[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless

BESS Working Group                                     P. Brissette, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                A. Sajassi
Intended status: Standards Track                               L. Burdet
Expires: May 3, 2020                                       Cisco Systems
                                                               J. Uttaro
                                                                     ATT
                                                        October 31, 2019


            EVPN-VPWS Seamless Integration with Legacy VPWS
                 draft-brissette-bess-vpws-seamless-00

Abstract

   This document specifies mechanisms for backward compatibility of
   Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Service (EVPN-VPWS) solutions with
   legacy Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS).  It provides mechanisms
   for seamless integration in the same MPLS/IP network on a per-
   pseudowire or per-flexible-crossconnect basis.  Implementation of
   this document enables service providers to introduce EVPN-VPWS PEs in
   their brown-field deployments of leagcy VPWS networks.  This document
   specifies control-plane and forwarding behavior needed for auto-
   discovery of a pseudowire in order to enable seamless integration
   between EVPN-VPWS and VPWS PEs.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Solution Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Seamless Integration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Capability Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Forwarding and Control Plane Operations . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Multi-homed Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.1.  Operations with Port-Active MH PEs  . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.2.  Operation with Single-Active MH PEs . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.1.3.  Operation with All-Active MH PEs  . . . . . . . . . .   9
         6.1.3.1.  Falling back to port-active . . . . . . . . . . .   9
         6.1.3.2.  All-active procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) is a widely-deployed Layer-2 VPN
   (L2VPN) technology.  Many service providers, who are looking at
   adopting Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Service (EVPN-VPWS), want
   to preserve their investment in the VPWS networks.  Hence, they
   require mechanisms by which EVPN-VPWS can be introduced into their
   brown-field legacy VPWS networks without requiring any upgrades
   (software or hardware) to these networks.  This document specifies
   procedures for the seamless integration of the two technologies
   (EVPN-VPWS and legacy VPWS) in the same MPLS/IP network.  This
   document specifies control-plane and forwarding behaviour needed for
   auto-discovery of a pseudowire in order to enable seamless
   integration between EVPN-VPWS Provider Edge(PE) devices and PEs
   running legacy VPWS services.




Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


                     MPLS/IP Core
                  +---------------+
         +---+    |               |   +---+
         |PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2| Legacy VPWS
         |   |----|---+           |   +---+
         +---+    |   |           |
      EVPN-VPWS & |   +--PW2---+  |   +---+
      Legacy VPWS |            +--|---|PE3| EVPN-VPWS
                  |               |   +---+
                  +---------------+

                    Seamless Integration of EVPN-VPWS.

                                 Figure 1

   Figure 1 shows a simple network where PE1 runs in hybrid mode (EVPN-
   VPWS and legacy VPWS).  It provides a pseudowire (PW1) with PE2
   running legacy VPWS.  It also provides a pseudowire (PW2) with PE2
   running EVPN-VPWS.  PE2 may be upgraded to EVPN-VPWS seamlessly.
   Legacy PEs may be setting up PWs per [RFC8077] or may be setting up a
   VPWS service by first auto-discovering VPN members using [RFC6074]
   and then setting up the PWs using [RFC8077] or [RFC6624].\

   The seamless integration solution described in this document has the
   following attributes:

   - It is backward compatible with [RFC8214] and EVPN Flexible
   crossconnect Service [evpn_fxc] document.

   - New PEs can leverage the multi-homing mechanisms and provisioning
   simplifications of EVPN Ethernet-Segment:

   a.  Auto-sensing of MHN / MHD

   b.  Auto-discovery of redundancy group

   c.  Auto-election of Designated Forwarder and VLAN carving

   d.  Support of various load-balancing mode such as port-active,
       single-active and all-active

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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].





Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


2.  Terms and Abbreviations

   o  CE: A Customer Edge device, e.g., a host, router, or switch.

   o  DF: EVPN Ethernet Segment Designated Forwarder.

   o  NDF: EVPN Ethernet Segment Non-Designated Forwarder.

   o  Ethernet Segment (ES): Refers to the set of Ethernet links that
      connects a customer site (device or network) to one or more PEs.

   o  Ethernet Tag: An Ethernet Tag identifies a particular pseudowire,
      e.g. a PW-ID.

   o  FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class

   o  LDP-LM: LDP Label Mapping Message

   o  LDP-LW: LDP Label Withdraw Message

   o  LSP: Label Switched Path

   o  MHD: Multi-Homed Device

   o  MHN: Multi-Homed Network

   o  P2P: Point to Point - a P2P LSP typically refers to a LSP for
      Layer2 pseudowire

   o  PE: Provider Edge device

   o  VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service.  It refers to legacy VPWS
      circuit where pseudowires are signalled using LDP or BGP-AD
      protocol.  The latter is referred as VPWS A-D.

   o  EVPN-VPWS: Ethernet-VPN Virtual Private Wire Service.  It refers
      to EVPN-VPWS circuit where pseudowires are signalled via BGP-EVPN.
      It also includes EVPN-FXC service.

   o  EVPN-FXC: Ethernet-VPN Flexible Cross-connect Service [evpn_fxc].

   o  Port-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 interface, then the
      Ethernet Segment is defined to be operating in Port-Active
      redundancy mode.





Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


   o  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 to be operating in Single-Active
      redundancy mode.

   o  All-Active Redundancy Mode: When all PEs attached to an Ethernet
      Segment are allowed to forward traffic to/from that Ethernet
      segment for a given VLAN, then the Ethernet segment is defined to
      be operating in All-Active redundancy mode.

   o  VPWS A-D: refers to Virtual Private Wire Services with BGP-based
      Auto Discovery as in [RFC6074].

   o  PW: Pseudowire

3.  Solution Requirements

   o  Following are the key requirements for backward compatibility
      between EVPN-VPWS and VPWS:

   o  The solution MUST allow for staged migration towards EVPN-VPWS on
      a site-by-site basis - e.g., new EVPN-VPWS sites to be provisioned
      on EVPN-VPWS Provider Edge devices (PEs).  Migration SHOULD be
      possible on a per-pseudowire basis.

   o  The solution MUST NOT require any changes to existing VPWS or PEs,
      not even a software upgrade.

   o  The solution MUST allow for the co-existence of PE devices running
      EVPN-VPWS and VPWS for the same pseudowire and single-homed
      segments.

   o  The solution MUST support port-active redundancy of multi-homed
      networks and multi-homed devices for EVPN-VPWS PEs.

   o  The solution MUST support single-active redundancy of multi-homed
      networks and multi-homed devices for EVPN-VPWS PEs.

   o  The solution SHOULD support all-active redundancy of multi-homed
      Ethernet Segments for EVPN-VPWS PEs.

   These requirements collectively allow for the seamless insertion of
   the EVPN-VPWS technology into brown-field VPWS deployments.







Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


4.  Seamless Integration

   In order to support seamless integration with Legacy PEs, this
   document may require Legacy PEs to setup PWs per [RFC8077] or may
   require Legacy PEs to setup VPWS service by auto-discovering VPN
   members using [RFC6074] and then setting up the PWs using [RFC8077]
   or [RFC6624].  Furthermore, EVPN-VPWS PEs must support BGP EVPN
   routes per [RFC8214] and one of method of legacy VPWS technologies.
   All the logic for seamless integration SHALL reside on the EVPN-VPWS
   PEs.

5.  Capability Discovery

   The EVPN-VPWS PEs MUST advertise both the BGP VPWS Auto-Discovery
   (VPWS A-D) route or LDP-LM message as well as the BGP EVPN Ethernet-
   AD per EVI route for a given pseudowire.  The VPWS PEs only advertise
   the BGP VPWS A-D route, per the procedures specified in [RFC4664] and
   [RFC6074].  The operator may decide to use the same BGP Route Target
   (RT) to identify a pseudowire on both EVPN-VPWS and VPWS networks.
   In this case, when a VPWS PE receives the EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI
   route, it MUST ignore it on the basis that it belongs to an unknown
   SAFI.  However, the operator may choose to use two RTs - one to
   identify the pseudowire on VPWS network and another for EVPN-VPWS
   network and employ RT-constrained [RFC4684] in order to prevent BGP
   EVPN routes from reaching the VPWS PEs.

   When an EVPN-VPWS PE receives both a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM
   message as well as an EVPN-VPWS Ethernet-AD per EVI route from a
   given remote PE for the same pseudowire, it MUST give preference to
   the EVPN-VPWS route for the purpose of discovery.  This ensures that,
   at the end of the route exchanges, all EVPN-VPWS capable PEs discover
   other EVPN-VPWS capable PEs.  Furthermore, all the VPWS-only PEs will
   discover the EVPN-VPWS PEs as if they were standard VPWS PEs.  In
   other words, when the discovery phase is complete, the EVPN-VPWS PEs
   will have discovered the remote PE per pseudowire along with their
   associated capability (EVPN-VPWS or VPWS-only), whereas the VPWS PE
   will have discovered the remote PE per pseudowire as if it was VPWS-
   only PEs.

6.  Forwarding and Control Plane Operations

   The procedures for forwarding state setup on the VPWS PE are per
   [RFC8077], [RFC4761] and [RFC4762].








Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


          EVPN-VPWS &      MPLS/IP
          Legacy VPWS       Core        Legacy VPWS
                      +---------------+
             +---+    |               |   +---+
             |PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2| Legacy VPWS
             +---+    |               |   +---+
                      +---------------+

      VPWS A-D route  ]  TX       TX  [ VPWS A-D route
           or         ] --->     <--- [      or
    LDP Label Mapping ]               [ LDP Label Mapping

          AND
                         TX
     EVPN per EVI/EAD ] --->


                          EVPN-VPWS Single-Homed

                                 Figure 2

   The procedures for forwarding state setup on the EVPN-VPWS PE are as
   follows:

   o  The EVPN-VPWS PE MUST establish a PW to each remote PE from which
      it has received only a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM message for the
      corresponding pseudowire, and MUST set up the label stack
      corresponding to the PW FEC.

   o  If an EVPN-VPWS PE receives a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM message
      from a given PE, it sets up a Legacy VPWS PW to that PE.  If it
      then receives an EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route for that PW from
      the same PE, then the EVPN-VPWS PE may bring the Legacy PW
      operationally down and MUST forward traffic using the label
      information from the EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route.

   o  If an EVPN-VPWS PE receives an EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route
      followed by a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM message from the same PE,
      then the EVPN-VPWS PE will setup the EVPN-VPWS PW.  It may keep
      the Legacy VPWS PW operationally down and MUST forward traffic
      using the label information from that EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI
      route.

   o  For VPWS PE not using VPWS A-D or LDP signalling, the EVPN-VPWS
      PEs need to be provisioned manually with PWs to those remote VPWS
      PEs for each pseudowire.  In that case, if an EVPN-VPWS PE
      receives an EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route from a PE to which a PW
      exists, it may keep VPWS PW operationally down and MUST forward



Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


      traffic using the label information from that EVPN Ethernet-AD per
      EVI route.

6.1.  Multi-homed Operations

   Figure 3 below demonstrates multi-homing scenarios.  CE1 is connected
   to PE1 and PE2 where PE1 is the designated forwarder while PE2 is the
   non designated forwarder.


          EVPN-VPWS &   MPLS/IP
          Legacy VPWS    Core       Legacy VPWS
                      +---------+
         DF  +---+    |         |   +---+   +---+
          +--|PE1|----|---------|---|PE3|---|CE2|
    +---+/   +---+    |   PW1  /|   +---+   +---+
    |CE1|             |       / |
    +---+\   +---+    |      /  |
          +--|PE2|----|-----+   |
        NDF  +---+    |         |
                      +---------+


                     EVPN-VPWS Port-Active Redundancy

                                 Figure 3

6.1.1.  Operations with Port-Active MH PEs

   In Figure 3, PE1 and PE2 are configured in port-active load-balancing
   mode.  Both PEs are advertising EVPN Ethernet-AD per ES route with
   the single-active bit set as described in EVPN port-active document
   [evpn_pa].  In this example PE1 is DF elected for the shared Ethernet
   Segment identifier.

   o  Only PE1, as DF, advertises the VPWS A-D route or LDP-LM message
      towards remote PE3.

   o  PE1 advertises the EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route for PW1 towards
      remote PE3.  The P-bit in L2 Attributes Extended Community is set
      for PE1 as per [RFC8214].  The purpose is to have all required
      EVPN-VPWS routes on remote PE so during an upgrade from Legacy
      VPWS to EVPN-VPWS, those remote nodes are immediately upgraded.

   o  PE2, as NDF, only advertises its EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route
      corresponding to that same PW1.  The B-bit in L2 Attributes
      Extended Community is set for PE1 as per [RFC8214]




Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


   Upon link failure between CE1 and PE1, PE1 and PE2 follows EVPN
   Ethernet Segment DF Election and/or procedures described in [RFC8214]
   for the EVPN-VPWS.  Furthermore, PE1 withdraws its VPWS A-D route or
   sends LDP-LW message to remote PE3 to teardown the Legacy PW.
   Finally, PE2 advertises corresponding VPWS A-D route or LDP-LM
   message for that PW1 and re-establish Legacy PW with new PE2
   destination.

   If PE3 is running 2-way pseudowire redundancy and PW-status is
   enabled, PE2 may leverage the existance of standby/backup PW with
   PE3.  In this particular scenario where PW-status is enabled, PE2 may
   advertise VPWS A-D route or LDP-LM message along with PW-status
   message.

   Once PE3 is upgraded and supports EVPN-VPWS, EVPN-VPWS routes are
   exchanged by this PE.  Higher precedence of EVPN-VPWS over VPWS allow
   all PEs to avoid the usage of legacy circuit.  At that point in time,
   unpreferred legacy VPWS protocols and configuration may be removed
   from all PEs.

6.1.2.  Operation with Single-Active MH PEs

   Single-active operation is similar to Port-active load-balancing mode
   described above but at the VLAN level instead being of at the port/
   interface level.  Moreover, the procedures described in [RFC8214] are
   applied.

   The main difference resides on the support of Legacy PW VC-type 4 vs
   PW VC-Type 5 mode on the EVPN-VPWS PE as per [RFC4448].  While
   services running in port-active load-balancing mode require raw mode,
   services running single-active load-balancing mode use tagged mode.

6.1.3.  Operation with All-Active MH PEs

   In EVPN-VPWS all-active load-balancing mode, all PEs participating in
   a redundancy group forward traffic bidirectionally, reducing the
   importance of DF and NDF PE.  However PEs running Legacy VPWS do NOT
   support all-active peering PEs as remote endpoint.

6.1.3.1.  Falling back to port-active

   PE discovering remote PE running VPWS PW MAY fallback into port-
   active load-balancing mode.  In that case, following rules are
   applied

   o  Peering PEs advertises EVPN Ethernet-AD per ES route with the
      single-active bit set.




Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


   o  DF PE advertises VPWS AD routes or LDP-LM message and EVPN
      Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.

   o  NDF PE advertises only EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.

   o  If PE3 is running 2-ways pseudowire redundancy, PE2 may leverage
      the existence of standby/backup PW with PE3.  PE2 may advertises
      VPWS AD route or LDP-LM message with proper PW-status message.

6.1.3.2.  All-active procedures

   To support the case where CE device is forwarding traffic to peering
   PE, extensions to EVPN-VPWS MH procedure are required.  In the
   example of Figure 3, traffic from CE1 going to PE1 gets forwarded to
   PE3 using the VPN label learned from VPWS AD route or LDP-LM message
   received from PE3.  Traffic from CE1 going to PE2 should gets
   forwarded to PE3 using that same VPN label.  Traffic coming from CE3
   to PE3 gets forwarded only over the primary PW towards PE1.  It is an
   asymmetric forwarding.

   Following rules are applied to achieve expected behaviour:

   o  Peering PEs advertises EVPN Ethernet-AD per ES route with the
      single-active bit unset.  Again, to this to get ready on remote PE
      in case of that legacy PE gets upgraded to EVPN-VPWS.

   o  DF PE advertises VPWS AD routes or LDP-LM message and EVPN
      Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.

   o  NDF PE advertises only EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.

   o  If PE3 is running 2-ways pseudowire redundancy, PE2 may leverage
      the existence of standby/backup PW with PE3.  PE2 may advertises
      VPWS AD route or LDP-LM message with proper PW-status message.

   To support all-active load-balancing mode on EVPN-VPWS peering PEs,
   the tunnel encapsulation attribute [tun_encap] is used to synchronize
   alias PW label between peering PEs.  The tunnel encapsulation
   attribute, specifying the alias PW label and tunnel endpoint
   (nexthop) of the remote PE (PE3), is transmitted along with EVPN
   Ethernet-AD per EVI route.  The NDF PEs uses the same VPN label per
   Legacy PW as DF PE when transmitting traffic coming from CE (CE1)
   towards remote PE(PE3).








Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in RFC 8214 [RFC8214] are
   valid for this document.

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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6624]  Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
              Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
              Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8214]  Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
              Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
              VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [evpn_fxc]
              Sajassi, A. and P. Brissette, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-
              fxc", 2019.

   [evpn_pa]  Brissette, P. and A. Sajassi, "draft-brissette-bess-evpn-
              mh-pa", 2019.




Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [tun_encap]
              Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., and S. Sangli, "draft-ietf-
              idr-tunnel-encaps", 2019.

   [vpls_AA]  Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Brissette, P., and L. Jalil,
              "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpls-all-active", 2017.

Authors' Addresses

   Patrice Brissette (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Ottawa, ON
   Canada

   Email: pbrisset@cisco.com









Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2019


   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems
   USA

   Email: sajassi@cisco.com


   Luc Andre Burdet
   Cisco Systems
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: lburdet@cisco.com


   James Uttaro
   ATT
   USA

   Email: uttaro@att.com































Brissette, et al.          Expires May 3, 2020                 [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/