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

Versions: (draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags) 00 01 02 03 04

BESS Working Group                                              R. Singh
INTERNET-DRAFT                                               K. Kompella
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                      Juniper Networks
                                                         S. Palislamovic
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: August 20, 2018                               February 16, 2018


           Updated processing of control flags for BGP VPLS
               draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-04


Abstract

   This document updates the meaning of the "control flags" fields
   inside the "layer2 info extended community" used for BGP-VPLS NLRI.


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) 2013 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2  Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3  Updated meaning of control flags in the layer2 info extended
      community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1 Control word (C-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2 Sequence flag (S-bit)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4  Using p2mp LSP as transport for BGP VPLS  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Treatment of C and S bits in multi-homing scenarios  . . . . .  5
     5.1 Control word (C-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2 Sequence flag (S-bit)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6  Illustrative diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8























Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


1  Introduction

   [RFC4761] describes the concepts and signaling for using BGP to setup
   a VPLS. It specifies the BGP VPLS NLRI that a PE may require other
   PEs in the same VPLS to include (or not) control-word and sequencing
   information in VPLS frames sent to this PE.

   The use of control word (CW) helps prevent mis-ordering of IPv4 or
   IPv6 PW traffic over ECMP-paths/LAG-bundles. [RFC4385] describes the
   format for control-word that may be used over point-2-point PWs and
   over a VPLS. It along with [RFC3985] also describes sequencing of
   frames.

   However, [RFC4761] does not specify the behavior of PEs in a mixed
   environment where some PEs support control-word/sequencing and others
   do not.

1.1  Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2  Problem

   [RFC4761] specifies the use of a VPLS BGP NLRI by which a given PE
   advertises the required behavior off multiple PEs participating in
   the same VPLS. The behavior required off the multiple PEs identified
   by the NLRI indicates the VPLS label they should use in the VPLS
   traffic being forwarded to this PE. Additionally, by using the
   "control flags" this PE specifies whether the other PEs (in the same
   VPLS) should use control-word or sequenced-delivery for frames
   forwarded to this PE. These are respectively indicated by the C and
   the S bits in the "control flags" as specified in section 3.2.4 in
   [RFC4761].

   [RFC4761] requires that if the advertising PE sets the C and S bits,
   the receiving PE MUST honor the same by inserting control word (CW)
   and by including sequence numbers respectively.

   However, in a BGP VPLS deployment there would often be cases where a
   PE receiving the VPLS BGP NLRI may not have the ability to insert a
   CW or include sequencing information inside PW frames. Thus, the
   behavior of BGP VPLS needs to be further specified.

   This document updates the meaning of the control flags in layer2
   extended community in the BGP VPLS NLRI and specifies the resulting
   forwarding behavior for a mixed mode environment where not every PE



Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


   in a VPLS has the ability or the configuration to honor the control
   flags received from the PE advertising the BGP NLRI.

3  Updated meaning of control flags in the layer2 info extended
   community

   Current specification does not allow for the CW setting to be
   negotiated. Rather, if a PE sets the C-bit, it expects to receive
   VPLS frames with a control word, and will send frames the same way.
   If the PEs at both ends of a pseudowire do not agree on the setting
   of the C-bit, the PW does not come up.  The expected behavior is
   similar for the S-bit.

   This memo updates the meaning of the C-bit and the S-bit in the
   control flags.

3.1 Control word (C-bit)

   If a PE sets the C-bit in its NLRI, it means that the PE has ability
   to send and receive frames with a control word.  If the PEs at both
   ends of a PW set the C-bit, control words MUST be used in both
   directions of the PW.  If both PEs send a C-bit of 0, control words
   MUST not be used on the PW.  These two cases behave as before.

   However, if the PEs don't agree on the setting of the C-bit, control
   words MUST not be used on that PW but the PW MUST NOT be prevented
   from coming up due to this mismatch. So, the PW MUST still come up.
   This behavior is new; the old behavior was that the PW doesn't come
   up.

3.2 Sequence flag (S-bit)

   Current BGP VPLS implementation do not allow for S-bit setting to be
   negotiated either.  If the PE sets the S-bit, it expects to receive
   VPLS frames with sequence numbers, and will send the frames with the
   sequence numbers as well.  This memo further specifies the existing
   behavior. If the PEs on the both ends of the PW set the S-bit, then
   both PEs MUST include the PW sequence numbers.  If the PEs at both
   ends of the PW do not agree on the setting of the S-bit, the PW
   SHOULD NOT come up at all.











Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


4  Using p2mp LSP as transport for BGP VPLS

   BGP VPLS can be used over point-2-point LSPs acting as transport
   between the VPLS PEs. Alternately, BGP VPLS may also be used over
   p2mp LSPs with the source of the p2mp LSP rooted at the PE
   advertising the VPLS BGP NLRI.

   In a network that uses p2mp LSPs as transport for BGP VPLS, in a
   given VPLS there may be some PEs that support control-word while
   others do not. Similarly, for sequencing of frames.

   In such a setup, a source PE that supports control-word should setup
   2 different p2mp LSPs such that:
     - one p2mp LSP will carry CW-marked frames to those PEs that
       advertised C-bit as 1, and
     - the other p2mp LSP will carry frames without CW to those PEs
       that advertised C-bit as 0.

     However, the set of leaves on the 2 p2mp LSPs (rooted at the given
     PE) MUST NOT contain any PEs that advertised a value for S-bit
     different from what this PE itself is advertising.

     Using 2 different p2mp LSPs to deliver frames with and without CW
     to different PEs ensures that this PE honors the C-bit advertised
     by the other PEs.

     By not having PEs that advertised their S-bit value differently
     (from what this PE advertised) on either of the p2mp LSPs, it is
     ensured that this PE is sending VPLS frames only to those PEs that
     agree on the setting of S-bit with this PE.


5.  Treatment of C and S bits in multi-homing scenarios

5.1 Control word (C-bit)

     In multi-homed environment, different PEs may effectively represent
     the same service destination end point.  It could be assumed that
     the end-to-end PW establishment process should follow the same
     rules when it comes to control word requirement, meaning setting
     the C-bit would be enforced equally toward both primary and backup
     designated forwarder together.

     However, it is to be noted that in the multi-homing case, each PW
     SHOULD be evaluated independently.  Assuming the below specified
     network topology, there could be the case where PW between PE2 and
     PE1 could have control word signaled via extended community and
     would be used in the VPLS frame, while PE2 to PE4 PW would not



Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


     insert the control word in the VPLS frame due to C-bit mismatch.
     The rest of PEs multi-homing behavior should simply follow the
     rules specified in draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-00.


5.2 Sequence flag (S-bit)

     In multi-homed environment, different PEs may effectively represent
     the same service destination end point.  In this case, the rules
     for end-to-end PW establishment SHOULD follow the same rules when
     it comes to sequence bit requirements.  Consider the case below
     with CE5 being multi-homed to PE4 and PE1.  The PW behavior is
     similar to the C-word scenario so that the insertion of S-bit
     evaluation SHOULD be independent per PW.  However, because S-bit
     mismatch between two end-point PEs yields in no PW establishment,
     in the case where PE4 doesn't support S-bit, only one PW would be
     established, between PE1 and PE2.  Thus, even though CE5 is
     physically multi-homed, due to PE4's lack of support for S-bit, and
     no PW between PE1 and PE4, CE5 would not be multi-homed any more.

6  Illustrative diagram

                                                          -----
                                                         /  A1 \
           ----                                     ____CE1     |
          /    \          --------       --------  /    |       |
         |  A2 CE2-      /        \     /        PE1     \     /
          \    /   \    /          \___/          | \     -----
           ----     ---PE2                        |  \
                       |                          |   \   -----
                       | Service Provider Network |    \ /     \
                       |                          |     CE5  A5
                       |            ___           |   /  \     /
                        \          /   \         PE4_/    -----
                        PE3       /     \       /
                |------/  \-------       -------
         ----  /   |    ----
        /    \/    \   /    \               CE = Customer Edge Device
       |  A3 CE3    --CE4 A4 |              PE = Provider Edge Router
        \    /         \    /
         ----           ----                A<n> = Customer site n

                           Figure 1: Example of a VPLS


   In the above topology, let there be a VPLS configured with the PEs as
   displayed. Let PE1 be the PE under consideration that is CW enabled.
   Let PE2 and PE3 also be CW enabled. Let PE4 not be CW enabled. PE1



Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


   will advertise a VPLS BGP NLRI, containing the C/S bits marked as 1.
   PE2 and PE3 on learning of NLRI from PE1, shall include the control
   word in VPLS frames being forwarded to PE1. However, PE4 which does
   not have the ability to include control-word.

   As per [RFC4761], PE1 would have an expectation that all other PEs
   forward traffic to it by including CW. That expectation cannot be met
   by PE4 in this example. Thus, as per [RFC4761] the PW between PE1 and
   PE4 does not come up.

   However, this document addresses how to support the mixed-CW
   environment as above. PE1 will bring up the PW with PE4 despite the
   CW mismatch. Additionally, it will setup its data-plane such that it
   will strip the control-word only for those VPLS frames that are
   received from PEs that are themselves indicating their desire to
   receive CW marked frames. So, PE1 will setup its data plane to strip-
   off the CW only for VPLs frames received from PEs PE2 and PE3. PE1
   will setup its data plane to not strip CW from frames received from
   PE4.

7  Security Considerations

   No new security issues.

8  IANA Considerations

   None.

9  References

9.1  Normative References


   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [RFC4385]   Bryant, S., Swallow G., Martini L., D. McPherson,
               Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word,
               RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC3985]   Bryant, S., P. Pate, Pseudo Wire Emulation
               Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture, RFC3985, March 2005.





Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT         Control Flags for BGP VPLS      February 16, 2018


Authors' Addresses

      Ravi Singh
      Juniper Networks
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA  94089
      US
      EMail: ravis@juniper.net


      Kireeti Kompella
      Juniper Networks
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA  94089
      US
      EMail: kireeti@juniper.net


      Senad Palislamovic
      Alcatel-Lucent
      EMail: senad.palislamovic@alcatel-lucent.com






























Singh, et al            Expires August 20, 2018                 [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/