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

Versions: (draft-zzhang-bier-evpn) 00 01 02

BIER                                                            Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                             A. Przygienda
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: May 7, 2020                                          A. Sajassi
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              J. Rabadan
                                                                   Nokia
                                                        November 4, 2019


                          EVPN BUM Using BIER
                        draft-ietf-bier-evpn-02

Abstract

   This document specifies protocols and procedures for forwarding
   broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic of Ethernet
   VPNs (EVPN) using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).

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.

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 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

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





Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 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.  Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Auxiliary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Using IMET/SMET routes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.2.  Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  MPLS Label in PTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Multihoming Split Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Data Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Encapsulation and Transmission  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.1.  At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.2.  At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . .  10
     4.2.  Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.2.1.  At a BFER that is an Egress PE  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.2.2.  At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   [RFC7432] and [RFC8365] specify the protocols and procedures for
   Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs).  For broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast
   (BUM) traffic, provider/underlay tunnels (referred to as P-tunnels)
   are used to carry the BUM traffic.  Several kinds of tunnel
   technologies can be used, as specified in [RFC7432].

   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) ([RFC8279]) is an architecture
   that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "multicast
   domain", without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-
   flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building protocol.  The



Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   purpose of this document is to specify the protocols and procedures
   to transport EVPN BUM traffic using BIER.

   The EVPN BUM procedures specified in [RFC7432] and extended in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates],
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], and
   [I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements] are much aligned with
   MVPN procedures.  As such, this document is also very much aligned
   with [RFC8556].  For terseness, some background, terms and concepts
   are not repeated here.  Additionally, some text is borrowed verbatim
   from [RFC8556].

1.1.  Terminologies

   o  BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.

   o  BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.

   o  BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router.

   o  BFR-Prefix: An IP address that uniquely identifies a BFR and is
      routeable in a BIER domain.

   o  C-S: A multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
      located at a VPN customer site.

   o  C-G: A multicast group address used by a VPN customer.

   o  C-flow: A customer multicast flow.  Each C-flow is identified by
      the ordered pair (source address, group address), where each
      address is in the customer's address space.  The identifier of a
      particular C-flow is usually written as (C-S,C-G).  Sets of
      C-flows can be identified by the use of the "C-*" wildcard (see
      [RFC6625]), e.g., (C-*,C-G).

   o  P-tunnel.  A multicast tunnel through the network of one or more
      SPs.  P-tunnels are used to transport MVPN multicast data

   o  IMET Route: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Auto-Discovery route.
      Carried in BGP Update messages, these routes are used to advertise
      the "default" P-tunnel for a particular broadcast domain.

   o  SMET Route: Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag Auto-Discovery route.
      Carried in BGP Update messages, these routes are used to advertise
      the C-flows that the advertising PE is interested in.

   o  S-PMSI A-D route: Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface
      Auto-Discovery route.  Carried in BGP Update messages, these



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


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


      routes are used to advertise the fact that particular C-flows are
      bound to (i.e., are traveling through) particular P-tunnels.

   o  PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA).  This BGP attribute carried is used
      to identify a particular P-tunnel.  When C-flows of multiple VPNs
      are carried in a single P-tunnel, this attribute also carries the
      information needed to multiplex and demultiplex the C-flows.

2.  Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute

   [RFC7432] specifies that Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET)
   routes carry a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) to identify the particular
   P-tunnel to which one or more BUM flows are being assigned, the same
   as specified in [RFC6514] for MVPN.  [RFC8556] specifies the encoding
   of PTA for use of BIER with MVPN.  Much of that specification is
   reused for use of BIER with EVPN and much of the text below is
   borrowed verbatim from [RFC8556].

   The PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) contains the following fields:

   o  "Tunnel Type".  The same codepoint 0x0B that IANA has assigned for
      [RFC8556] for the new tunnel type "BIER" is used for EVPN as well.



   o  "Tunnel Identifier".  When the "tunnel type" field is "BIER", this
      field contains two subfields.  The text below is exactly as in
      [RFC8556].

      1  The first subfield is a single octet, containing the sub-
         domain-id of the sub-domain to which the BFIR will assign the
         packets that it transmits on the PMSI identified by the NLRI of
         the IMET, S-PMSI A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route that
         contains this PTA.  How that sub-domain is chosen is outside
         the scope of this document.

      2  The second subfield is a two-octet field containing the BFR-id,
         in the sub-domain identified in the first subfield, of the
         router that is constructing the PTA.

      3  The third subfield is the BFR-Prefix (see [RFC8279]) of the
         originator of the route that is carrying this PTA.  This will
         either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address.  Whether
         the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the total
         length of the PMSI Tunnel attribute.






Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


         The BFR-prefix need not be the same IP address that is carried
         in any other field of the x-PMSI A-D route, even if the BFIR is
         the originating router of the x-PMSI A-D route.



   o  "MPLS label".  For EVPN-MPLS [RFC7432], this field contains an
      upstream-assigned MPLS label.  It is assigned by the BFIR.
      Constraints on the way in which the originating router selects
      this label are discussed in Section 2.3.  For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/
      GENEVE [RFC8365], this field is a 24-bit VNI/VSID of global
      significance.

   o  "Flags".  When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the flags in the
      PTA Flags field are meaningful.  Details about the use of these
      flags can be found in Section 2.2.

      *  "Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)"
         [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track]

      *  "Leaf Info Required Bit (LIR)"

   o  "Auxiliary Information".  This is optional, present if the total
      length of the PTA is larger then the sum of lengths of the fields
      before this one.  It is in the form of a series of TLVs.

   Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an IMET, S-PMSI
   A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be
   distributed beyond the boundaries of a BIER domain.  That is, any
   routers that receive the route must be in the same BIER domain as the
   originator of the route.  If the originator is in more than one BIER
   domain, the route must be distributed only within the BIER domain in
   which the BFR-Prefix in the PTA uniquely identifies the originator.
   As with all MVPN routes, distribution of these routes is controlled
   by the provisioning of Route Targets.

2.1.  Auxiliary Information

   For the "Auxiliary Information", one TLV is defined in this document
   - Tunnel Encapsulation TLV.  The value part of the TLV is a Tunnel
   TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].

   This MAY be used when VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP
   header (and UDP header in case of VXLAN/GENVE) is the BIER payload.
   Normally that is not needed with BIER, except when BIER PHP [I-
   D.ietf-bier-php] is used and the encapsulation (after BIER header is
   popped) between the BIER Penultimate Hop and the egress PE does not
   have a way to indicate the next header is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE.  In



Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   that case the full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP header
   MUST be used.  The tunnel type (VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE), endpoint, and
   some tunnel specific information MAY be specified in the Tunnel TLV
   or MAY be provisioned on PEs.  The tunnel endpoint MUST be an IP
   multicast address and the receiving egress PE MUST be set up to
   receive and process packets addressed to the address.  The same
   multicast address can be used for all BDs, as the the inner
   VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be used to identify BDs.

2.2.  Explicit Tracking

   When using BIER to transport an EVPN BUM data packet through a BIER
   domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [RFC8279]).  The BFIR
   must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
   delivered.  This can be done in either of two ways in the following
   two sections.

2.2.1.  Using IMET/SMET routes

   Both IMET and SMET (Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]) routes provide explicit tracking
   functionality.

   For an inclusive PMSI, the set of BFERs to deliver traffic to
   includes the originators of all IMET routes for a broadcast domain.
   For a selective PMSI, the set of BFERs to deliver traffic to includes
   the originators of corresponding SMET routes.

   The SMET routes do not carry a PTA.  When an ingress PE sends traffic
   on a selective tunnel using BIER, it uses the upstream assigned label
   that is advertised in its IMET route.

   Only when selectively forwarding is for all flows without tunnel
   segmentation, SMET routes are used without the need for S-PMSI A-D
   routes.  Otherwise, the procedures in the following section apply.

2.2.2.  Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes

   There are two cases where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are used as
   discussed in the following two sections.

2.2.2.1.  Selective Forwarding Only for Some Flows

   With the SMET procedure, a PE advertises an SMET route for each
   (C-S,C-G) or (C-*,C-G) state that it learns on its ACs, and each SMET
   route is tracked by every PE in the same broadcast domain.  It may be
   desired that SMET routes are not used to reduce the burden of
   explicit tracking.



Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   In this case, most multicast traffic will follow the I-PMSI
   (advertised via IMET route) and only some flows follow S-PMSIs.  To
   achieve that, S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes can be used, as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates].

   The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2 of [RFC8556]
   apply.

2.2.2.2.  Tunnel Segmentation

   Another case where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are necessary is tunnel
   segmentation, which is also specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates], and further clarified in
   [I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements] for segmentation with
   SMET routes.  This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS.

   The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 of [RFC8556] apply.
   Section 2.2.2 of [RFC8556] do not apply, because similar to MVPN, the
   LIR-pF flag cannot be used with segmentation.

2.2.2.3.  Applicability of Additional MVPN Sepcifications

   As with the MVPN case, Section "3.  Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
   in Leaf A-D routes" of [RFC8556] apply.

   Notice that, [RFC8556] refers to procedures specified in [RFC6625]
   and [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track].  Those two documents were
   specified for MVPN but are actually applicable to IP multicast
   payload in EVPN as well.

2.3.  MPLS Label in PTA

   Rules in section 2.1 of [RFC8556] apply, EXCEPT the following three
   bullets (they do NOT apply to EVPN) in that section:

   o  If the two routes do not have the same Address Family Identifier
      (AFI) value, then their respective PTAs MUST contain different
      MPLS label values.  This ensures that when an egress PE receives a
      data packet with the given label, the egress PE can infer from the
      label whether the payload is an IPv4 packet or an IPv6 packet.

   o  If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting MVPN extranet ([RFC7900])
      functionality, and if the two routes originate from different VRFs
      on this ingress PE, then the respective PTAs of the two routes
      MUST contain different MPLS label values.

   o  If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting the "Extranet Separation"
      feature of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [RFC7900]), and if



Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


      one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended
      community but the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the
      two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.

3.  Multihoming Split Horizon

   For EVPN-MPLS, [RFC7432] specifies the use of ESI labels to identify
   the ES from which a BUM packet originates.  A PE receiving that
   packet from the core side will not forward it to the same ES.  The
   procedure works for both Ingress Replication (IR) and RSVP-TE/mLDP
   P2MP tunnels, using downstream- and upstream-assigned ESI labels
   respectively.  For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, [RFC8365] specifies
   local-bias procedures, with which a PE receiving a BUM packet from
   the core side knows from encapsulation the ingress PE so it does not
   forward the packet to any multihoming ESes that the ingress PE is on,
   because the ingress PE already forwarded the packet to those ESes,
   regardless of whether the ingress PE is a DF for those ESes.

   With BIER, the local-bias procedure still applies for EVPN-
   VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE as the BFIR-id in the BIER header identifies the
   ingress PE.  For EVPN-MPLS, ESI label procedures also still apply
   though two upstream assigned labels will be used (one for identifying
   the broadcast domain and one for identifying the ES) - the same as in
   the case of using a single P2MP tunnel for multiple broadcast
   domains.  The BFIR-id in the BIER header identifies the ingress PE
   that assigned those two labels.

4.  Data Plane

   Similar to MVPN, the EVPN application plays the role of the
   "multicast flow overlay" as described in [RFC8279].

4.1.  Encapsulation and Transmission

   A BFIR could be either an ingress PE or a P-tunnel segmentation
   point.  The procedures are slightly different as described below.

4.1.1.  At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE

   To transmit a BUM data packet, an ingress PE first determines the
   route matched for transmission and routes for tracking leaves
   according to the following rules.

   1.  If selective forwarding is not used, or it is not an IP Multicast
       packet after the ethernet header, the IMET route originated for
       the BD by the ingress PE is the route matched for transmission.
       Leaf tracking routes are all other received IMET routes for the
       BD.



Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   2.  Otherwise, if selective forwarding is used for all IP Multicast
       traffic based on SMET routes, the IMET route originated for the
       BD by the ingress PE is the route matched for transmisssion.
       Received SMET routes for the BD that best match the source and
       destination IP adddress are leaf tracking routes.

   3.  Otherwise, route matched for transmission is the S-PMSI A-D route
       originated by the ingress PE for the BD, that best matches the
       packet's source and destination IP address and has a PTA
       specifying a valid tunnel type that is not "no tunnel info".
       Leaf tracking routes are determined as following:

       1)  If the match for transmission route carries a PTA that has
           the LIR flag set but does not have the LIR-pF flag set, the
           routes matched for tracking are Leaf A-D routes whose "route
           key" field is identical to the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D route.

       2)  If the match for transmission route carries a PTA that has
           the LIR-pF flag, the leaf tracking routes are Leaf A-D routes
           whose "route key" field is derived from the NLRI of the
           S-PMSI A-D route according to the procedures described in
           Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track].

       Note that in both cases, SMET routes may be used in lieu of Leaf
       A-D routes, as a PE may omit the Leaf A-D route in response to an
       S-PMSI A-D route with LIR or LIR-pF bit set, if an SMET route
       with the corresponding Tag, Source and Group fields is already
       originated [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates].  In
       particular, in the second case above, even though the SMET route
       does not have a PTA attached, it is still considered as a Leaf
       A-D route in response to a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route with the
       LIR-pF bit set.

   4.  Otherwise, route matched for transmission and leaf tracking
       routes are determined as in rule 1.

   If no route is matched for transmission, the packet is not forwarded
   onto a p-tunnel.  If the tunnel that the ingress determines to use
   based on the route matched for transmission (and considering
   interworking with PEs that do not support certain tunnel types per
   procedures in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]) requires leaf
   tracking (e.g.  Ingress Replication, RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel, or BIER)
   but there are no leaf tracking routes, the packet will not be
   forwarded onto a p-tunnel either.

   The following text assumes that BIER is the determined tunnel type.
   The ingress PE pushes an upstream assigned ESI label per [RFC7432] if
   the following conditions are all met:



Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   o  The packet is received on a multihomed ES.

   o  It's EVPN-MPLS.

   o  ESI label procedure is used for split-horizon.

   The MPLS label from the PTA of the route matched for transmission is
   then pushed onto the packet's label stack for EVPN-MPLS.  For EVPN-
   VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, a VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is prepended to the
   packet with the VNI/VSID set to the value in the PTA's label field,
   and then an IP/UDP header is prepended if needed (e.g. for PHP
   purpose).

   Then the packet is encapsulated in a BIER header and forwarded,
   according to the procedures of [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].  See
   especially Section 4, "Imposing and Processing the BIER
   Encapsulation", of [RFC8296].  The "Proto" field in the BIER header
   is set to 2 in case of EVPN-MPLS, or a value to be assigned in case
   of EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (Section 5) when IP header is not used, or
   4/6 if IP header is used for EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE.

   In order to create the proper BIER header for a given packet, the
   BFIR must know all the BFERs that need to receive that packet.  This
   is determined from the set of leaf tracking routes.

4.1.2.  At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point

   In this case, the encapsulation for upstream segment of the p-tunnel
   includes (among other things) a label that identifies the x-PMSI or
   IMET A-D route that is the match for reception on the upstream
   segment.  The segmentation point re-advertised the route into one or
   more downstream regions.  Each instance of the re-advertised route
   for a downstream region has a PTA that specify tunnel information
   that is the same as or different from that of the route for a
   different region.  For any particular downstream region, the route
   matched for transmission is the re-advertised route, and the leaf
   tracking routes are determined as following if needed for the tunnel
   type:

   o  If the route matched for transmission is an x-PMSI route, it must
      have the LIR flag set in its PTA and the leaf tracking routes are
      all the matching Leaf A-D and SMET routes received in the
      downstream region.

   o  If the route matched for transmission is an IMET route, the leaf
      tracking routes are all the IMET routes for the same BD received
      in the downtream region.




Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   If the downtream region uses BIER, the packet is forwarded as
   following: the upstream segmentation's encapsulation is removed and
   the above mentioned label is swapped to the upstream-assigned label
   in the PTA of the route matched for transmission, and then a BIER
   header is imposed as in Section 4.1.1.

4.2.  Disposition

   The same procedures in section 4.2 of [RFC8556] are followed for
   EVPN-MPLS, except some EVPN specifics discussed in the following two
   sub-sections in this document.

   For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, the only difference is that the payload
   is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (with or without an IP header) and the VNI/VSID
   field in the VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is used to determine the
   corresponding mac VRF or broadcast domain.

4.2.1.  At a BFER that is an Egress PE

   Once the corresponding mac VRF or broadcast domain is determined from
   the upstream assigned label or VNI/VSID, EVPN forwarding procedures
   per [RFC7432] or [RFC8365] are followed.  In case of EVPN-MPLS, if
   there is an inner label in the label stack following the BIER header,
   that inner label is considered as the upstream assigned ESI label for
   split horizon purpose.

4.2.2.  At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point

   This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS.  The same procedures in
   Section 4.2.2 of [RFC8556] are followed, subject to multihoming
   procedures specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates].

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests two assignments in "BIER Next Protocol
   Identifiers" registry, with the following two recommended values:

   o  7: Payload is VXLAN encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)

   o  8: Payload is NVGRE encapsulated (no IP header)

   o  9: Payload is GENEVE encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)

6.  Security Considerations

   To be updated.





Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Eric Rosen for his review and suggestions.
   Additionally, much of the text is borrowed verbatim from [RFC8556].

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates]
              Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A.
              Sajassi, "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", draft-ietf-
              bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-07 (work in progress),
              August 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
              Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Drake, J., and W. Lin,
              "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-
              mld-proxy-04 (work in progress), September 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir]
              Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Katiyar, M., and A.
              Sajassi, "Optimized Ingress Replication solution for
              EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 (work in
              progress), October 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track]
              Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., and Z. Zhang,
              "Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast
              VPN", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13 (work in
              progress), November 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
              Patel, K., Velde, G., and S. Ramachandra, "The BGP Tunnel
              Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-14
              (work in progress), September 2019.

   [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>.

   [RFC6625]  Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
              Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
              RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.





Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   [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>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

   [RFC8317]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Drake, J., Uttaro, J.,
              Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree)
              Support in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone
              Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 8317, DOI 10.17487/RFC8317,
              January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8317>.

   [RFC8556]  Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S.,
              and A. Dolganow, "Multicast VPN Using Bit Index Explicit
              Replication (BIER)", RFC 8556, DOI 10.17487/RFC8556, April
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8556>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.boutros-bess-evpn-geneve]
              Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., and S.
              Aldrin, "EVPN control plane for Geneve", draft-boutros-
              bess-evpn-geneve-04 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-php]
              Zhang, Z., "BIER Penultimate Hop Popping", draft-ietf-
              bier-php-03 (work in progress), October 2019.

   [I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub]
              Patel, K., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Zhang, Z., and W.
              Henderickx, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs", draft-
              keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02 (work in progress),
              September 2019.







Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  bier-evpn                  November 2019


   [I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements]
              Zhang, Z., Kebler, R., Lin, W., and E. Rosen, "MVPN/EVPN
              C-Multicast Routes Enhancements", draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-
              evpn-cmcast-enhancements-01 (work in progress), March
              2019.

   [RFC8365]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
              Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
              Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: zzhang@juniper.net


   Antoni Przygienda
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: prz@juniper.net


   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: sajassi@cisco.com


   Jorge Rabadan
   Nokia

   EMail: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com















Zhang, et al.              Expires May 7, 2020                 [Page 14]


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