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

Versions: (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election) 00 01 02 03

BESS Workgroup                                           J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet Draft                                                     Nokia
                                                         S. Mohanty, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                              A. Sajassi
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                J. Drake
                                                                 Juniper
                                                              K. Nagaraj
                                                            S. Sathappan
                                                                   Nokia



Expires: November 25, 2018                                  May 24, 2018




     Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility
             draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-03


Abstract

   The Designated Forwarder (DF) in EVPN networks is the PE responsible
   for sending broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic to
   a multi-homed CE, on a given VLAN on a particular Ethernet Segment
   (ES). The DF is selected out of a list of candidate PEs that
   advertise the same Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) to the EVPN
   network. By default, EVPN uses a DF Election algorithm referred to as
   "Service Carving" and it is based on a modulus function (V mod N)
   that takes the number of PEs in the ES (N) and the VLAN value (V) as
   input. This default DF Election algorithm has some inefficiencies
   that this document addresses by defining a new DF Election algorithm
   and a capability to influence the DF Election result for a VLAN,
   depending on the state of the associated Attachment Circuit (AC). In
   addition, this document creates a registry with IANA, for future DF
   Election Algorithms and Capabilities. It also presents a formal
   definition and clarification of the DF Election Finite State Machine.


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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt


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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   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.




















Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


Table of Contents

   1. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1. Default Designated Forwarder (DF) Election in EVPN  . . . .  4
     2.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.1. Unfair Load-Balancing and Service Disruption  . . . . .  6
       2.2.2. Traffic Black-Holing on Individual AC Failures  . . . .  7
     2.3. The Need for Extending the Default DF Election in EVPN  . .  9
   3. Designated Forwarder Election Protocol and BGP Extensions . . . 10
     3.1 The DF Election Finite State Machine (FSM) . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.2 The DF Election Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.3 Auto-Derivation of ES-Import Route Target  . . . . . . . . . 15
   4. The Highest Random Weight DF Election Type  . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.1. HRW and Consistent Hashing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.2. HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election  . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5. The Attachment Circuit Influenced DF Election Capability  . . . 17
     5.1. AC-Influenced DF Election Capability For VLAN-Aware
          Bundle Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6. Solution Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   9. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


1. Conventions and Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   o AC and ACS - Attachment Circuit and Attachment Circuit Status. An
     AC has an Ethernet Tag associated to it.

   o BUM - refers to the Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast
     traffic.

   o DF, NDF and BDF - Designated Forwarder, Non-Designated Forwarder
     and Backup Designated Forwarder

   o Ethernet A-D per ES route - refers to [RFC7432] route type 1 or



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


     Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment route.

   o Ethernet A-D per EVI route - refers to [RFC7432] route type 1 or
     Auto-Discovery per EVPN Instance route.

   o ES and ESI - Ethernet Segment and Ethernet Segment Identifier.

   o EVI - EVPN Instance.

   o BD - Broadcast Domain. An EVI may be comprised of one (VLAN-Based
     or VLAN-Bundle services) or multiple (VLAN-Aware Bundle services)
     Broadcast Domains.

   o HRW - Highest Random Weight

   o VID and CE-VID - VLAN Identifier and Customer Equipment VLAN
     Identifier.

   o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is
     configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that
     any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain:
     VIDs (including double Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI,
     normalized VID, I-SIDs, etc., as long as the representation of the
     broadcast domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed
     PEs attached to that ES.

   o DF Election Procedure and DF Algorithm - The Designated Forwarder
     Election Procedure or simply DF Election, refers to the process in
     its entirety, including the discovery of the PEs in the ES, the
     creation and maintenance of the PE candidate list and the selection
     of a PE. The Designated Forwarder Algorithm is just a component of
     the DF Election Procedure and strictly refers to the selection of a
     PE for a given <ES,Ethernet Tag>.

   This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
   [RFC7432].


2. Introduction


2.1. Default Designated Forwarder (DF) Election in EVPN

   [RFC7432] defines the Designated Forwarder (DF) as the EVPN PE
   responsible for:

   o Flooding Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast traffic (BUM), on
     a given Ethernet Tag on a particular Ethernet Segment (ES), to the



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


     CE. This is valid for single-active and all-active EVPN
     multi-homing.

   o Sending unicast traffic on a given Ethernet Tag on a particular ES
     to the CE. This is valid for single-active multi-homing.

   Figure 1 illustrates and example that we will use to explain the
   Designated Forwarder function.

                        +---------------+
                        |   IP/MPLS     |
                        |   CORE        |
          +----+ ES1 +----+           +----+
          | CE1|-----|    |-----------|    |____ES2
          +----+     | PE1|           | PE2|    \
                     |    |--------   +----+     \+----+
                     +----+        |    |         | CE2|
                        |          |  +----+     /+----+
                        |          |__|    |____/   |
                        |             | PE3|    ES2 /
                        |             +----+       /
                        |               |         /
                        +-------------+----+     /
                                      | PE4|____/ES2
                                      |    |
                                      +----+

               Figure 1 Multi-homing Network of EVPN


   Figure 1 illustrates a case where there are two Ethernet Segments,
   ES1 and ES2. PE1 is attached to CE1 via Ethernet Segment ES1 whereas
   PE2, PE3 and PE4 are attached to CE2 via ES2 i.e. PE2, PE3 and PE4
   form a redundancy group. Since CE2 is multi-homed to different PEs on
   the same Ethernet Segment, it is necessary for PE2, PE3 and PE4 to
   agree on a DF to satisfy the above mentioned requirements.

   Layer-2 devices are particularly susceptible to forwarding loops
   because of the broadcast nature of the Ethernet traffic. Therefore it
   is very important that, in case of multi-homing, only one of the
   links be used to direct traffic to/from the core.

   One of the pre-requisites for this support is that participating PEs
   must agree amongst themselves as to who would act as the Designated
   Forwarder (DF). This needs to be achieved through a distributed
   algorithm in which each participating PE independently and
   unambiguously selects one of the participating PEs as the DF, and the
   result should be unanimously in agreement.



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   The default algorithm for DF election defined by [RFC7432] at the
   granularity of (ESI,EVI) is referred to as "service carving". In this
   document, service carving or default DF Election algorithm is used
   indistinctly. With service carving, it is possible to elect multiple
   DFs per Ethernet Segment (one per EVI) in order to perform load-
   balancing of traffic destined to a given Segment. The objective is
   that the load-balancing procedures should carve up the BD space among
   the redundant PE nodes evenly, in such a way that every PE is the DF
   for a disjoint set of EVIs.

   The DF Election algorithm as described in [RFC7432] (Section 8.5) is
   based on a modulus operation. The PEs to which the ES (for which DF
   election is to be carried out per VLAN) is multi-homed form an
   ordered (ordinal) list in ascending order of the PE IP address
   values. For example, there are N PEs: PE0, PE1,... PEN-1 ranked as
   per increasing IP addresses in the ordinal list; then for each VLAN
   with Ethernet Tag V, configured on the Ethernet Segment ES1, PEx is
   the DF for VLAN V on ES1 when x equals (V mod N). In the case of
   VLAN-Bundle only the lowest VLAN is used. In the case when the
   planned density is high (meaning there are significant number of
   VLANs and the Ethernet Tags are uniformly distributed), the thinking
   is that the DF Election will be spread across the PEs hosting that
   Ethernet Segment and good service carving can be achieved.

   However, the described default DF Election algorithm has some
   undesirable properties and in some cases can be somewhat disruptive
   and unfair. This document describes some of those issues and proposes
   a mechanism for dealing with them. These mechanisms do involve
   changes to the default DF Election algorithm, but they do not require
   any changes to the EVPN Route exchange and have minimal changes to
   their content per se.

   In addition, there is a need to extend the DF Election procedures so
   that new algorithms and capabilities are possible. A single algorithm
   (the default DF Election algorithm) may not meet the requirements in
   all the use-cases.

   Note that while [RFC7432] elects a DF per <ES, EVI>, this document
   elects a DF per <ES, BD>. This means that unlike [RFC7432], where for
   a VLAN Aware Bundle service EVI there is only one DF for the EVI,
   this document specifies that there will be multiple DFs, one for each
   BD configured in that EVI.


2.2. Problem Statement

   This section describes some potential issues on the default DF
   Election algorithm.



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


2.2.1. Unfair Load-Balancing and Service Disruption

   There are three fundamental problems with the current default DF
   Election algorithm.

   1- First, the algorithm will not perform well when the Ethernet Tag
      follows a non-uniform distribution, for instance when the Ethernet
      Tags are all even or all odd. In such a case let us assume that
      the ES is multi-homed to two PEs; all the VLANs will only pick one
      of the PEs as the DF. This is very sub-optimal. It defeats the
      purpose of service carving as the DFs are not really evenly spread
      across. In fact, in this particular case, one of the PEs does not
      get elected as DF at all, so it does not participate in the DF
      responsibilities at all. Consider another example where, referring
      to Figure 1, lets assume that PE2, PE3, PE4 are in ascending order
      of the IP address; and each VLAN configured on ES2 is associated
      with an Ethernet Tag of of the form (3x+1), where x is an integer.
      This will result in PE3 always be selected as the DF.

   2- Even in the case when the Ethernet Tag distribution is uniform the
      instance of a PE being up or down results in re-computation ((v
      mod N-1) or (v mod N+1) as is the case); the resulting modulus
      value need not be uniformly distributed because it can be subject
      to the primality of N-1 or N+1 as may be the case.

   3- The third problem is one of disruption. Consider a case when the
      same Ethernet Segment is multi homed to a set of PEs. When the ES
      is down in one of the PEs, say PE1, or PE1 itself reboots, or the
      BGP process goes down or the connectivity between PE1 and an RR
      goes down, the effective number of PEs in the system now becomes
      N-1, and DFs are computed for all the VLANs that are configured on
      that Ethernet Segment. In general, if the DF for a VLAN v happens
      not to be PE1, but some other PE, say PE2, it is likely that some
      other PE will become the new DF. This is not desirable. Similarly
      when a new PE hosts the same Ethernet Segment, the mapping again
      changes because of the modulus operation. This results in needless
      churn. Again referring to Figure 1, say v1, v2 and v3 are VLANs
      configured on ES2 with associated Ethernet Tags of value 999, 1000
      and 10001 respectively. So PE1, PE2 and PE3 are the DFs for v1, v2
      and v3 respectively. Now when PE3 goes down, PE2 will become the
      DF for v1 and PE1 will become the DF for v2.

   One point to note is that the default DF election algorithm assumes
   that all the PEs who are multi-homed to the same Ethernet Segment
   (and interested in the DF Election by exchanging EVPN routes) use an
   Originating Router's IP Address of the same family. This does not
   need to be the case as the EVPN address-family can be carried over a
   v4 or v6 peering, and the PEs attached to the same ES may use an



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   address of either family.

   Mathematically, a conventional hash function maps a key k to a number
   i representing one of m hash buckets through a function h(k) i.e.
   i=h(k). In the EVPN case, h is simply a modulo-m hash function viz.
   h(v) = v mod N, where N is the number of PEs that are multi-homed to
   the Ethernet Segment in discussion. It is well-known that for good
   hash distribution using the modulus operation, the modulus N should
   be a prime-number not too close to a power of 2 [CLRS2009]. When the
   effective number of PEs changes from N to N-1 (or vice versa); all
   the objects (VLAN V) will be remapped except those for which V mod N
   and V mod (N-1) refer to the same PE in the previous and subsequent
   ordinal rankings respectively. From a forwarding perspective, this is
   a churn, as it results in programming the PE side ports as blocking
   or non-blocking at potentially all PEs when the DF changes.

   This document addresses this problem and furnishes a solution to this
   undesirable behavior.


2.2.2. Traffic Black-Holing on Individual AC Failures

   As discussed in section 2.1 the default DF Election algorithm defined
   by [RFC7432] takes into account only two variables in the modulus
   function for a given ES: the existence of the PE's IP address on the
   candidate list and the locally provisioned Ethernet Tags.

   If the DF for an <ESI, EVI> fails (due to physical link/node
   failures) an ES route withdrawal will make the Non-DF (NDF) PEs re-
   elect the DF for that <ESI, EVI> and the service will be recovered.

   However, the default DF election procedure does not provide a
   protection against "logical" failures or human errors that may occur
   at service level on the DF, while the list of active PEs for a given
   ES does not change. These failures may have an impact not only on the
   local PE where the issue happens, but also on the rest of the PEs of
   the ES. Some examples of such logical failures are listed below:

   a) A given individual Attachment Circuit (AC) defined in an ES is
      accidentally shutdown or even not provisioned yet (hence the
      Attachment Circuit Status - ACS - is DOWN), while the ES is
      operationally active (since the ES route is active).

   b) A given MAC-VRF - with a defined ES - is shutdown or not
      provisioned yet, while the ES is operationally active (since the
      ES route is active). In this case, the ACS of all the ACs defined
      in that MAC-VRF is considered to be DOWN.




Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   Neither (a) nor (b) will trigger the DF re-election on the remote
   multi-homed PEs for a given ES since the ACS is not taken into
   account in the DF election procedures. While the ACS is used as a DF
   election tie-breaker and trigger in VPLS multi-homing procedures
   [VPLS-MH], there is no procedure defined in EVPN [RFC7432] to trigger
   the DF re-election based on the ACS change on the DF.

   Figure 2 illustrates the described issue with an example.

                               +---+
                               |CE4|
                               +---+
                                 |
                            PE4  |
                           +-----+-----+
           +---------------|  +-----+  |---------------+
           |               |  | BD-1|  |               |
           |               +-----------+               |
           |                                           |
           |                   EVPN                    |
           |                                           |
           | PE1               PE2                PE3  |
           | (NDF)             (DF)               (NDF)|
       +-----------+       +-----------+       +-----------+
       |  | BD-1|  |       |  | BD-1|  |       |  | BD-1|  |
       |  +-----+  |-------|  +-----+  |-------|  +-----+  |
       +-----------+       +-----------+       +-----------+
              AC1\   ES12   /AC2  AC3\   ES23   /AC4
                  \        /          \        /
                   \      /            \      /
                    +----+              +----+
                    |CE12|              |CE23|
                    +----+              +----+

          Figure 2 Default DF Election and Traffic Black-Holing


   BD-1 is defined in PE1, PE2, PE3 and PE4. CE12 is a multi-homed CE
   connected to ES12 in PE1 and PE2. Similarly CE23 is multi-homed to
   PE2 and PE3 using ES23. Both, CE12 and CE23, are connected to BD-1
   through VLAN-based service interfaces: CE12-VID 1 (VLAN ID 1 on CE12)
   is associated to AC1 and AC2 in BD-1, whereas CE23-VID 1 is
   associated to AC3 and AC4 in BD-1. Assume that, although not
   represented, there are other ACs defined on these ES mapped to
   different BDs.

   After running the [RFC7432] default DF election algorithm, PE2 turns
   out to be the DF for ES12 and ES23 in BD-1. The following issues may



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   arise:

   a) If AC2 is accidentally shutdown or even not configured, CE12
      traffic will be impacted. In case of all-active multi-homing, the
      BUM traffic to CE12 will be "black-holed", whereas for single-
      active multi-homing, all the traffic to/from CE12 will be
      discarded. This is due to the fact that a logical failure in PE2's
      AC2 may not trigger an ES route withdrawn for ES12 (since there
      are still other ACs active on ES12) and therefore PE1 will not re-
      run the DF election procedures.

   b) If the Bridge Table for BD-1 is administratively shutdown or even
      not configured yet on PE2, CE12 and CE23 will both be impacted:
      BUM traffic to both CEs will be discarded in case of all-active
      multi- homing and all traffic will be discarded to/from the CEs in
      case of single-active multi-homing. This is due to the fact that
      PE1 and PE3 will not re-run the DF election procedures and will
      keep assuming PE2 is the DF.

   Quoting [RFC7432], "when an Ethernet Tag is decommissioned on an
   Ethernet Segment, then the PE MUST withdraw the Ethernet A-D per EVI
   route(s) announced for the <ESI, Ethernet Tags> that are impacted by
   the decommissioning", however, while this A-D per EVI route
   withdrawal is used at the remote PEs performing aliasing or backup
   procedures, it is not used to influence the DF election for the
   affected EVIs.

   This document adds an optional modification of the DF Election
   procedure so that the ACS may be taken into account as a variable in
   the DF election, and therefore EVPN can provide protection against
   logical failures.


2.3. The Need for Extending the Default DF Election in EVPN

   Section 2.2 describes some of the issues that exist in the default DF
   Election procedures. In order to address those issues, this document
   introduces a new DF Election framework. This framework allows the PEs
   to agree on a common DF election type, as well as the capabilities to
   enable during the DF Election procedure. In general, "DF Election
   Type" refers to the type of DF election algorithm that takes a number
   of parameters as input and determines the DF PE. A "DF Election
   capability" refers to an additional feature that can be executed
   along with the DF election algorithm, such as modifying the inputs
   (or list of candidate PEs) before the DF Election algorithm chooses
   the DF.

   Within this framework, this document defines a new DF Election



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   algorithm and a new capability that can influence the DF Election
   result:

   o The new DF Election algorithm is referred to as "Highest Random
     Weight" (HRW). The HRW procedures are described in section 4.

   o The new DF Election capability is referred to as "AC-Influenced DF
     Election" (AC-DF). The AC-DF procedures are described in section 5.

   o HRW and AC-DF mechanisms are independent of each other. Therefore,
     a PE MAY support either HRW or AC-DF independently or MAY support
     both of them together. A PE MAY also support AC-DF capability along
     with the default DF election algorithm per [RFC7432].

   In addition, this document defines a way to indicate the support of
   HRW and/or AC-DF along with the EVPN ES routes advertised for a given
   ES. Refer to section 3.2 for more details.


3. Designated Forwarder Election Protocol and BGP Extensions

   This section describes the BGP extensions required to support the new
   DF Election procedures. In addition, since the specification in EVPN
   [RFC7432] does leave several questions open as to the precise final
   state machine behavior of the DF election, section 3.1 describes
   precisely the intended behavior.

3.1 The DF Election Finite State Machine (FSM)

   Per [RFC7432], the FSM described in Figure 3 is executed per
   <ESI,VLAN> in case of VLAN-based service or <ESI,[VLANs in VLAN-
   Bundle]> in case of VLAN-Bundle on each participating PE.

   Observe that currently the VLANs are derived from local configuration
   and the FSM does not provide any protection against misconfiguration
   where the same (EVI,ESI) combination has different set of VLANs on
   different participating PEs or one of the PEs elects to consider
   VLANs as VLAN-Bundle and another as separate VLANs for election
   purposes (service type mismatch).

   The FSM is conceptual and any design or implementation MUST comply
   with a behavior equivalent to the one outlined in this FSM.









Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


                                                LOST_ES
                     RCVD_ES                    RCVD_ES
                     LOST_ES                    +----+
                     +----+                     |    v
                     |    |                    ++----++  RCVD_ES
                     |  +-+----+   ES_UP       |  DF  +<--------+
                     +->+ INIT +---------------> WAIT |         |
                        ++-----+               +----+-+         |
                         ^                          |           |
     +-----------+       |                          |DF_TIMER   |
     | ANY STATE +-------+         VLAN_CHANGE      |           |
     +-----------+ ES_DOWN    +-----------------+   |           ^
                              |    LOST_ES      v   v           |
                        +-----++               ++---+-+         |
                        |  DF  |               |  DF  +---------+
                        | DONE +<--------------+ CALC +v-+      |
                        +-+----+   CALCULATED  +----+-+  |      |
                          |                         |    |      |
                          |                         +----+      |
                          |                         LOST_ES     |
                          |                         VLAN_CHANGE |
                          |                                     |
                          +-------------------------------------+

              Figure 3 DF Election Finite State Machine

   States:

   1.  INIT: Initial State

   2.  DF WAIT: State in which the participant waits for enough
       information to perform the DF election for the EVI/ESI/VLAN
       combination.

   3.  DF CALC: State in which the new DF is recomputed.

   4.  DF DONE: State in which the according DF for the EVI/ESI/VLAN
       combination has been elected.

   Events:

   1.  ES_UP: The ESI has been locally configured as 'up'.

   2.  ES_DOWN: The ESI has been locally configured as 'down'.

   3.  VLAN_CHANGE: The VLANs configured in a bundle (that uses the ESI)
       changed. This event is necessary for VLAN-Bundles only.




Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   4.  DF_TIMER: DF Wait timer has expired.

   5.  RCVD_ES: A new or changed Ethernet Segment Route is received in a
       BGP REACH UPDATE. Receiving an unchanged UPDATE MUST NOT trigger
       this event.

   6.  LOST_ES: A BGP UNREACH UPDATE for a previously received Ethernet
       Segment route has been received. If an UNREACH is seen for a
       route that has not been advertised previously, the event MUST NOT
       be triggered.

   7.  CALCULATED: DF has been successfully calculated.


   According actions when transitions are performed or states
   entered/exited:

   1.  ANY STATE on ES_DOWN: (i) stop DF timer (ii) assume non-DF for
       local PE.

   2.  INIT on ES_UP: transition to DF_WAIT.

   3.  INIT on RCVD_ES, LOST_ES: do nothing.

   4.  DF_WAIT on entering the state: (i) start DF timer if not started
       already or expired (ii) assume non-DF for local PE.

   5.  DF_WAIT on RCVD_ES, LOST_ES: do nothing.

   6.  DF_WAIT on DF_TIMER: transition to DF_CALC.

   7.  DF_CALC on entering or re-entering the state: (i) rebuild
       candidate list, hash and perform election (ii) Afterwards FSM
       generates CALCULATED event against itself.

   8.  DF_CALC on LOST_ES or VLAN_CHANGE: do nothing.

   9.  DF_CALC on RCVD_ES: transition to DF_WAIT.

   10. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: mark election result for VLAN or bundle,
       and transition to DF_DONE.

   11. DF_DONE on exiting the state: (i) if [RFC7432] election or new
       election and lost primary DF then assume non-DF for local PE for
       VLAN or VLAN-Bundle.

   12. DF_DONE on VLAN_CHANGE or LOST_ES: transition to DF_CALC.




Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   13. DF_DONE on RCVD_ES: transition to DF_WAIT.


3.2 The DF Election Extended Community

   For the DF election procedures to be globally consistent and
   unanimous, it is necessary that all the participating PEs agree on
   the DF Election type and capabilities to be used. For instance, it is
   not possible that some PEs continue to use the default DF Election
   algorithm and some PEs use HRW. For brown-field deployments and for
   interoperability with legacy boxes, its is important that all PEs
   need to have the capability to fall back on the Default DF Election.
   A PE can indicate its willingness to support HRW and/or AC-DF by
   signaling a DF Election Extended Community along with the Ethernet
   Segment Route (Type-4).

   The DF Election Extended Community is a new BGP transitive extended
   community attribute [RFC4360] that is defined to identify the DF
   election procedure to be used for the Ethernet Segment. Figure 4
   shows the encoding of the DF Election Extended Community.


     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Type=0x06     | Sub-Type(0x06)|   DF Type     |    Bitmap     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Reserved = 0                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 4 DF Election Extended Community

   Where:

   o Type is 0x06 as registered with IANA for EVPN Extended Communities.

   o Sub-Type is 0x06 - "DF Election Extended Community" as requested by
     this document to IANA.

   o DF Type (1 octet) - Encodes the DF Election algorithm values
     (between 0 and 255) that the advertising PE desires to use for the
     ES. This document requests IANA to set up a registry called "DF
     Type Registry" and solicits the following values:

     - Type 0: Default DF Election algorithm, or modulus-based algorithm
       as in [RFC7432].

     - Type 1: HRW algorithm (explained in this document).




Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


     - Types 2-254: Unassigned.

     - Type 255: Reserved for Experimental Use.


   o Bitmap (1 octet) - Encodes "capabilities" associated to the DF
     Election algorithm in the field "DF Type". This document requests
     IANA to create a registry for the Bitmap field, called "DF Election
     Capabilities" and solicits the following values:

     - Bit 24: Unassigned.

     - Bit 25: AC-DF (AC-Influenced DF Election, explained in this
       document). When set to 1, it indicates the desire to use AC-
       Influenced DF Election with the rest of the PEs in the ES.

     - Bits 26-31: Unassigned.


   The DF Election Extended Community is used as follows:

   o A PE SHOULD attach the DF Election Extended Community to any
     advertised ES route and the Extended Community MUST be sent if the
     ES is locally configured with a DF election type different from the
     Default Election algorithm or if a capability is required to be
     used. In the Extended Community, the PE indicates the desired "DF
     Type" algorithm and "Bitmap" capabilities to be used for the ES.

     - Only one DF Election Extended Community can be sent along with an
       ES route. Note that the intent is not for the advertising PE to
       indicate all the supported DF Types and capabilities, but signal
       the preferred ones.

     - DF Types 0 and 1 can be both used with bit AC-DF set to 0 or 1.

     - In general, a specific DF Type MAY determine the use of the
       reserved bits in the Extended Community. In case of DF Type HRW,
       the reserved bits will be sent as 0 and will be ignored on
       reception.

   o When a PE receives the ES Routes from all the other PEs for the ES
     in question, it checks to see if all the advertisements have the
     extended community with the same DF Type and Bitmap:

     - In the case that they do, this particular PE MUST follow the
       procedures for the advertised DF Type and capabilities. For
       instance, if all ES routes for a given ES indicate DF Type HRW
       and AC-DF set to 1, the receiving PE and by induction all the



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


       other PEs in the ES will proceed to do DF Election as per the HRW
       Algorithm and following the AC-DF procedures.

     - Otherwise if even a single advertisement for the type-4 route is
       not received with the locally configured DF Type and capability,
       the default DF Election algorithm (modulus) algorithm MUST be
       used as in [RFC7432].

     - The absence of the DF Election Extended Community MUST be
       interpreted by a receiving PE as an indication of the default DF
       Election algorithm on the sending PE, that is, DF Type 0 and no
       DF Election capabilities.

   o When all the PEs in an ES advertise DF Type 255, they will rely on
     the local policy to decide how to proceed with the DF Election.

   o For any new capability defined in the future, the
     applicability/compatibility of this new capability to the existing
     DF types must be assessed on a per case by case basis.

   o Likewise, for any new DF type defined in future, its
     applicability/compatibility to the existing capabilities must be
     assessed on a per case by case basis.


3.3 Auto-Derivation of ES-Import Route Target

   Section 7.6 of [RFC7432] describes how the value of the ES-Import
   Route Target for ESI types 1, 2, and 3 can be auto-derived by using
   the high-order six bytes of the nine byte ESI value. The same auto-
   derivation procedure can be extended to ESI types 0, 4, and 5 as long
   as it is ensured that the auto-derived values for ES-Import RT among
   different ES types don't overlap.


4. The Highest Random Weight DF Election Type

   The procedure discussed in this section is applicable to the DF
   Election in EVPN Services [RFC7432] and EVPN Virtual Private Wire
   Services [RFC8214].

   Highest Random Weight (HRW) as defined in [HRW1999] is originally
   proposed in the context of Internet Caching and proxy Server load
   balancing. Given an object name and a set of servers, HRW maps a
   request to a server using the object-name (object-id) and server-name
   (server-id) rather than the state of the server states. HRW forms a
   hash out of the server-id and the object-id and forms an ordered list
   of the servers for the particular object-id. The server for which the



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   hash value is highest, serves as the primary responsible for that
   particular object, and the server with the next highest value in that
   hash serves as the backup server. HRW always maps a given object name
   to the same server within a given cluster; consequently it can be
   used at client sites to achieve global consensus on object-server
   mappings. When that server goes down, the backup server becomes the
   responsible designate.

   Choosing an appropriate hash function that is statistically oblivious
   to the key distribution and imparts a good uniform distribution of
   the hash output is an important aspect of the algorithm. Fortunately
   many such hash functions exist. [HRW1999] provides pseudo-random
   functions based on Unix utilities rand and srand and easily
   constructed XOR functions that perform considerably well. This
   imparts very good properties in the load balancing context. Also each
   server independently and unambiguously arrives at the primary server
   selection. HRW already finds use in multicast and ECMP [RFC2991],
   [RFC2992].


4.1. HRW and Consistent Hashing

   HRW is not the only algorithm that addresses the object to server
   mapping problem with goals of fair load distribution, redundancy and
   fast access. There is another family of algorithms that also
   addresses this problem; these fall under the umbrella of the
   Consistent Hashing Algorithms [CHASH]. These will not be considered
   here.

4.2. HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election

   The applicability of HRW to DF Election is described here. Let DF(v)
   denote the Designated Forwarder and BDF(v) the Backup Designated
   forwarder for the Ethernet Tag V, where v is the VLAN, Si is the IP
   address of server i, Es denotes the Ethernet Segment Identifier and
   weight is a pseudo-random function of v and Si.

   Note that while the DF election algorithm in [RFC7432] uses PE
   address and vlan as inputs, this document uses PE address, ESI, and
   vlan as inputs. This is because if the same set of PEs are multi-
   homed to the same set of ESes, then the DF election algorithm used in
   [RFC7432] would result in the same PE being elected DF for the same
   set of broadcast domains on each ES, which can have adverse side-
   effects on both load balancing and redundancy. Including ESI in the
   DF election algorithm introduces additional entropy which
   significantly reduces the probability of the same PE being elected DF
   for the same set of broadcast domains on each ES. Therefore, the ESI
   value in the Weight function below SHOULD be set to that of



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   corresponding ES. The ESI value MAY be set to all 0's in the Weight
   function below if the operator chooses so.

   In case of a VLAN-Bundle service, v denotes the lowest VLAN similar
   to the 'lowest VLAN in bundle' logic of [RFC7432].

   1.  DF(v) = Si: Weight(v, Es, Si) >= Weight(V, Es, Sj), for all j. In
       case of a tie, choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the
       least. Note 0 <= i,j <= Number of PEs in the redundancy group.

   2.  BDF(v) = Sk: Weight(v, Es, Si) >= Weight(V, Es, Sk) and Weight(v,
       Es, Sk) >= Weight(v, Es, Sj). In case of tie choose the PE whose
       IP address is numerically the least.

   Since the Weight is a Pseudo-random function with domain as the
   three-tuple (v, Es, S), it is an efficient deterministic algorithm
   which is independent of the Ethernet Tag V sample space distribution.
   Choosing a good hash function for the pseudo-random function is an
   important consideration for this algorithm to perform probably better
   than the default algorithm. As mentioned previously, such functions
   are described in the HRW paper. We take as candidate hash functions
   two of the ones that are preferred in [HRW1999].

   1.  Wrand(v, Es, Si) = (1103515245((1103515245.Si+12345)XOR
       D(v,Es))+12345)(mod 2^31) and

   2.  Wrand2(v, Es, Si) = (1103515245((1103515245.D(v,Es)+12345)XOR
       Si)+12345)(mod 2^31)

   Here D(v,Es) is the 31-bit digest (CRC-32 and discarding the MSB as
   in [HRW1999]) of the 14-byte stream, the Ethernet Tag v (4 bytes)
   followed by the Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 bytes). It is
   mandated that the 14-byte stream is formed by concatenation of the
   Ethernet tag and the Ethernet Segment identifier in network byte
   order. The CRC should proceed as if the architecture is in network
   byte order (big-endian). Si is address of the ith server. The
   server's IP address length does not matter as only the low-order 31
   bits are modulo significant. Although both the above hash functions
   perform similarly, we select the first hash function (1) of choice,
   as the hash function has to be the same in all the PEs participating
   in the DF election.

   A point to note is that the Weight function takes into consideration
   the combination of the Ethernet Tag, Ethernet Segment and the PE IP-
   address, and the actual length of the server IP address (whether V4
   or V6) is not really relevant. The default algorithm in [RFC7432]
   cannot employ both V4 and V6 PE addresses, since [RFC7432] does not
   specify how to decide on the ordering (the ordinal list) when both V4



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   and V6 PEs are present.

   HRW solves the disadvantage pointed out in Section 2.2.1 and ensures:

   o with very high probability that the task of DF election for
     respective VLANs is more or less equally distributed among the PEs
     even for the 2 PE case.

   o If a PE, hosting some VLANs on given ES, but is neither the DF nor
     the BDF for that VLAN, goes down or its connection to the ES goes
     down, it does not result in a DF and BDF reassignment the other
     PEs. This saves computation, especially in the case when the
     connection flaps.

   o More importantly it avoids the needless disruption case of Section
     2.2.1 (3), that is inherent in the existing default DF Election.

   o In addition to the DF, the algorithm also furnishes the BDF, which
     would be the DF if the current DF fails.


5. The Attachment Circuit Influenced DF Election Capability

   The procedure discussed in this section is applicable to the DF
   Election in EVPN Services [RFC7432] and EVPN Virtual Private Wire
   Services [RFC8214].

   The AC-DF capability MAY be used with any "DF Type" algorithm. It
   MUST modify the DF Election procedures by removing from consideration
   any candidate PE in the ES that cannot forward traffic on the AC that
   belongs to the BD. This section is applicable to VLAN-Based and VLAN-
   Bundle service interfaces. Section 5.1 describes the procedures for
   VLAN-Aware Bundle interfaces.

   In particular, when used with the default DF Type, the AC-DF
   capability modifies the Step 3 in the DF Election procedure described
   in [RFC7432] Section 8.5, as follows:

   3. When the timer expires, each PE builds an ordered "candidate" list
      of the IP addresses of all the PE nodes connected to the Ethernet
      Segment (including itself), in increasing numeric value. The
      candidate list is based on the Originator Router's IP addresses of
      the ES routes, excluding all the PEs for which no Ethernet A-D per
      ES route has been received, or for which the route has been
      withdrawn. Afterwards, the DF Election algorithm is applied on a
      per <ES,VLAN> or <ES,VLAN-bundle>, however, the IP address for a
      PE will not be considered candidate for a given <ES,VLAN> or
      <ES,VLAN-bundle> until the corresponding Ethernet A-D per EVI



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


      route has been received from that PE. In other words, the ACS on
      the ES for a given PE must be UP so that the PE is considered as
      candidate for a given BD.

   The above paragraph differs from [RFC7432] Section 8.5, Step 3, in
   two aspects:

   o Any DF Type algorithm can be used, and not only the modulus-based
     one (which is the default DF Election, or DF Type 0 in this
     document).

   o The candidate list is pruned based on the Ethernet A-D routes: a
     PE's IP address MUST be removed from the ES candidate list if its
     Ethernet A-D per ES route is withdrawn. A PE's IP address MUST NOT
     be considered as candidate DF for a <ES,VLAN> or <ES,VLAN-bundle>,
     if its Ethernet A-D per EVI route for the <ES,VLAN> or <ES,VLAN-
     bundle> respectively, is withdrawn.

   The following example illustrates the AC-DF behavior applied to the
   Default DF election algorithm, assuming the network in Figure 2:

   a) When PE1 and PE2 discover ES12, they advertise an ES route for
      ES12 with the associated ES-import extended community and the DF
      Election Extended Community indicating AC-DF=1; they start a timer
      at the same time. Likewise, PE2 and PE3 advertise an ES route for
      ES23 with AC-DF=1 and start a timer.

   b) PE1/PE2 advertise an Ethernet A-D per ES route for ES12, and
      PE2/PE3 advertise an Ethernet A-D per ES route for ES23.

   c) In addition, PE1/PE2/PE3 advertise an Ethernet A-D per EVI route
      for AC1, AC2, AC3 and AC4 as soon as the ACs are enabled. Note
      that the AC can be associated to a single customer VID (e.g. VLAN-
      based service interfaces) or a bundle of customer VIDs (e.g. VLAN-
      Bundle service interfaces).

   d) When the timer expires, each PE builds an ordered "candidate" list
      of the IP addresses of all the PE nodes connected to the Ethernet
      Segment (including itself) as explained above in [RFC7432] Step 3.
      All the PEs for which no Ethernet A-D per ES route has been
      received, are pruned from the list.

   e) When electing the DF for a given BD, a PE will not be considered
      candidate until an Ethernet A-D per EVI route has been received
      from that PE. In other words, the ACS on the ES for a given PE
      must be UP so that the PE is considered as candidate for a given
      BD. For example, PE1 will not consider PE2 as candidate for DF
      election for <ES12,VLAN-1> until an Ethernet A-D per EVI route is



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


      received from PE2 for <ES12,VLAN-1>.

   f) Once the PEs with ACS = DOWN for a given BD have been removed from
      the candidate list, the DF Election can be applied for the
      remaining N candidates.

   Note that this procedure only modifies the existing EVPN control
   plane by adding and processing the DF Election Extended Community,
   and by pruning the candidate list of PEs that take part in the DF
   election.

   In addition to the events defined in the FSM in Section 3.1, the
   following events SHALL modify the candidate PE list and trigger the
   DF re-election in a PE for a given <ES,VLAN> or <ES,VLAN-Bundle>. In
   the FSM of Figure 3, the events below MUST trigger a transition from
   DF_DONE to DF_CALC:

   i.   Local AC going DOWN/UP.

   ii.  Reception of a new Ethernet A-D per EVI update/withdraw for the
        <ES,VLAN> or <ES,VLAN-Bundle>.

   iii. Reception of a new Ethernet A-D per ES update/withdraw for the
        ES.




5.1. AC-Influenced DF Election Capability For VLAN-Aware Bundle Services

   The procedure described section 5 works for VLAN-based and
   VLAN-Bundle service interfaces since, for those service types, a PE
   advertises only one Ethernet A-D per EVI route per <ES,VLAN> or
   <ES,VLAN-Bundle>. The withdrawal of such route means that the PE
   cannot forward traffic on that particular <ES,VLAN> or
   <ES,VLAN-Bundle>, therefore the PE can be removed from consideration
   for DF.

   According to [RFC7432], in VLAN-aware bundle services, the PE
   advertises multiple Ethernet A-D per EVI routes per <ES,VLAN-Bundle>
   (one route per Ethernet Tag), while the DF Election is still
   performed per <ES,VLAN-Bundle>. The withdrawal of an individual route
   only indicates the unavailability of a specific AC but not
   necessarily all the ACs in the <ES,VLAN-Bundle>.

   This document modifies the DF Election for VLAN-Aware Bundle services
   in the following way:




Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   o After confirming that all the PEs in the ES advertise the AC-DF
     capability, a PE will perform a DF Election per <ES,VLAN>, as
     opposed to per <ES,VLAN-Bundle> in [RFC7432]. Now, the withdrawal
     of an Ethernet per EVI route for a VLAN will indicate that the
     advertising PE's ACS is DOWN and the rest of the PEs in the ES can
     remove the PE from consideration for DF in the <ES,VLAN>.

   o The PEs will now follow the procedures in section 5.

   For example, assuming three bridge tables in PE1 for the same MAC-VRF
   (each one associated to a different Ethernet Tag, e.g. VLAN-1, VLAN-2
   and VLAN-3), PE1 will advertise three Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for
   ES12. Each of the three routes will indicate the status of each of
   the three ACs in ES12. PE1 will be considered as a valid candidate PE
   for DF election in <ES12,VLAN-1>, <ES12,VLAN-2>, <ES12,VLAN-3> as
   long as its three routes are active. For instance, if PE1 withdraws
   the Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for <ES12,VLAN-1>, the PEs in ES12
   will not consider PE1 as a suitable DF candidate for <ES12,VLAN-1>.


6. Solution Benefits

   The solution described in this document provides the following
   benefits:

   a) Extends the DF Election in [RFC7432] to address the unfair load-
      balancing and potential black-holing issues of the default DF
      Election algorithm. The solution is applicable to the DF Election
      in EVPN Services [RFC7432] and EVPN Virtual Private Wire Services
      [RFC8214].

   b) It defines a way to signal the DF Election algorithm and
      capabilities intended by the advertising PE. This is done by
      defining the DF Election Extended Community, which allow signaling
      of the capabilities supported by this document as well as any
      other future DF Election algorithms and capabilities.

   c) The solution is backwards compatible with the procedures defined
      in [RFC7432]. If one or more PEs in the ES do not support the new
      procedures, they will all follow the [RFC7432] DF Election.


7. Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] are valid for
   this document.





Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


8. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to:

   o Allocate Sub-Type value 0x06 as "DF Election Extended Community" in
     the "EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types" registry.

   o Set up a registry "DF Type" for the DF Type octet in the Extended
     Community. The following values in that registry are requested:

     - Type 0: Default DF Election.
     - Type 1: HRW algorithm.
     - Type 255: Reserved for Experimental use.

   o Set up a registry "DF Election Capabilities" for the Bitmap octet
     in the Extended Community. The following values in that registry
     are requested:

     - Bit 25: AC-DF capability.

   o The registration policy for the two registries is "Specification
     Required".



9. References


9.1. Normative References

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [HRW1999]  Thaler, D. and C. Ravishankar, "Using Name-Based Mappings
   to Increase Hit Rates", IEEE/ACM Transactions in networking Volume 6
   Issue 1, February 1998.

   [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>.




Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   [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>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
   Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, February
   2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.


9.2. Informative References

   [VPLS-MH]  Kothari, Henderickx et al., "BGP based Multi-homing in
   Virtual Private LAN Service", draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-
   01.txt, work in progress, January, 2016.

   [CHASH]  Karger, D., Lehman, E., Leighton, T., Panigrahy, R., Levine,
   M., and D. Lewin, "Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed
   Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web", ACM
   Symposium on Theory of Computing ACM Press New York, May 1997.

   [CLRS2009]  Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., and C. Stein,
   "Introduction to Algorithms (3rd ed.)", MIT Press and McGraw-Hill
   ISBN 0-262-03384-4., February 2009.

   [RFC2991]  Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
   Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, DOI 10.17487/RFC2991,
   November 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.

   [RFC2992]  Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path
   Algorithm", RFC 2992, DOI 10.17487/RFC2992, November 2000,
   <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2992>.



10. Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Sriram Venkateswaran, Laxmi Padakanti,
   Ranganathan Boovaraghavan, Tamas Mondal, Sami Boutros, Jakob Heitz,
   Mrinmoy Ghosh, Leo Mermelstein, Mankamana Mishra and Samir Thoria for
   their review and contributions. Special thanks to Stephane Litkowski
   for his thorough review and detailed contributions.

11. Contributors

   In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
   coauthors have also contributed to this document:

   Antoni Przygienda



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA  95134
   USA
   Email: prz@juniper.net

   Vinod Prabhu
   Nokia
   Email: vinod.prabhu@nokia.com

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Wen Lin
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Email: wlin@juniper.net

   Patrice Brissette
   Cisco Systems
   Email: pbrisset@cisco.com

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus, Inc
   Email: keyur@arrcus.com

   Autumn Liu
   Ciena
   Email: hliu@ciena.com


Authors' Addresses


   Jorge Rabadan
   Nokia
   777 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
   Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com

   Satya Mohanty
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   225 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA
   Email: satyamoh@cisco.com

   Ali Sajassi



Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft       DF Election Framework for EVPN         May 24, 2018


   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   225 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA
   Email: sajassi@cisco.com

   John Drake
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA  95134
   USA
   Email: jdrake@juniper.net

   Kiran Nagaraj
   Nokia
   701 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
   Email: kiran.nagaraj@nokia.com

   Senthil Sathappan
   Nokia
   701 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
   Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com



























Rabadan, Mohanty et al.Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/