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

Versions: 00

BESS Workgroup                                           J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet Draft                                               J. Kotalwar
                                                            S. Sathappan
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Nokia

                                                                E. Rosen
                                                                Z. Zhang
                                                                  W. Lin
                                                                 Juniper



Expires: April 25, 2019                                 October 22, 2018




              Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks
             draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-00


Abstract

   EVPN supports intra and inter-subnet IP multicast forwarding.
   However, EVPN (or conventional IP multicast techniques for that
   matter) do not have a solution for the case where a given multicast
   group carries more than one flow (i.e., more than one source), but
   where it is desired that each receiver gets only one of the several
   flows. Existing multicast techniques assume there are no redundant
   sources sending the same flows to the same IP multicast group, and,
   in case there were redundant sources, the receiver's application
   would deal with the received duplicated packets. This document
   extends the existing EVPN specifications and assumes that IP
   Multicast source redundancy may exist. It also assumes that, in case
   two or more sources send the same IP Multicast flows into the tenant
   domain, the EVPN PEs need to avoid that the receivers get packet
   duplication by following the described procedures.


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
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   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 April 25, 2019.

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.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1 Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2 Background on IP Multicast Delivery in EVPN Networks . . . .  6
       1.2.1 Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding . . . . . . . . . .  6
       1.2.2 Inter-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding . . . . . . . . . .  7
     1.3 Multi-Homed IP Multicast Sources in EVPN . . . . . . . . . .  9
     1.4 The Need for Redundant IP Multicast Sources in EVPN  . . . . 11
   2. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3. BGP EVPN Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4. Warm Standby (WS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources  . . . . . . 14
     4.1 WS Example in an OISM Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.2 WS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5. Hot Standby (HS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources . . . . . . . 18
     5.1 Use of BFD in the HS Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.2 HS Example in an OISM Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.3 HS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network . . . . . . . . . . 25



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   8. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     8.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     8.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27



1. Introduction

   Intra and Inter-subnet IP Multicast forwarding are supported in EVPN
   networks. [IGMP-PROXY] describes the procedures required to optimize
   the delivery of IP Multicast flows when Sources and Receivers are
   connected to the same EVPN BD (Broadcast Domain), whereas [OISM]
   specifies the procedures to support Inter-subnet IP Multicast in a
   tenant network. Inter-subnet IP Multicast means that IP Multicast
   Source and Receivers of the same multicast flow are connected to
   different BDs of the same tenant.

   [IGMP-PROXY], [OISM] or conventional IP multicast techniques do not
   have a solution for the case where a given multicast group carries
   more than one flow (i.e., more than one source), but where it is
   desired that each receiver gets only one of the several flows.
   Multicast techniques assume there are no redundant sources sending
   the same flows to the same IP multicast group, and, in case there
   were redundant sources, the receiver's application would deal with
   the received duplicated packets.

   As a workaround in conventional IP multicast (PIM or MVPN networks),
   if all the redundant sources are given the same IP address, each
   receiver will get only one flow. The reason is that, in conventional
   IP multicast, (S,G) state is always created. It is always created by
   the RP, and sometimes by the Last Hop Router (LHR). The (S,G) state
   always binds the (S,G) flow to a source-specific tree, rooted at the
   source IP address. If multiple sources have the same IP address, one
   may end up with multiple (S,G) trees. However, the way the trees are
   constructed ensures that any given LHR or RP is on at most one of
   them. The use of an anycast address assigned to multiple sources may
   be useful for warm standby redundancy solutions. However, on one
   hand, it's not really helpful for hot standby redundancy solutions
   and on the other hand, configuring the same IP address (in particular
   IPv4 address) in multiple sources may bring issues if the sources
   need to be reached by IP unicast traffic or if the sources are
   attached to the same Broadcast Domain.




Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   In addition, in the scenario where several G-sources are attached via
   EVPN/OISM, there is not necessarily any (S,G) state created for the
   redundant sources. In general, the LHRs have only (*,G) state, and
   there may not be an RP (creating (S,G) state) either. Therefore, this
   document extends the above two specifications and assumes that IP
   Multicast source redundancy may exist. It also assumes that, in case
   two or more sources send the same IP Multicast flows into the tenant
   domain, the EVPN PEs need to avoid that the receivers get packet
   duplication.

   The solution provides support for Warm Standby (WS) and Hot Standby
   (HS) redundancy. WS is defined as the redundancy scenario in which
   the upstream PEs attached to the redundant sources of the same
   tenant, make sure that only one source of the same flow can send
   multicast to the interested downstream PEs at the same time. In HS
   the upstream PEs forward the redundant multicast flows to the
   downstream PEs, and the downstream PEs make sure only one flow is
   forwarded to the interested attached receivers.

1.1 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 OISM: Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast, as in [OISM].

   o Broadcast Domain (BD): an emulated ethernet, such that two systems
     on the same BD will receive each other's link-local broadcasts. In
     this document, BD also refers to the instantiation of a Broadcast
     Domain on an EVPN PE. An EVPN PE can be attached to one or multiple
     BDs of the same tenant.

   o Designated Forwarder (DF): as defined in [RFC7432], an ethernet
     segment may be multi-homed (attached to more than one PE). An
     ethernet segment may also contain multiple BDs, of one or more
     EVIs. For each such EVI, one of the PEs attached to the segment
     becomes that EVI's DF for that segment. Since a BD may belong to
     only one EVI, we can speak unambiguously of the BD's DF for a given
     segment.

   o Upstream PE: in this document an Upstream PE is referred to as the
     EVPN PE that is connected to the IP Multicast source or closest to
     it. It receives the IP Multicast flows on local ACs (Attachment
     Circuits).




Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   o Downstream PE: in this document a Downstream PE is referred to as
     the EVPN PE that is connected to the IP Multicast receivers and
     gets the IP Multicast flows from remote EVPN PEs.

   o G-traffic: any frame with an IP payload whose IP Destination
     Address (IP DA) is a multicast group G.

   o G-source: any system sourcing traffic to G.

   o SFG: Single Flow Group, i.e., a multicast group address G which
     represents traffic that contains only a single flow. However,
     multiple sources - with the same or different IP - may be
     transmitting an SFG.

   o Redundant G-source: a host or router that transmits an SFG in a
     tenant network where there are more hosts or routers transmitting
     the same SFG. Redundant G-sources for the same SFG SHOULD have
     different IP addresses when in the same BD, and MAY have the same
     IP address when in different BDs of the same tenant network.
     Redundant G-sources are assumed NOT to be "bursty" in this document
     (typical example are Broadcast TV G-sources or similar).

   o P-tunnel: Provider tunnel refers to the type of tree a given
     upstream EVPN PE uses to forward multicast traffic to downstream
     PEs. Examples of P-tunnels supported in this document are Ingress
     Replication (IR), Assisted Replication (AR), BIER, mLDP or P2MP
     RSVP-TE.

   o Inclusive Multicast Tree or Inclusive Provider Multicast Service
     Interface (I-PMSI): defined in [RFC6513], in this document it is
     applicable only to EVPN and refers to the default multicast tree
     for a given BD. All the EVPN PEs that are attached to a specific BD
     belong to the I-PMSI for the BD. The I-PMSI trees are signaled by
     EVPN Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) routes.

   o Selective Multicast Tree or Selective Provider Multicast Service
     Interface (S-PMSI): defined in [RFC6513], in this document it is
     applicable only to EVPN and refers to the multicast tree to which
     only the interested PEs of a given BD belong to. There are two
     types of EVPN S-PMSIs:

     - EVPN S-PMSIs that require the advertisement of S-PMSI AD routes
       from the upstream PE, as in [EVPN-BUM]. The interested downstream
       PEs join the S-PMSI tree as in [EVPN-BUM].

     - EVPN S-PMSIs that don't require the advertisement of S-PMSI AD
       routes. They use the forwarding information of the IMET routes,
       but upstream PEs send IP Multicast flows only to downstream PEs



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


       issuing Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) routes for the
       flow. These S-PMSIs are only supported with the following P-
       tunnels: Ingress Replication (IR), Assisted Replication (AR) and
       BIER.


   This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
   [RFC7432], [RFC4364], [RFC6513], [RFC6514], [IGMP-PROXY], [OISM],
   [EVPN-RT5] and [EVPN-BUM].



1.2 Background on IP Multicast Delivery in EVPN Networks

   IP Multicast is all about forwarding a single copy of a packet from a
   source S to a group of receivers G along a multicast tree. That
   multicast tree can be created in an EVPN tenant domain where S and
   the receivers for G are connected to the same BD or different BD. In
   the former case, we refer to Intra-subnet IP Multicast forwarding,
   whereas the latter case will be referred to as Inter-subnet IP
   Multicast forwarding.

1.2.1 Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding

   When the source S1 and receivers interested in G1 are attached to the
   same BD, the EVPN network can deliver the IP Multicast traffic to the
   receivers in two different ways (Figure 1):
























Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


                     S1  +                        S1  +
           (a)       +   |              (b)       +   |
                     |   | (S1,G1)                |   | (S1,G1)
                 PE1 |   |                    PE1 |   |
                 +-----+ v                    +-----+ v
                 |+---+|                      |+---+|
                 ||BD1||                      ||BD1||
                 |+---+|                      |+---+|
                 +-----+                      +-----+
            +-------|-------+            +-------|
            |       |       |            |       |
            v       v       v            v       v
         +-----+ +-----+ +-----+      +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
         |+---+| |-----| |-----|      |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|
         ||BD1|| ||BD1|| ||BD1||      ||BD1|| ||BD1|| ||BD1||
         |+---+| |-----| |-----|      |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|
         +-----+ +-----+ +-----+      +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
         PE2|    PE3|    PE4|         PE2|    PE3|    PE4
          - | - - - | -     |          - | - - - | -
         |  |       |  |    |         |  |       |  |
            v       v       v            v       v
         |  R1      R2 |    R3        |  R1      R2 |    R3
          - - - G1- - -                - - - G1- - -

               Figure 1 - Intra-subnet IP Multicast

   Model (a) illustrated in Figure 1 is referred to as IP Multicast
   delivery as BUM traffic. This way of delivering IP Multicast traffic
   does not require any extensions to [RFC7432], however, it sends the
   IP Multicast flows to non-interested receivers, such as e.g., R3 in
   Figure 1. In this example, downstream PEs can snoop IGMP/MLD messages
   from the receivers so that layer-2 multicast state is created and,
   for instance, PE4 can avoid sending (S1,G1) to R3, since R3 is not
   interested in (S1,G1).

   Model (b) in Figure 1 uses an S-PMSI to optimize the delivery of the
   (S1,G1) flow. For instance, assuming PE1 uses IR, PE1 sends (S1,G1)
   only to the downstream PEs that issued an SMET route for (S1,G1),
   that is, PE2 and PE3. In case PE1 uses any P-tunnel different than
   IR, AR or BIER, PE1 will advertise an S-PMSI A-D route for (S1,G1)
   and PE2/PE2 will join that tree.

   Procedures for Model (b) are specified in [IGMP-PROXY].


1.2.2 Inter-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding

   If the source and receivers are attached to different BDs of the same



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   tenant domain, the EVPN network can also use Inclusive or Selective
   Trees as depicted in Figure 2, models (a) and (b) respectively.


                     S1  +                     S1  +
           (a)       +   |              (b)    +   |
                     |   | (S1,G1)             |   | (S1,G1)
                 PE1 |   |                 PE1 |   |
                 +-----+ v                 +-----+ v
                 |+---+|                   |+---+|
                 ||BD1||                   ||BD1||
                 |+---+|                   |+---+|
                 +-----+                   +-----+
            +-------|-------+         +-------|
            |       |       |         |       |
            v       v       v         v       v
         +-----+ +-----+ +-----+   +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
         |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|   |+---+| |+---+| |+---+|
         ||SBD|| ||SBD|| ||SBD||   ||SBD|| ||SBD|| ||SBD||
         |+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+|   |+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+|
         | VRF | | VRF | | VRF |   | VRF | | VRF | | VRF |
         |+-v-+| |+-v-+| |+---+|   |+-v-+| |+-v-+| |+---+|
         ||BD2|| ||BD3|| ||BD4||   ||BD2|| ||BD3|| ||BD4||
         |+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+|   |+-|-+| |+-|-+| |+---+|
         +--|--+ +--|--+ +-----+   +--|--+ +--|--+ +-----+
         PE2|    PE3|    PE4       PE2|    PE3|    PE4
          - | - - - | -             - | - - - | -
         |  |       |  |           |  |       |  |
            v       v                 v       v
         |  R1      R2 |    R3     |  R1      R2 |    R3
          - - - G1- - -             - - - G1- - -


               Figure 2 - Inter-subnet IP Multicast


   [OISM] specifies the procedures to optimize the Inter-subnet
   Multicast forwarding in an EVPN network. The IP Multicast flows are
   always sent in the context of the source BD. As described in [OISM],
   if the downstream PE is not attached to the source BD, the IP
   Multicast flow is received on the SBD (Supplementary Broadcast
   Domain), as in the example in Figure 2.

   [OISM] supports Inclusive or Selective Multicast Trees, and as
   explained in section 1.3.1 "Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding",
   the Selective Multicast Trees are setup in a different way, depending
   on the P-tunnel being used by the source BD. As an example, model (a)
   in Figure 2 illustrates the use of an Inclusive Multicast Tree for



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   BD1 on PE1. Since the downstream PEs are not attached to BD1, they
   will all receive (S1,G1) in the context of the SBD and will locally
   route the flow to the local ACs. Model (b) uses a similar forwarding
   model, however PE1 sends the (S1,G1) flow in a Selective Multicast
   Tree. If the P-tunnel is IR, AR or BIER, PE1 does not need to
   advertise an S-PMSI A-D route.

   [OISM] is a superset of the procedures in [IGMP-PROXY], in which
   sources and receivers can be in the same or different BD of the same
   tenant. [OISM] ensures every upstream PE attached to a source will
   learn of all other PEs (attached to the same Tenant Domain) that have
   interest in a particular set of flows. This is because the downstream
   PEs advertise SMET routes for a set of flows with the SBD's Route
   Target and they are imported by all the Upstream PEs of the tenant.
   As a result of that, inter-subnet multicasting can be done within the
   Tenant Domain, without requiring any Rendezvous Points (RP), shared
   trees, UMH selection or any other complex aspects of conventional
   multicast routing techniques.


1.3 Multi-Homed IP Multicast Sources in EVPN

   Contrary to conventional multicast routing technologies, multi-homing
   PEs attached to the same source can never create IP Multicast packet
   duplication if the PEs use a multi-homed Ethernet Segment (ES).
   Figure 3 illustrates this by showing two multi-homing PEs (PE1 and
   PE2) that are attached to the same source (S1). We assume that S1 is
   connected to an all-active ES by a layer-2 switch (SW1) with a LAG to
   PE1 and PE2.






















Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019          [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


                                     S1
                                     |
                                     v
                                  +-----+
                                  | SW1 |
                                  +-----+
                            +----  |   |
                     (S1,G1)| +----+   +----+
         IGMP               | | all-active  |
         J(S1,G1)     PE1   v |    ES-1     |    PE2
         +---->   +-----------|---+     +---|-----------+
                  | +---+   +---+ |     | +---+         |
          R1  <-----|BD2|   |BD1| |     | |BD1|         |
                  | +---+---+---+ |     | +---+---+     |
             +----|     |VRF|  |  |     |     |VRF|     |----+
             |    | +---+---+  |  |     | +---+---+     |    |
             |    | |SBD|      |  |     | |SBD|         |    |
             |    | +---+      |  |     | +---+         |    |
             |    +------------|--+     +---------------+    |
             |                 |                             |
             |                 |                             |
             |                 |                             |
             |  EVPN           |               ^             |
             |  OISM           v    PE3        | SMET        |
             |              +---------------+  | (*,G1)      |
             |              | +---+         |  |             |
             |              | |SBD|         |                |
             |              | +---+---+     |                |
             +--------------|     |VRF|     |----------------+
                            | +---+---+---+ |
                            | |BD2|   |BD3| |
                            | +-|-+   +-|-+ |
                            +---|-------|---+
                            ^   |       |   ^
                   IGMP     |   v       v   | IGMP
                    J(*,G1) |  R2       R3  | J(S1,G1)


               Figure 3 - All-active Multi-homing and OISM

   When receiving the (S1,G1) flow from S1, SW1 will choose only one
   link to send the flow, as per [RFC7432]. Assuming PE1 is the
   receiving PE on BD1, the IP Multicast flow will be forwarded as soon
   as BD1 creates multicast state for (S1,G1) or (*,G1). In the example
   of Figure 3, receivers R1, R2 and R3 are interested in the multicast
   flow to G1. R1 will receive (S1,G1) directly via the IRB interface as
   per [OISM]. Upon receiving IGMP reports from R2 and R3, PE3 will
   issue an SMET (*,G1) route that will create state in PE1's BD1. PE1



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   will therefore forward the IP Multicast flow to PE3's SBD and PE3
   will forward to R2 and R3, as per [OISM] procedures.

   When IP Multicast source multi-homing is required, EVPN multi-homed
   Ethernet Segments SHOULD be used. EVPN multi-homing guarantees that
   only one Upstream PE will forward a given multicast flow at the time,
   avoiding packet duplication at the Downstream PEs. In addition, the
   SMET route for a given flow creates state in all the multi-homing
   Upstream PEs. Therefore, in case of failure on the Upstream PE
   forwarding the flow, the backup Upstream PE can forward the flow
   immediately.

   This document assumes that multi-homing PEs attached to the same
   source always use multi-homed Ethernet Segments.


1.4 The Need for Redundant IP Multicast Sources in EVPN

   While multi-homing PEs to the same IP Multicast G-source provides
   certain level of resiliency, multicast applications are often
   critical in the Operator's network and greater level of redundancy is
   required. This document assumes that:

   a) Redundant G-sources for an SFG may exist in the EVPN tenant
      network. A Redundant G-source is a host or a router that sends an
      SFG in a tenant network where there is another host or router
      sending traffic to the same SFG.

   b) Those redundant G-sources may be in the same BD or different BDs
      of the tenant. There must not be restrictions imposed on the
      location of the receiver systems either.

   c) The redundant G-sources can be single-homed to only one EVPN PE or
      multi-homed to multiple EVPN PEs.

   d) The EVPN PEs must avoid duplication of the same SFG on the
      receiver systems.



2. Solution Overview

   There are two redundant G-source solutions described in this
   document:

   o Warm Standby (WS) Solution
   o Hot Standby (HS) Solution




Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   The WS solution is an upstream PE based solution (downstream PEs do
   not participate in the procedures), in which all the upstream PEs
   attached to redundant G-sources for an SFG will elect a "Single
   Forwarder" (SF) among themselves. Once a SF is elected, the upstream
   PEs add an RPF check to the (*,G) state for the SFG:

   - A non-SF upstream PE discards any (*,G) packets received over a
     local AC.

   - The SF accepts and forwards any (*,G) packets it receives over a
     single local AC. In case (*,G) packets are received over multiple
     local ACs, they will be discarded in all the local ACs but one. The
     procedure to choose the local AC that accepts packets is a local
     implementation matter.

   A failure on the SF will result in the election of a new SF. The
   Election requires BGP extensions on the existing EVPN routes. These
   extensions and associated procedures are described in Sections 3 and
   4 respectively.

   In the HS solution the downstream PEs are the ones avoiding the SFG
   duplication. The upstream PEs are aware of the locally attached G-
   sources and add a unique ESI-label per SFG to the SFG packets
   forwarded to downstream PEs. The downstream PEs pull the SFG from all
   the upstream PEs attached to the redundant G-sources and avoid
   duplication on the receiver systems by adding an RPF check to the
   (*,G) state for the SFG:

   - A downstream PE discards any (*,G) packets it receives from the
     "wrong G-source".

   - The wrong G-source is identified in the data path by an ESI-label
     that is different than the ESI-label used for the selected G-
     source.

   - Note that the ESI-label is used here for "ingress filtering" as
     opposed to the [RFC7432] "egress filtering" used in the split-
     horizon procedures. In [RFC7432] the ESI-label indicates what
     egress ACs must be skipped when forwarding BUM traffic to the
     egress. In this document, the ESI-label indicates what ingress
     traffic must be discarded.

   The use of ESI-labels for SFGs forwarded by upstream PEs require some
   control plane and data plane extensions in the procedures used by
   [RFC7432] for multi-homing. Upon failure of the selected G-source,
   the downstream PE will switch over to a different selected G-source,
   and will therefore change the RPF check for the (*,G) state. The
   extensions and associated procedures are described in Sections 3 and



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   5 respectively.

   An operator should use the HS solution if they require a fast fail-
   over time and the additional bandwidth consumption is acceptable (SFG
   packets are received multiple times on the downstream PEs). Otherwise
   the operator should use the WS solution, at the expense of a slower
   fail-over time in case of a G-source or upstream PE failure. Besides
   bandwidth efficiency, another advantage of the WS solution is that
   only the upstream PEs attached to the redundant G-sources for the
   same SFG need to be upgraded to support the new procedures.

   The support of either solution is OPTIONAL.


3. BGP EVPN Extensions

   This document makes use of the following BGP EVPN extensions:

   1. SFG flag in the Multicast Flags Extended Community

      The Single Flow Group (SFG) flag is a new bit requested to IANA
      out of the registry Multicast Flags Extended Community Flag
      Values. This new flag is set for S-PMSI routes that carry an SFG
      (*,G) in the NLRI.

   2. ESI attribute

      The HS solution requires the advertisement of one or more
      attributes that encode the Ethernet Segment Identifier(s)
      associated to an S-PMSI (*,G) route that advertises the presence
      of an SFG. The format of this attribute will be described in
      future revisions of this document. The following options are being
      considered for the "ESI attribute":

      - Use a BGP Large Community (LC) Attribute:

        If an Ethernet Segment Type 5 [RFC7432] is used for ESes
        attached to redundant G-sources, a LC attribute can be used
        where each value encodes the corresponding ESI in the following
        format: ASN(4-bytes):Local-Discriminator(4-bytes):0x0(4-bytes);
        ASN and Local-Discriminator are the same values that are used at
        the upstream PE to construct the type-5 ESI. A PE receiving an
        S-PMSI (*,G) route with an SFG indication should interpret the
        LC Attribute as a list of ESIs associated with the redundant G-
        sources.

      - Use a new BGP attribute




Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


        Another option is to define a new attribute that can encode one
        or more ESI values.

      - Use an IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute

        Another Option is to make use of the [RFC5701] IPv6 Address EC
        attribute.

   This section will be modified in future versions of the document.


4. Warm Standby (WS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources

   The general procedure is described as follows:

   1. Configuration of the upstream PEs

      Upstream PEs where redundant G-sources may exist need to be
      configured to know which groups are carrying only flows from
      redundant G-sources, that is, the SFGs in the tenant domain. They
      will also be configured to know which local BDs may be attached to
      a redundant G-source. As an example, PE1 is configured to know
      that G1 is an SFG and redundant G-sources for G1 may be attached
      to BD1 or BD2.

   2. Signaling the location of a G-source for a given SFG

      Upon receiving G-traffic for an SFG on a BD, an upstream PE
      configured to follow this procedure, e.g., PE1:

      a. Originates an S-PMSI (*,G) route for the SFG that is imported
         by all the PEs attached to the tenant domain. In order to do
         that, the route will use the SBD-RT (Supplementary Broadcast
         Domain Route-Target) in addition to the BD-RT of the BD over
         which the G-traffic is received. The route SHOULD also carry a
         DF Election Extended Community (EC) and a flag indicating that
         it conveys an SFG. The DF Election EC and its use is specified
         in [DF].

      b. The above S-PMSI route MAY be advertised with or without PMSI
         Tunnel Attribute (PTA):

         - With no PTA if an I-PMSI or S-PMSI with IR/AR/BIER are to be
           used.

         - With PTA in any other case.

      c. The S-PMSI (*,G) route is triggered by the first packet of the



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


         SFG and withdrawn when the flow is not received anymore.
         Detecting when the G-source is no longer active is a local
         implementation matter. The use of a timer is RECOMMENDED. The
         timer is started when the traffic to G1 is not received. Upon
         expiration of the timer, the PE will withdraw the route.

   3. Single Forwarder (SF) Election

      If the PE with a local G-source receives an S-PMSI route for the
      same SFG from a remote PE, it will run a Single Forwarder (SF)
      Election based on the information encoded in the DF Election EC.

   4. RPF check on the PEs attached to a redundant G-source

      All the PEs with a local G-source for the SFG will add an RPF
      check to the (*,G) state for the SFG. That RPF check depends on
      the SF Election result:

      a. The non-SF PEs discard any (*,G) packets received over a local
         AC.

      b. The SF accepts any (*,G) packets it receives over one (and only
         one) local AC.

   The solution above provides redundancy for SFGs and it does not
   require an upgrade of the downstream PEs (PEs where there is
   certainty that no redundant G-sources are connected). Other G-sources
   for non-SFGs may exist in the same tenant domain. This document does
   not change the existing procedures for non-SFG G-sources.

   The redundant G-sources can be single-homed or multi-homed to a BD in
   the tenant domain. Multi-homing does not change the above procedures.

   Sections 4.1 and 4.2 show two examples of the WS solution.


4.1 WS Example in an OISM Network

   Figure 4 illustrates an example in which S1 and S2 are redundant G-
   sources for the SFG (*,G1).











Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


                        S1 (Single               S2
                        |   Forwarder)           |
                 (S1,G1)|                 (S2,G1)|
                        |                        |
               PE1      |               PE2      |
               +--------v---+           +--------v---+
        S-PMSI |      +---+ |           |      +---+ | S-PMSI
        (*,G1) |  +---|BD1| |           |  +---|BD2| | (*,G1)
       Pref200 |  |VRF+---+ |           |  |VRF+---+ | Pref100
         |SFG  |+---+  | |  |           |+---+  |    |  SFG|
         | +----|SBD|--+ |  |-----------||SBD|--+    |---+ |
         v |   |+---+    |  |           |+---+       |   | v
           |   +---------|--+           +------------+   |
    SMET   |             |                               | SMET
    (*,G1) |             |   (S1,G1)                     | (*,G1)
           |    +--------+------------------+            |
       ^   |    |                           |            |   ^
       |   |    |                EVPN       |            |   |
       |   |    |                OISM       |            |   |
       |   |    |                           |            |   |
       PE3 |    |           PE4             |            | PE5
       +--------v---+       +------------+  |   +------------+
       |      +---+ |       |      +---+ |  |   |      +---+ |
       |  +---|SBD| |-------|  +---|SBD| |--|---|  +---|SBD| |
       |  |VRF+---+ |       |  |VRF+---+ |  |   |  |VRF+---+ |
       |+---+  |    |       |+---+  |    |  |   |+---+  |    |
       ||BD3|--+    |       ||BD4|--+    |  +--->|BD1|--+    |
       |+---+       |       |+---+       |      |+---+       |
       +------------+       +------------+      +------------+
         |  ^                                     |  ^
         |  | IGMP                                |  | IGMP
         R1 | J(*,G1)                             R3 | J(*,G1)


               Figure 4 - WS Solution for Redundant G-Sources

   The WS solution works as follows:

   1. Configuration of the upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2

      PE1 and PE2 are configured to know that G1 is an SFG and redundant
      G-sources for G1 may be attached to BD1 or BD2, respectively.

   2. Signaling the location of S1 and S2 for (*,G1)

      Upon receiving (S1,G1) traffic on a local AC, PE1 and PE2
      originate S-PMSI (*,G1) routes with the SBD-RT, DF Election
      Extended Community (EC) and a flag indicating that it conveys an



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


      SFG.

   3. Single Forwarder (SF) Election

      Based on the DF Election EC content, PE1 and PE2 elect an SF for
      (*,G1). Assuming both PEs agree on e.g., Preference based Election
      as the algorithm to use [DF-PREF], and PE1 has a higher
      preference, PE1 becomes the SF for (*,G1).

   4. RPF check on the PEs attached to a redundant G-source

      a. The non-SF, PE2, discards any (*,G1) packets received over a
         local AC.

      b. The SF, PE1 accepts (*,G1) packets it receives over a one (and
         only one) local AC.

   The end result is that, upon receiving reports for (*,G1) or (S,G1),
   the downstream PEs (PE3 and PE5) will issue SMET routes and will pull
   the multicast SFG from PE1, and PE1 only. A failure on S1, the AC
   connected to S1 or PE1 itself will trigger the S-PMSI (*,G1)
   withdrawal from PE1 and PE2 will be promoted to SF.


4.2 WS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network

   Figure 5 illustrates an example in which S1 and S2 are redundant G-
   sources for the SFG (*,G1), however, now all the G-sources and
   receivers are connected to the same BD1 and there is no SBD.






















Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


                        S1 (Single               S2
                        |   Forwarder)           |
                 (S1,G1)|                 (S2,G1)|
                        |                        |
               PE1      |               PE2      |
               +--------v---+           +--------v---+
       S-PMSI  |      +---+ |           |      +---+ | S-PMSI
       (*,G1)  |      |BD1| |           |      |BD1| | (*,G1)
       Pref200 |      +---+ |           |      +---+ | Pref100
        |SFG   |         |  |           |            |  SFG|
        |  +---|         |  |-----------|            |---+ |
        v  |   |         |  |           |            |   | v
           |   +---------|--+           +------------+   |
    SMET   |             |                               | SMET
    (*,G1) |             |     (S1,G1)                   | (*,G1)
           |    +--------+------------------------+      |
       ^   |    |                                 |      |   ^
       |   |    |                EVPN             |      |   |
       |   |    |                                 |      |   |
       |   |    |                                 |      |   |
       PE3 |    |           PE4                   |      | PE5
       +--------v---+       +------------+      +-|----------+
       |      +---+ |       |      +---+ |      | |    +---+ |
       |      |BD1| |-------|      |BD1| |------| +--->|BD1| |
       |      +---+ |       |      +---+ |      |      +---+ |
       |            |       |            |      |            |
       |            |       |            |      |            |
       |            |       |            |      |            |
       +------------+       +------------+      +------------+
         |  ^                                     |  ^
         |  | IGMP                                |  | IGMP
         R1 | J(*,G1)                             R3 | J(*,G1)


       Figure 5 - WS Solution for Redundant G-Sources in the same BD

   The same procedure as in Section 4.1 is valid here, being this a sub-
   case of the one in Section 4.1. Upon receiving traffic for the SFG
   G1, PE1 and PE2 advertise the S-PMSI routes with BD1-RT only, since
   there is no SBD.


5. Hot Standby (HS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources

   If fast-failover time is desired upon the failure of a G-source or PE
   attached to the G-source, and in spite of the extra bandwidth
   consumption in the tenant network, the HS solution should be used.
   The procedure is as follows:



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   1. Configuration of the PEs

      As in the WS case, the upstream PEs where redundant G-sources may
      exist need to be configured to know which groups are carrying only
      flows from redundant G-sources, that is, the SFGs in the tenant
      domain. In addition (and this is not done in WS) the individual
      redundant G-sources for an SFG need to be associated with an
      Ethernet Segment (ES) on the upstream PEs:

      - This is irrespective of the redundant G-source being multi-homed
        or single-homed. Even for single-homed redundant G-sources the
        HS procedure relies on the ESI labels for the RPF check on
        downstream PEs. The term "S-ESI" is used in this document to
        refer to an ESI associated to a redundant G-source.

      - The S-ESI SHOULD be a Type 5 ESI [RFC7432] so that it can be
        mapped to a value in a BGP LC attribute, as described in Section
        3. The S-ESI MAY also be configured.

      Contrary to the WS method (that is transparent to the downstream
      PEs), the support for the HS procedure in all downstream PEs
      connected to the receivers in the tenant network is REQUIRED. The
      downstream PEs do not need to be configured to know the connected
      SFGs or their ESIs, since they get that information from the
      upstream PEs. The downstream PEs will locally select an ESI for a
      given SFG, and will program an RPF check to the (*,G) state for
      the SFG that will discard (*,G) packets from the rest of the ESIs.
      The selection of the ESI for the SFG is based on local policy.

   2. Signaling the location of a G-source for a given SFG and its
      association to the local ESIs

      Based on the configuration in step 1, an upstream PE configured to
      follow the HS procedures:

      a. Advertises an S-PMSI (*,G) route per each configured SFG. These
         routes need to be imported by all the PEs of the tenant domain,
         therefore they will carry the BD-RT and SBD-RT (if the SBD
         exists). The route also carries the ESI attribute that conveys
         all the S-ESIs associated to the SFG in the PE.

      b. The S-PMSI route will convey a PTA if the same cases as in the
         WS procedure.

      c. The S-PMSI (*,G) route is triggered by the configuration of the
         SFG and not by the reception of G-traffic.

   3. Distribution of DCB (Domain-wide Common Block) ESI-labels and G-



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


      source ES routes

      An upstream PE advertises the corresponding ES, A-D per-EVI and A-
      D per-ES routes for the local S-ESIs.

      a. ES routes are used for regular DF Election for the S-ES. This
         document does not introduce any change in the procedures
         related to the ES routes.

      b. The A-D per-EVI and A-D per-ES routes MUST include the SBD-RT
         since they have to be imported by all the PEs in the tenant
         domain.

      c. The A-D per-ES routes convey the S-ESI labels that the
         downstream PEs use to add the RPF check for the (*,G)
         associated to the SFGs. This RPF check requires that all the
         packets for a given G-source are received with the same S-ESI
         label value on the downstream PEs. For example, if two
         redundant G-sources are multi-homed to PE1 and PE2 via S-ES-1
         and S-ES-2, PE1 and PE2 MUST allocate the same ESI label "Lx"
         for S-ES-1 and they MUST allocate the same ESI label "Ly" for
         S-ES-2. In addition, Lx and Ly MUST be different. These ESI
         labels are Domain-wide Common Block (DCB) labels and follow the
         procedures in [DCB].

   4. Processing of A-D routes and RPF check on the downstream PEs

      Unless described otherwise, "A-D routes" in this section refers to
      both types, A-D per-ES and A-D per-EVI routes. The A-D routes are
      received and imported in all the PEs in the tenant domain. The
      processing of the A-D routes on a given PE depends on its
      configuration:

      a. The PEs attached to the same BD of the BD-RT that is included
         in the A-D routes will process the routes as in [RFC7432] and
         [DF]. If the receiving PE is attached to the same ES as
         indicated in the route, [RFC7432] split-horizon procedures will
         be followed and the DF Election candidate list may be modified
         as in [DF] if the ES supports the AC-DF capability.

      b. The PEs that are not attached to the BD-RT but are attached to
         the SBD of the received SBD-RT, will import the A-D routes and
         use them for redundant G-source mass withdrawal, as explained
         later.

      c. Upon importing A-D per-ES routes corresponding to different S-
         ESes, a PE MUST select a primary S-ES and add an RPF check to
         the (*,G) state in the BD or SBD. This RPF check will discard



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


         all ingress packets to (*,G) that are not received with the
         ESI-label of the primary S-ES. The selection of the primary S-
         ES is a matter of local policy.

   5. G-traffic forwarding for redundant G-sources and fault detection

      Assuming there is (*,G) or (S,G) state for the SFG with OIF list
      entries associated to remote EVPN PEs, upon receiving G-traffic on
      a S-ES, the upstream PE will add a S-ESI label at the bottom of
      the stack before forwarding the traffic to the remote EVPN PEs.
      This label is allocated from a DCB as described in step 3. If P2MP
      or BIER PMSIs are used, this is not adding any new data path
      procedures on the upstream PEs (except that the ESI-label is
      allocated from a DCB). However, if IR/AR are used, this document
      extends the [RFC7432] procedures by pushing the S-ESI labels not
      only on packets sent to the PEs that shared the ES but also to the
      rest of the PEs in the tenant domain. This allows the downstream
      PEs to receive all the multicast packets from the redundant G-
      sources with a S-ESI label (irrespective of the PMSI type and the
      local ESes), and discard any packet that conveys a S-ESI label
      different from the primary S-ESI label (that is, the label
      associated to the selected primary S-ES), as discussed in step 4.

      If the last A-D per-EVI or the last A-D per-ES route for the
      primary S-ES is withdrawn, the downstream PE will immediately
      select a new primary S-ES and will change the RPF check. Note that
      if the S-ES is re-used for multiple tenant domains by the upstream
      PEs, the withdrawal of all the A-D per-ES routes for a S-ES
      provides a mass withdrawal capability that makes a downstream PE
      to change the RPF check in all the tenant domains using the same
      S-ES.

      The withdrawal of the last S-PMSI route for a given (*,G) SHOULD
      make the downstream PE remove the S-ESI label based RPF check on
      (*,G).

5.1 Use of BFD in the HS Solution

   This section will be completed in a future version of this document.


5.2 HS Example in an OISM Network

   Figure 6 illustrates the HS model in an OISM network. As in previous
   examples, S1 and S2 are redundant G-sources for the SFG (*,G1) in
   BD1. S1 and S2 are (all-active) multi-homed to upstream PEs, PE1 and
   PE2. The receivers are attached to downstream PEs, PE3 and PE5, in
   BD3 and BD1, respectively. S1 and S2 are assumed to be connected by a



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   LAG to the multi-homing PEs, and the multicast traffic can use the
   link to either upstream PE. The diagram illustrates how S1 sends the
   G-traffic to PE1 and PE1 forwards to the remote interested downstream
   PEs, whereas S2 sends to PE2 and PE2 forwards further. In this HS
   model, the interested downstream PEs will get duplicate G-traffic
   from the two G-sources for the same SFG. While the diagram shows that
   the two flows are forwarded by different upstream PEs, the all-active
   multi-homing procedures may cause that the two flows come from the
   same upstream PE. Therefore, finding out the upstream PE for the flow
   is not enough for the downstream PEs to program the required RPF
   check to avoid duplicate packets on the receiver.








































Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


                        S1(ESI-1)                S2(ESI-2)
                        |                        |
                        | +----------------------+
                 (S1,G1)| |               (S2,G1)|
                        +----------------------+ |
               PE1      | |             PE2    | |
               +--------v---+           +--------v---+
               |      +---+ |           |      +---+ |  S-PMSI
    S-PMSI     |  +---|BD1| |           |  +---|BD1| |  (*,G1)
    (*,G1)     |  |VRF+---+ |           |  |VRF+---+ |   SFG
     SFG       |+---+  | |  |           |+---+  | |  |   ESI1,2
    ESI1,2 +---||SBD|--+ |  |-----------||SBD|--+ |  |---+  |
       |   |   |+---+    |  |   EVPN    |+---+    |  |   |  v
       v   |   +---------|--+   OISM    +---------|--+   |
           |             |                        |      |
           |             |   (S1,G1)              |      |
    SMET   |   +---------+------------------+     |      | SMET
    (*,G1) |   |                            |     |      | (*,G1)
       ^   |   | +----------------------------+---+      |   ^
       |   |   | |             (S2,G1)      | |          |   |
       |   |   | |                          | |          |   |
       PE3 |   | |          PE4             | |          | PE5
       +-------v-v--+       +------------+  | | +------------+
       |      +---+ |       |      +---+ |  | | |      +---+ |
       |  +---|SBD| +-------|  +---|SBD| |--|-|-|  +---|SBD| |
       |  |VRF+---+ |       |  |VRF+---+ |  | | |  |VRF+---+ |
       |+---+  |    |       |+---+  |    |  | | |+---+  |    |
       ||BD3|--+    |       ||BD4|--+    |  | +->|BD1|--+    |
       |+---+       |       |+---+       |  +--->+---+       |
       +------------+       +------------+      +------------+
         |  ^                                     |  ^
         |  | IGMP                                |  | IGMP
         R1 | J(*,G1)                             R3 | J(*,G1)


    Figure 6 - HS Solution for Multi-homed Redundant G-Sources in OISM

   In this scenario, the HS solution works as follows:

   1. Configuration of the upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2

      PE1 and PE2 are configured to know that G1 is an SFG and the
      redundant G-sources for G1 use S-ESIs ESI-1 and ESI-2
      respectively. Both ESes are configured in both PEs and the ESI
      value can be configured or auto-derived as an ES type 5. The ESI-
      label values are allocated from a DCB [DCB] and are configured
      either locally or by a centralized controller. We assume ESI-1 is
      configured to use ESI-label-1 and ESI-2 to use ESI-label-2.



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


      The downstream PEs, PE3, PE4 and PE5 are configured to support HS
      mode and select the G-source with e.g., lowest ESI value.

   2. PE1 and PE2 advertise S-PMSI (*,G1) and ES/A-D routes

      Based on the configuration of step 1, PE1 and PE2 advertise an S-
      PMSI (*,G1) route each. The route from each of the two PEs will
      include the ESI attribute with ESI-1 and ESI-2, as well as BD1-RT
      plus SBD-RT and a flag that indicates that G1 is an SFG.

      In addition, PE1 and PE2 advertise ES and A-D routes for ESI-1 and
      ESI-2. The A-D per-ES and per-EVI routes will include the SBD-RT
      so that they can be imported by the downstream PEs that are not
      attached to BD1, e.g., PE3 and PE4. The A-D per-ES routes will
      convey ESI-label-1 for ESI-1 (on both PEs) and ESI-label-2 for
      ESI-2 (also on both PEs).

   3. Processing of A-D routes and RPF check

      PE1 and PE2 received each other's ES and A-D routes. Regular
      [RFC7432] [DF] procedures will be followed for DF Election and
      programming of the ESI-labels for egress split-horizon filtering.
      PE3/PE4 import the A-D routes in the SBD. Since PE3 has created a
      (*,G1) state based on local interest, PE3 will add an RPF check to
      (*,G1) so that packets coming with ESI-label-2 are discarded
      (lowest ESI value is assumed to give the primary S-ES).

   4. G-traffic forwarding and fault detection

      PE1 receives G-traffic (S1,G1) on ES-1 that is forwarded within
      the context of BD1. Irrespective of the tunnel type, PE1 pushes
      ESI-label-1 at the bottom of the stack and the traffic gets to PE3
      and PE5 with the mentioned ESI-label (PE4 has no local interested
      receivers). The G-traffic with ESI-label-1 passes the RPF check
      and it is forwarded to R1. In the same way, PE2 sends (S2,G1) with
      ESI-label-2, but this G-traffic does not pass the RPF check and
      gets discarded at PE3/PE5.

      If the link from S1 to PE1 fails, S1 will forward the (S1,G1)
      traffic to PE2 instead. PE1 withdraws the ES and A-D routes for
      ESI-1. Now both flows will be originated by PE2, however the RPF
      checks don't change in PE3/PE5.

      If subsequently, the link from S1 to PE2 fails, PE2 also withdraws
      the ES and A-D routes for ESI-1. Since PE3 and PE5 have no longer
      A-D routes for ESI-1, they immediately change the RPF check so
      that packets with ESI-label-2 are now accepted.




Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   Figure 7 illustrates a scenario where S1 and S2 are single-homed to
   PE1 and PE2 respectively. This scenario is a sub-case of the one in
   Figure 6. Now ES-1 only exists in PE1, hence only PE1 advertises the
   A-D routes for ESI-1. Similarly, ES-2 only exists in PE2 and PE2 is
   the only PE advertising A-D routes for ESI-2. The same procedures as
   in Figure 6 applies to this use-case.


                        S1(ESI-1)                S2(ESI-2)
                        |                        |
                 (S1,G1)|                 (S2,G1)|
                        |                        |
               PE1      |               PE2      |
               +--------v---+           +--------v---+
               |      +---+ |           |      +---+ |  S-PMSI
    S-PMSI     |  +---|BD1| |           |  +---|BD2| |  (*,G1)
    (*,G1)     |  |VRF+---+ |           |  |VRF+---+ |   SFG
     SFG       |+---+  | |  |           |+---+  | |  |   ESI2
     ESI1  +---||SBD|--+ |  |-----------||SBD|--+ |  |---+  |
       |   |   |+---+    |  |   EVPN    |+---+    |  |   |  v
       v   |   +---------|--+   OISM    +---------|--+   |
           |             |                        |      |
           |             |   (S1,G1)              |      |
    SMET   |   +---------+------------------+     |      | SMET
    (*,G1) |   |                            |     |      | (*,G1)
       ^   |   | +--------------------------------+----+ |   ^
       |   |   | |             (S2,G1)      |          | |   |
       |   |   | |                          |          | |   |
       PE3 |   | |          PE4             |          | | PE5
       +-------v-v--+       +------------+  |   +------v-----+
       |      +---+ |       |      +---+ |  |   |      +---+ |
       |  +---|SBD| |-------|  +---|SBD| |--|---|  +---|SBD| |
       |  |VRF+---+ |       |  |VRF+---+ |  |   |  |VRF+---+ |
       |+---+  |    |       |+---+  |    |  |   |+---+  |    |
       ||BD3|--+    |       ||BD4|--+    |  +--->|BD1|--+    |
       |+---+       |       |+---+       |      |+---+       |
       +------------+       +------------+      +------------+
         |  ^                                     |  ^
         |  | IGMP                                |  | IGMP
         R1 | J(*,G1)                             R3 | J(*,G1)


    Figure 7 - HS Solution for single-homed Redundant G-Sources in OISM



5.3 HS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network




Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   Irrespective of the redundant G-sources being multi-homed or single-
   homed, if the tenant network has only one BD, e.g., BD1, the
   procedures of Section 5.2 still apply, only that routes do not
   include any SBD-RT and all the procedures apply to BD1 only.


6. Security Considerations

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


7. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a Bit in the Multicast Flags Extended
   Community.


8. References


8.1. 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>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in
   MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February 2012,
   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
   Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC
   6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-
   editor.org/info/rfc6514>.

   [IGMP-PROXY]  Sajassi, A. et al, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", June
   2018, work-in-progress, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02.

   [OISM]  Rosen, E. et al, "EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast
   (OISM) Forwarding", June 2018, work-in-progress, draft-ietf-bess-
   evpn-irb-mcast-01.

   [DF]  Rabadan, J., Mohanty, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Nagaraj, K.,
   and S. Sathappan, "Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election
   Extensibility", internet-draft draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-
   framework-05.txt, October 2018.



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [DCB]  Zhang, Z. et al, "MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common
   Labels", April 2018, work-in-progress, draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-
   aggregation-label-01.


8.2. Informative References

   [EVPN-RT5]  Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A.
   Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", internet-draft ietf-bess-
   evpn-prefix-advertisement-11.txt, May 2018.

   [EVPN-BUM]  Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., and K. Patel, "Updates
   on EVPN BUM Procedures", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-
   updates-03, April 2018.

   [DF-PREF]  Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Przygienda, T., Lin, W.,
   Drake, J., Sajassi, A., and S. Mohanty, "Preference-based EVPN DF
   Election", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-02.txt, October
   2018.

   [RFC5701]  Rekhter, Y., "IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community
   Attribute", RFC 5701, DOI 10.17487/RFC5701, November 2009,
   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5701>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
   Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 2006,
   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.


9. Acknowledgments




10. Contributors




Authors' Addresses



Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources         October 22, 2018


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


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


   Jayant Kotalwar
   Nokia
   701 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
   Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com


   Eric C. Rosen
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   EMail: erosen@juniper.net


   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks
   EMail: zzhang@juniper.net


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

















Kotalwar,Sathappan,Rabadan et alExpires April 25, 2019         [Page 28]


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