPLS: Virtual Private LAN Service

   Single-Active Redundancy Mode: When a device or a network is multi-
   homed to a group of two or more PEs and when only a single PE in such
   redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device
   or network for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing is referred to as
   "Single-Active".

   All-Active Redundancy Mode: When a device is multi-homed to a group
   of two or more PEs and when all PEs in such redundancy group can
   forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given
   VLAN, then such multi-homing is referred to as "All-Active".



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 5]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


4. Redundancy Requirements

4.1.  Flow-based Load Balancing

   A common mechanism for multi-homing a CE node to a set of PE nodes
   involves leveraging multi-chassis Ethernet link aggregation groups
   based on [802.1AX]. [PWE3-ICCP] describes one such scheme. In
   Ethernet link aggregation, the load-balancing algorithms by which a
   CE distributes traffic over the Attachment Circuits connecting to the
   PEs are quite flexible. The only requirement is for the algorithm to
   ensure in-order frame delivery for a given traffic flow. In typical
   implementations, these algorithms involve selecting an outbound link
   within the bundle based on a hash function that typically identifies
   a flow based on one or more of the following fields:

   i.   Layer 2: Source MAC Address, Destination MAC Address, VLAN
   ii.  Layer 3: Source IP Address, Destination IP Address
   iii. Layer 4: UDP or TCP Source Port, Destination Port

   A key point to note here is that [802.1AX] does not define a standard
   load-balancing algorithm for Ethernet bundles, and as such different
   implementations behave differently. As a matter of fact, a bundle
   operates correctly even in the presence of asymmetric load-balancing
   over the links. This being the case, the first requirement for all-
   active multi-homing is the ability to accommodate flexible flow-based
   load-balancing from the CE node based on L2, L3 and/or L4 header
   fields.

   (R1a) A solution MUST be capable of supporting flexible flow-based
   load balancing from the CE as described above.

   (R1b) A solution MUST also be able to support flow-based load-
   balancing of traffic destined to the CE, even when the CE is
   connected to more than one PE. Thus the solution MUST be able to
   exercise multiple links connected to the CE, irrespective of the
   number of PEs that the CE is connected to.

   It should be noted that when a CE is multi-homed to several PEs,
   there could be multiple ECMP paths from each remote PE to each multi-
   homed PE. Furthermore, for all-active multi-homed CE, a remote PE can
   choose any of the multi-homed PEs for sending traffic destined to the
   multi-homed CE. Therefore, when a solution supports all-active multi-
   homing, it MUST exercise as many of these paths as possible for
   traffic destined to a multi-homed CE.

   (R1c) A solution SHOULD support flow-based load balancing among PEs
   that are members of a redundancy group spanning multiple Autonomous
   Systems.



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 6]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


4.2.  Flow-based Multi-pathing

   Any solution that meets the all-active redundancy mode (e.g., flow-
   based load balancing)  described in section 4.1,  also needs to
   exercise multiple paths between a given pair of PEs. For instance, if
   there are two or more LSPs between a remote PE and a pair of PEs in
   an all-active redundancy group, then the solution needs to be capable
   of load balancing traffic among those LSPs on a per L2-flow basis for
   traffic destined to the PEs in the redundancy group. Furthermore, if
   there are two or more ECMP paths between a remote PE and one of the
   PE in the redundancy group, then the solution needs to leverage all
   the equal cost LSPs. For the latter, the solution can also leverage
   the load balancing capabilities based on entropy labels [RFC6790].

   (R2a) A solution MUST be able to exercise all LSPs between a remote
   PE and all the PEs in the redundancy group with all-active multi-
   homing.

   (R2b) A solution MUST be able to exercise all ECMP paths between a
   remote PE and any of the PEs in the redundancy group with all-active
   multi-homing.

   For example consider a scenario in which CE1 is multi-homed to PE1
   and PE2, and CE2 is multi-homed to PE3 and PE4 running in all-active
   redundancy mode. Furthermore, consider that there exist three ECMP
   paths between any of the CE1's and CE2's multi-homed PEs. Traffic
   from CE1 to CE2 can be forwarded on twelve different paths over
   MPLS/IP core as follow: CE1 load balances traffic to both PE1 and
   PE2. Each of the PE1 and PE2 have three ECMP paths to PE3 and PE4 for
   the total of twelve paths. Finally, when traffic arrives at PE3 and
   PE4, it gets forwarded to CE2 over the Ethernet channel (aka link
   bundle).

   It is worth pointing out that flow-based multi-pathing complements
   flow-based load balancing described in the previous section.


4.3.  Geo-redundant PE Nodes

   The PE nodes offering multi-homed connectivity to a CE or access
   network may be situated in the same physical location (co-located),
   or may be spread geographically (e.g., in different COs or POPs). The
   latter is needed when offering a geo-redundant solution that ensures
   business continuity for critical applications in the case of power
   outages, natural disasters, etc. An all-active multi-homing mechanism
   needs to support both co-located as well as geo-redundant PE
   placement. The latter scenario often means that requiring a dedicated
   link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 7]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   mechanism, is not appealing from a cost standpoint. Furthermore, the
   IGP cost from remote PEs to the pair of PEs in the dual-homed setup
   cannot be assumed to be the same when those latter PEs are geo-
   redundant.

   (R3a) A solution MUST support all-active multi-homing without the
   need for a dedicated control/data link among the PEs in the multi-
   homed group.

   (R3b) A solution MUST support different IGP costs from a remote PE to
   each of the PEs in a multi-homed group.

   (R3c) A solution MUST support multi-homing across different IGP
   domains within the same Autonomous System.

   (R3d) A solution SHOULD support multi-homing across multiple
   Autonomous Systems.

4.4.  Optimal Traffic Forwarding

   In a typical network, and considering a designated pair of PEs, it is
   common to find both single-homed as well as multi-homed CEs being
   connected to those PEs.

   (R4): An all-active multi-homing solution SHOULD support optimal
   forwarding of unicast traffic for all the following scenarios. By
   "optimal forwarding", we mean that traffic will not be forwarded
   between PE devices that are members of a multi-home group unless the
   destination CE is attached to one of the multi-homed PEs.

   i.   single-homed CE to multi-homed CE
   ii.  multi-homed CE to single-homed CE
   iii. multi-homed CE to multi-homed CE

   This is especially important in the case of geo-redundant PEs, where
   having traffic forwarded from one PE to another within the same
   multi-homed group introduces additional latency, on top of the
   inefficient use of the PE node's and core nodes' switching capacity.
   A multi-homed group (also known as a multi-chassis LAG) is a group of
   PEs supporting a multi-homed CE.


4.5.  Flexible Redundancy Grouping Support

   (R5) In order to support flexible redundancy grouping, the multi-
   homing mechanism SHOULD allow arbitrary grouping of PE nodes into
   redundancy groups where each redundancy group represents all multi-
   homed devices/networks that share the same group of PEs.



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 8]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   This is best explained with an example: consider three PE nodes -
   PE1, PE2 and PE3. The multi-homing mechanism MUST allow a given PE,
   say PE1, to be part of multiple redundancy groups concurrently. For
   example, there can be a group (PE1, PE2), a group (PE1, PE3), and
   another group (PE2, PE3) where CEs could be multi-homed to any one of
   these three redundancy groups.


4.6.   Multi-homed Network

   There are applications, that require an Ethernet network, rather than
   a single device, to be multi-homed to a group of PEs. The Ethernet
   network would typically run a resiliency mechanism such as Multiple
   Spanning Tree Protocol [802.1Q] or Ethernet Ring Protection Switching
   [G.8032]. The PEs may or may not participate in the control protocol
   of the Ethernet network. For a multi-homed network running [802.1Q]
   or [G.8032], these protocols require that each VLAN to be active only
   on one of the multi-homed links.

   (R6a) A solution MUST support multi-homed network connectivity with
   active/standby redundancy mode where all VLANs are active on one PE.

   (R6b) A solution MUST also support multi-homed network with single-
   active redundancy mode where disjoint VLAN sets are active on
   disparate PEs.

   (R6c) A solution SHOULD support single-active redundancy mode among
   PEs that are member of a redundancy group spanning multiple ASes.

   (R6d) A solution MAY support all-active redundancy mode for a multi-
   homed network with MAC-based load balancing (i.e. different MAC
   addresses on a VLAN are reachable via different PEs).


5. Multicast Optimization Requirements

   There are environments where the use of MP2MP LSPs may be desirable
   for optimizing multicast, broadcast and unknown unicast traffic in
   order to reduce the amount of multicast states in the core routers.
   [VPLS-MCAST] precludes the use of MP2MP LSPs since current VPLS
   solutions require an egress PE to perform learning when it receives
   unknown unicast packets over a LSP. This is challenging when MP2MP
   LSPs are used, as MP2MP LSPs do not have inherent mechanisms to
   identify the sender. The use of MP2MP LSPs for multicast optimization
   becomes tractable if the need to identify the sender for performing
   learning is lifted.

   (R7a) A solution MUST be able to provide a mechanism that does not



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                 [Page 9]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   require MAC learning against MPLS LSPs when packets are received over
   a MP2MP LSP.

   (R7b) A solution SHOULD be able to provide procedures to use MP2MP
   LSPs for optimizing delivery of multicast, broadcast and unknown
   unicast traffic.

6. Ease of Provisioning Requirements

   As L2VPN technologies expand into enterprise deployments, ease of
   provisioning becomes paramount. Even though current VPLS has an auto-
   discovery mechanism, which enables automated discovery of member PEs
   belonging to a given VPN instance over the MPLS/IP core network,
   further simplifications are required, as outlined below:

   (R8a) The solution MUST support auto-discovery of VPN member PEs over
   MPLS/IP core network similar to VPLS auto-discovery mechanism
   described in [RFC4761] and [RFC6074].

   (R8b) The solution SHOULD support auto-discovery of PEs belonging to
   a given redundancy or multi-homed group.

   (R8c) The solution SHOULD support auto-sensing of the site-id for a
   multi-homed device or network, and support auto-generation of the
   redundancy group-id based on the site-id.

   (R8d) The solution SHOULD support automated Designated Forwarder (DF)
   election among PEs participating in a redundancy (multi-homing) group
   and to be able to divide service instances (e.g., VLANs) among member
   PEs of the redundancy group.

   (R8e) For deployments where VLAN identifiers are global across the
   MPLS network (i.e. the network is limited to a maximum of 4K
   services), the PE devices SHOULD derive the MPLS specific attributes
   (e.g., VPN ID, BGP Route Target, etc.) from the VLAN identifier. This
   way, it is sufficient for the network operator to configure the VLAN
   identifier(s) for the access circuit, and all the MPLS and BGP
   parameters required for setting up the service over the core network
   would be automatically derived without any need for explicit
   configuration.

   (R8f) Implementations SHOULD revert to using default values for
   parameters that no new values are configured for.


7. New Service Interface Requirements

   [MEF] and [IEEE 802.1Q] have the following services specified:



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 10]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   - Port mode: in this mode, all traffic on the port is mapped to a
   single bridge domain and a single corresponding L2VPN service
   instance. Customer VLAN transparency is guaranteed end-to-end.

   - VLAN mode: in this mode, each VLAN on the port is mapped to a
   unique bridge domain and corresponding L2VPN service instance. This
   mode allows for service multiplexing over the port and supports
   optional VLAN translation.

   - VLAN bundling: in this mode, a group of VLANs on the port are
   collectively mapped to a unique bridge domain and corresponding L2VPN
   service instance. Customer MAC addresses must be unique across all
   VLANs mapped to the same service instance.

   For each of the above services a single bridge domain is assigned per
   service instance on the PE supporting the associated service. For
   example, in case of the port mode, a single bridge domain is assigned
   for all the ports belonging to that service instance regardless of
   number of VLANs coming through these ports.

   It is worth noting that the term 'bridge domain' as used above refers
   to a MAC forwarding table as defined in the IEEE bridge model, and
   does not denote or imply any specific implementation.

   [RFC4762] defines two types of VPLS services based on "unqualified
   and qualified learning" which in turn maps to port mode and VLAN mode
   respectively.

   (R9a) A solution MUST support the above three service types.

   For hosted data center interconnect applications, network operators
   require the ability to extend Ethernet VLANs over a WAN using a
   single L2VPN instance while maintaining data-plane separation between
   the various VLANs associated with that instance. This is referred to
   as VLAN-aware bundling service.

   (R9b) A solution MAY support VLAN-aware bundle service.

   This gives rise to two new service interface types: VLAN-aware
   bundling without translation, and VLAN-aware bundling with
   translation.

   The VLAN-aware Bundling without Translation service interface has the
   following characteristics:

   - The service interface provides bundling of customer VLANs into a
   single L2VPN service instance.




Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 11]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   - The service interface guarantees customer VLAN transparency end-to-
   end.

   - The service interface maintains data-plane separation between the
   customer VLANs (i.e. create a dedicated bridge-domain per VLAN).

   In the special case of all-to-one bundling, the service interface
   must not assume any a priori knowledge of the customer VLANs. In
   other words, the customer VLANs shall not be configured on the PE,
   rather the interface is configured just like a port-based service.

   The VLAN-aware Bundling with Translation service interface has the
   following characteristics:

   - The service interface provides bundling of customer VLANs into a
   single L2VPN service instance.

   - The service interface maintains data-plane separation between the
   customer VLANs (i.e. create a dedicated bridge-domain per VLAN).

   - The service interface supports customer VLAN translation to handle
   the scenario where different VLAN Identifiers (VIDs) are used on
   different interfaces to designate the same customer VLAN.

   The main difference, in terms of service provider resource
   allocation, between these new service types and the previously
   defined three types is that the new services require several bridge
   domains to be allocated (one per customer VLAN) per L2VPN service
   instance as opposed to a single bridge domain per L2VPN service
   instance.




8. Fast Convergence

   (R10a) A solution MUST provide the ability to recover from PE-CE
   attachment circuit failures as well as PE node failure for the case
   of both multi-homed device and multi-homed network.

   (R10b) The recovery mechanism(s) MUST provide convergence time that
   is independent of the number of MAC addresses learned by the PE. This
   is particularly important in the context of virtualization
   applications which are fueling an increase in the number of MAC
   addresses to be handled by the Layer 2 network.

   (R10c) Furthermore, the recovery mechanism(s) SHOULD provide
   convergence time that is independent of the number of service



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 12]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   instances associated with the attachment circuit or the PE.


9. Flood Suppression

   (R11a) The solution SHOULD allow the network operator to choose
   whether unknown unicast frames are to be dropped or to be flooded.
   This attribute needs to be configurable on a per service instance
   basis.

   (R11b) In addition, for the case where the solution is used for data-
   center interconnect, the solution SHOULD minimize the flooding of
   broadcast frames outside the confines of a given site. Of particular
   interest is periodic ARP traffic.

   (R11c) Furthermore, the solution SHOULD eliminate any unnecessary
   flooding of unicast traffic upon topology changes, especially in the
   case of multi-homed site where the PEs have a priori knowledge of the
   backup paths for a given MAC address.

10. Supporting Flexible VPN Topologies and Policies

   (R12a) A solution MUST be capable of supporting flexible VPN
   topologies that are not constrained by the underlying mechanisms of
   the solution.

   One example of this is E-TREE topology where one or more sites in the
   VPN are roots and the others are leaves. The roots are allowed to
   send traffic to other roots and to leaves, while leaves can
   communicate only with the roots. The solution MUST provide the
   ability to support E-TREE topology.

   (R12b) The solution MAY provide the ability to apply policies at the
   MAC address granularity to control which PEs in the VPN learn which
   MAC address and how a specific MAC address is forwarded. It should be
   possible to apply policies to allow only some of the member PEs in
   the VPN to send or receive traffic for a particular MAC address.

   (R12c) A solution MUST be capable of supporting both inter-AS option-
   C and inter-AS option-B scenarios as described in [RFC4364].


11. Security Considerations

   Any protocol extensions developed for the EVPN solution shall include
   the appropriate security analysis. Besides the security requirements
   covered in [RFC4761] and [RFC4762] when MAC learning is performed in
   data-plane and in [RFC4364] when MAC learning is performed in control



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 13]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   plane, the following additional requirements need to be covered.

   (R13) A solution MUST be capable of detecting and properly handling a
   situation where the same MAC address appears behind two different
   Ethernet Segment (whether inadvertently or maliciously).

   (R14) A solution MUST be capable of associating a MAC address to a
   specific Ethernet Segment (sticky MAC) in order to help limit
   malicious traffic into a network for that MAC address. This
   capability can limit the appearance of spoofed MAC address on a
   network. When this feature is enabled, the MAC mobility for such
   sticky MAC addresses are disallowed and the traffic for such MAC
   addresses from any other Ethernet Segment MUST be discarded.


12. Contributors

   Samer Salam, Cisco, ssalam@cisco.com
   John Drake, Juniper, jdrake@juniper.net
   Clarence Filsfils, Cisco, cfilsfil@cisco.com

13. IANA Considerations

   None.


14. Normative References
   [RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",
              August 1996.

   [RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
              4761, January 2007.

   [RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
              RFC 4762, January 2007.

   [RFC4364] "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", February
              2006.

   [802.1AX] IEEE Std. 802.1AX-2008, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE
              Computer Society, November 2008.

   [802.1Q] IEEE Std. 802.1Q-2011, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks", 2011.



Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 14]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


   [RFC6074] E. Rosen and B. Davie, "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and
              Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)",
              January 2011.


14. Informative References
   [RFC4664] "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)",
              September 2006.

   [VPLS-BGP-MH] Kothari et al., "BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual
              Private LAN Service", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-
              06, work in progress, February, 2013.

   [PWE3-ICCP] Martini et al., "Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for
              L2VPN PE Redundancy", draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt, work in
              progress, January, 2014.

   [VPLS-MCAST] R. Aggarwal, et al., "Multicast in VPLS", draft-ietf-
              l2vpn-vpls-mcast-16.txt, work in progress, July 2013.

   [MEF] MEF 6.1 Technical Specification, "Ethernet Service
              Definitions",  April 2008.

   [RFC6790] K. Kompella et al., "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS
              Forwarding", RFC 6790, November 2012.

15. Author's Address

      Ali Sajassi
      Cisco
      Email: sajassi@cisco.com


      Rahul Aggarwal
      Arktan
      Email: raggarwa_1@yahoo.com


      Wim Henderickx
      Alcatel-Lucent
      Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com


      Aldrin Isaac
      Bloomberg
      Email: aisaac71@bloomberg.net





Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 15]

INTERNET DRAFT       Requirements for Ethernet VPN      February 4, 2014


      James Uttaro
      AT&T
      Email: uttaro@att.com


      Nabil Bitar
      Verizon Communications
      Email : nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com











































Sajassi, et al.          Expires August 4, 2014                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/