draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-03.txt   draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-04.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force B. Kothari
Internet Draft Cohere Networks
Updates: 4761 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella
Expires: April 2013 Contrail Systems
Network Working Group B. Kothari W. Henderickx
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems F. Balus
Updates: 4761 (if approved) K. Kompella S. Palislamovic
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: February 6, 2012 W. Henderickx
F. Balus
Alcatel-Lucent
J. Uttaro
AT&T
July 6, 2011
BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service J. Uttaro
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-03.txt AT&T
W. Lin
Juniper Networks
October 21, 2012
BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-04.txt
Abstract Abstract
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a Layer 2 Virtual Private Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a Layer 2 Virtual Private
Network (VPN) that gives its customers the appearance that their Network (VPN) that gives its customers the appearance that their
sites are connected via a Local Area Network (LAN). It is often sites are connected via a Local Area Network (LAN). It is often
required for the Service Provider (SP) to give the customer redundant required for the Service Provider (SP) to give the customer
connectivity to some sites, often called "multi-homing". This memo redundant connectivity to some sites, often called "multi-homing".
shows how BGP-based multi-homing can be offered in the context of LDP This memo shows how BGP-based multi-homing can be offered in the
and BGP VPLS solutions. context of LDP and BGP VPLS solutions.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 6, 2012. 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 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction...................................................4
1.1. General Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. General Terminology.......................................4
1.2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Conventions used in this document.........................5
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Background.....................................................6
2.1. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Scenarios.................................................6
2.2. VPLS Multi-homing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. VPLS Multi-homing Considerations..........................7
3. Multi-homing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Multi-homing Operations........................................8
3.1. Provisioning Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Provisioning Model........................................8
3.2. Multi-homing NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Multi-homing NLRI.........................................8
3.3. Designated Forwarder Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Designated Forwarder Election.............................9
3.3.1. Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.1. Attributes...........................................9
3.3.2. Variables Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.2. Variables Used.......................................9
3.3.3. Election Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.2.1. RD.............................................10
3.4. DF Election on PEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.2.2. MH-ID..........................................10
4. Multi-AS VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.2.3. VBO............................................10
4.1. Route Origin Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.2.4. DOM............................................10
4.2. VPLS Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.2.5. ACS............................................10
4.3. Use of BGP-MH attributes in Inter-AS Methods . . . . . . . 15 3.3.2.6. PREF...........................................11
4.3.1. Inter-AS Method (b): EBGP Redistribution of VPLS 3.3.2.7. PE-ID..........................................11
Information between ASBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4. VPLS DF Election on PEs..................................14
4.3.2. Inter-AS Method (c): Multi-Hop EBGP Redistribution 3.5. Pseudowire binding and traffic forwarding rules..........14
of VPLS Information between ASes . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.5.1. Site-ID Binding Properties..........................14
5. MAC Flush Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.5.2. Standby Pseudowire Properties.......................15
5.1. MAC List FLush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4. Multi-AS VPLS.................................................16
5.2. Implicit MAC Flush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1. Route Origin Extended Community..........................16
5.3. Minimizing the effects of fast link transitions . . . . . 20 4.2. Preference...............................................16
6. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3. Use of BGP-MH attributes in Inter-AS Methods.............17
6.1. BGP based VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3.1. Inter-AS Method (b): EBGP Redistribution of VPLS
6.2. LDP VPLS with BGP Auto-discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Information between ASBRs ......18
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.3.2. Inter-AS Method (c): Multi-Hop EBGP Redistribution of
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 VPLS Information between ASes ..............19
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5. MAC Flush Operations..........................................20
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.1. MAC List FLush...........................................20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.2. Implicit MAC Flush.......................................21
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.3. Minimizing the effects of fast link transitions..........22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Backwards Compatibility.......................................23
6.1. BGP based VPLS...........................................23
6.2. LDP VPLS with BGP Auto-discovery.........................23
7. Security Considerations.......................................24
8. IANA Considerations...........................................25
9. Acknowledgments...............................................26
10. References...................................................27
10.1. Normative References....................................27
10.2. Informative References..................................27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a Layer 2 Virtual Private Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a Layer 2 Virtual Private
Network (VPN) that gives its customers the appearance that their Network (VPN) that gives its customers the appearance that their
sites are connected via a Local Area Network (LAN). It is often sites are connected via a Local Area Network (LAN). It is often
required for a Service Provider (SP) to give the customer redundant required for a Service Provider (SP) to give the customer redundant
connectivity to one or more sites, often called "multi-homing". connectivity to one or more sites, often called "multi-homing".
[RFC4761] explains how VPLS can be offered using BGP for auto- [RFC4761] explains how VPLS can be offered using BGP for auto-
discovery and signaling; section 3.5 of that document describes how discovery and signaling; section 3.5 of that document describes how
multi-homing can be achieved in this context. [RFC6074] explains how multi-homing can be achieved in this context. [RFC6074] explains how
VPLS can be offered using BGP for auto- discovery, (BGP-AD) and VPLS can be offered using BGP for auto- discovery, (BGP-AD) and
[RFC4762] explains how VPLS can be offered using LDP for signaling. [RFC4762] explains how VPLS can be offered using LDP for signaling.
This document provides a BGP-based multi-homing solution applicable This document provides a BGP-based multi-homing solution applicable
to both BGP and LDP VPLS technologies. Note that BGP MH can be used to both BGP and LDP VPLS technologies. Note that BGP MH can be used
for LDP VPLS without the use of the BGP- AD solution. for LDP VPLS without the use of the BGP- AD solution.
Section 2 lays out some of the scenarios for multi-homing, other ways Section 2 lays out some of the scenarios for multi-homing, other
that this can be achieved, and some of the expectations of BGP-based ways that this can be achieved, and some of the expectations of BGP-
multi-homing. Section 3 defines the components of BGP-based multi- based multi-homing. Section 3 defines the components of BGP-based
homing, and the procedures required to achieve this. Section 7 may multi-homing, and the procedures required to achieve this. Section
someday discuss security considerations. 7 may someday discuss security considerations.
1.1. General Terminology 1.1. General Terminology
Some general terminology is defined here; most is from [RFC4761], Some general terminology is defined here; most is from [RFC4761],
[RFC4762] or [RFC4364]. Terminology specific to this memo is [RFC4762] or [RFC4364]. Terminology specific to this memo is
introduced as needed in later sections. introduced as needed in later sections.
A "Customer Edge" (CE) device, typically located on customer A "Customer Edge" (CE) device, typically located on customer
premises, connects to a "Provider Edge" (PE) device, which is owned premises, connects to a "Provider Edge" (PE) device, which is owned
and operated by the SP. A "Provider" (P) device is also owned and and operated by the SP. A "Provider" (P) device is also owned and
operated by the SP, but has no direct customer connections. A "VPLS operated by the SP, but has no direct customer connections. A "VPLS
Edge" (VE) device is a PE that offers VPLS services. Edge" (VE) device is a PE that offers VPLS services.
A VPLS domain represents a bridging domain per customer. A Route A VPLS domain represents a bridging domain per customer. A Route
Target community as described in [RFC4360] is typically used to Target community as described in [RFC4360] is typically used to
identify all the PE routers participating in a particular VPLS identify all the PE routers participating in a particular VPLS
domain. A VPLS site is a grouping of ports on a PE that belong to domain. A VPLS site is a grouping of ports on a PE that belong to
the same VPLS domain. A Multi-homed (MH) site is uniquely identified the same VPLS domain. A Multi-homed (MH) site is uniquely
by a MH site ID (MH-ID). Sites are referred to as local or remote identified by a MH site ID (MH-ID). Sites are referred to as local
depending on whether they are configured on the PE router in context or remote depending on whether they are configured on the PE router
or on one of the remote PE routers (network peers). in context or on one of the remote PE routers (network peers).
1.2. Conventions 1.2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
2. Background 2. Background
This section describes various scenarios where multi-homing may be This section describes various scenarios where multi-homing may be
required, and the implications thereof. It also describes some of required, and the implications thereof. It also describes some of
the singular properties of VPLS multi-homing, and what that means the singular properties of VPLS multi-homing, and what that means
from both an operational point of view and an implementation point of from both an operational point of view and an implementation point
view. There are other approaches for providing multi-homing such as of view. There are other approaches for providing multi-homing such
Spanning Tree Protocol, and this document specifies use of BGP for as Spanning Tree Protocol, and this document specifies use of BGP
multi-homing. Comprehensive comparison among the approaches is for multi-homing. Comprehensive comparison among the approaches is
outside the scope of this document. outside the scope of this document.
2.1. Scenarios 2.1. Scenarios
CE1 is a VPLS CE that is dual-homed to both PE1 and PE2 for redundant CE1 is a VPLS CE that is dual-homed to both PE1 and PE2 for
connectivity. redundant connectivity.
............... ...............
. . ___ CE2 . . ___ CE2
___ PE1 . / ___ PE1 . /
/ : PE3 / : PE3
__/ : Service : __/ : Service :
CE1 __ : Provider PE4 CE1 __ : Provider PE4
\ : : \___ CE3 \ : : \___ CE3
\___ PE2 . \___ PE2 .
. . . .
............... ...............
Figure 1: Scenario 1 Figure 1: Scenario 1
CE1 is a VPLS CE that is dual-homed to both PE1 and PE2 for redundant CE1 is a VPLS CE that is dual-homed to both PE1 and PE2 for
connectivity. However, CE4, which is also in the same VPLS domain, redundant connectivity. However, CE4, which is also in the same
is single-homed to just PE1. VPLS domain, is single-homed to just PE1.
CE4 ------- ............... CE4 ------- ...............
\ . . ___ CE2 \ . . ___ CE2
___ PE1 . / ___ PE1 . /
/ : PE3 / : PE3
__/ : Service : __/ : Service :
CE1 __ : Provider PE4 CE1 __ : Provider PE4
\ : : \___ CE3 \ : : \___ CE3
\___ PE2 . \___ PE2 .
. . . .
............... ...............
Figure 2: Scenario 2 Figure 2: Scenario 2
2.2. VPLS Multi-homing Considerations 2.2. VPLS Multi-homing Considerations
The first (perhaps obvious) fact about a multi-homed VPLS CE, such as The first (perhaps obvious) fact about a multi-homed VPLS CE, such
CE1 in Figure 1 is that if CE1 is an Ethernet switch or bridge, a as CE1 in Figure 1 is that if CE1 is an Ethernet switch or bridge, a
loop has been created in the customer VPLS. This is a dangerous loop has been created in the customer VPLS. This is a dangerous
situation for an Ethernet network, and the loop must be broken. Even situation for an Ethernet network, and the loop must be broken.
if CE1 is a router, it will get duplicates every time a packet is Even if CE1 is a router, it will get duplicates every time a packet
flooded, which is clearly undesirable. is flooded, which is clearly undesirable.
The next is that (unlike the case of IP-based multi-homing) only one The next is that (unlike the case of IP-based multi-homing) only one
of PE1 and PE2 can be actively sending traffic, either towards CE1 or of PE1 and PE2 can be actively sending traffic, either towards CE1
into the SP cloud. That is to say, load balancing techniques will or into the SP cloud. That is to say, load balancing techniques
not work. All other PEs MUST choose the same designated forwarder will not work. All other PEs MUST choose the same designated
for a multi-homed site. Call the PE that is chosen to send traffic forwarder for a multi-homed site. Call the PE that is chosen to
to/from CE1 the "designated forwarder". send traffic to/from CE1 the "designated forwarder".
In Figure 2, CE1 and CE4 must be dealt with independently, since CE1 In Figure 2, CE1 and CE4 must be dealt with independently, since CE1
is dual-homed, but CE4 is not. is dual-homed, but CE4 is not.
3. Multi-homing Operation 3. Multi-homing Operations
This section describes procedures for electing a designated forwarder This section describes procedures for electing a designated
among the set of PEs that are multi-homed to a customer site. The forwarder among the set of PEs that are multi-homed to a customer
procedures described in this section are applicable to BGP based site. The procedures described in this section are applicable to
VPLS, LDP based VPLS with BGP-AD or a VPLS that contains a mix of BGP based VPLS, LDP based VPLS with BGP-AD or a VPLS that contains a
both BGP and LDP signaled PWs. mix of both BGP and LDP signaled PWs.
3.1. Provisioning Model 3.1. Provisioning Model
Figure 1 shows a customer site, CE1, multi-homed to two VPLS PEs, PE1 Figure 1 shows a customer site, CE1, multi-homed to two VPLS PEs,
and PE2. In order for all VPLS PEs within the same VPLS domain to PE1 and PE2. In order for all VPLS PEs within the same VPLS domain
elect one of the multi-homed PEs as the designated forwarder, an to elect one of the multi-homed PEs as the designated forwarder, an
indicator that the PEs are multi-homed to the same customer site is indicator that the PEs are multi-homed to the same customer site is
required. This is achieved by assigning the same multi-homed site ID required. This is achieved by assigning the same multi-homed site
(MH-ID) on PE1 and PE2 for CE1. When remote VPLS PEs receive NLRI ID (MH-ID) on PE1 and PE2 for CE1. When remote VPLS PEs receive
advertisement from PE1 and PE2 for CE1, the two NLRI advertisements NLRI advertisement from PE1 and PE2 for CE1, the two NLRI
for CE1 are identified as candidates for designated forwarder advertisements for CE1 are identified as candidates for designated
selection due to the same MH-ID. Thus, same MH-ID SHOULD be assigned forwarder selection due to the same MH-ID. Thus, same MH-ID SHOULD
on all VPLS PEs that are multi-homed to the same customer site. be assigned on all VPLS PEs that are multi-homed to the same
customer site. Note that a MH-ID=0 is invalid and a PE should
Note that a MH-ID=0 is invalid and a PE should discard such an discard such an advertisement.
advertisement.
3.2. Multi-homing NLRI 3.2. Multi-homing NLRI
Section 3.2.2 in [RFC4761] describes the encoding of the BGP VPLS Section 3.2.2 in [RFC4761] describes the encoding of the BGP VPLS
NLRI. This NLRI contains fields VE-ID, VE block offset, VE block NLRI with the following fields: VE-ID, VE block offset, VE block
size and label base. For multi-homing operation, the same NLRI is size and label base. While this NLRI MAY be used for multi-homing,
used for identifying the multi-homed customers sites. The VE-ID a modified version of it, as detailed in this paragraph, is used for
field in the NLRI is set to MH-ID; the VE block offset, VE block size identifying the multi-homed customers sites. The VE-ID field in the
and label base are set to zero. Thus, the NLRI contains 2 octets NLRI is set to MH-ID; the VE block offset, VE block size and label
indicating the length, 8 octets for Route Distinguisher, 2 octets for base are set to zero. Thus, the NLRI contains 2 octets indicating
MH-ID and 7 octets with value zero. the length, 8 octets for Route Distinguisher, 2 octets for MH-ID and
7 octets with value zero.
Figure 2 shows two customer sites, CE1 and CE4, connected to PE1 with Figure 2 shows two customer sites, CE1 and CE4, connected to PE1
CE1 multi-homed to PE1 and PE2. CE4 does not require special with CE1 multi-homed to PE1 and PE2. CE4 does not require special
addressing, being associated with the base VPLS instance identified addressing, being associated with the base VPLS instance identified
by the VSI-ID for LDP VPLS and VE-ID for BGP VPLS. However, CE1 by the VSI-ID for LDP VPLS and VE-ID for BGP VPLS. However, CE1
which is multi-homed to PE1 and PE2 requires configuration of MH-ID which is multi-homed to PE1 and PE2 requires configuration of MH-ID
and both PE1 and PE2 MUST be provisioned with the same MH-ID for CE1. and both PE1 and PE2 MUST be provisioned with the same MH-ID for
CE1. As stated above, to ensure backward capabilities, it is valid
It is valid to have non-zero VE block offset, VE block size and label to use BGP VPLS NLRI for multi-homing operations. As such, it is
base in the VPLS NLRI for a multi-homed site. However, multi-homing valid to have non-zero VE block offset, VE block size and label base
operations in such a case are outside the scope of this document. in the VPLS NLRI for multi-homed site.
3.3. Designated Forwarder Election 3.3. Designated Forwarder Election
BGP-based multi-homing for VPLS relies on BGP DF election and VPLS DF BGP-based multi-homing for VPLS relies on Standard BGP best path
election. The net result of doing both BGP and VPLS DF election is selection and VPLS DF election. The net result of doing both
that of electing a single designated forwarder (DF) among the set of elections is that of electing a single designated forwarder (DF)
PEs to which a customer site is multi-homed. All the PEs that are among the set of PEs to which a customer site is multi-homed. All
elected as non-designated forwarders MUST keep their attachment the PEs that are elected as non-designated forwarders MUST keep
circuit to the multi-homed CE in blocked status (no forwarding). their attachment circuit to the multi-homed CE in blocked status (no
forwarding).
These election algorithms operate on VPLS advertisements, which These election algorithms operate on VPLS advertisements, which
include both the NLRI and attached BGP attributes. In order to include both the NLRI and attached BGP attributes. Given that
simplify the explanation of these algorithms, we will use a number of semantics of BGP VPLS NLRI does not necessarily follow a standard IP
variables derived from fields in the VPLS advertisement. These Prefix form, a construct of advertisement (ADV) with the variables
variables are: RD, MH-ID, VBO, DOM, ACS, PREF and PE-ID. The of interest is defined. The variables of interest are: RD, MH-ID,
notation ADV -> <RD, MH-ID, VBO, DOM, ACS, PREF, PE-ID> means that VBO, DOM, ACS, PREF and PE-ID, so the notation of:
from a received VPLS advertisement ADV, the respective variables were
derived. The following sections describe two attributes needed for
DF election, then describe the variables and how they are derived
from fields in VPLS advertisement ADV, and finally describe how DF
election is done.
3.3.1. Attributes ADV = <RD, MH-ID, VBO, DOM, ACS, PREF, PE-ID>
The following sections describe two attributes needed for standard
BGP best path selection and VPLS DF election, the variables derived
from fields in VPLS advertisement ADV, and finally elaborate on the
selection processes.
3.3.1. Attributes
The procedures below refer to two attributes: the Route Origin The procedures below refer to two attributes: the Route Origin
community (see Section 4.1) and the L2-info community (see community (see Section 4.1) and the L2-info community (see Section
Section 4.2). These attributes are required for inter-AS operation; 4.2). These attributes are required for inter-AS operation; for
for generality, the procedures below show how they are to be used. generality, the procedures below show how they are to be used. The
The procedures also say how to handle the case that either or both procedures also outline how to handle the case that either or both
are not present. are not present.
3.3.2. Variables Used 3.3.2. Variables Used
3.3.2.1. RD
3.3.2.1. RD
RD is simply set to the Route Distinguisher field in the NLRI part of RD is simply set to the Route Distinguisher field in the NLRI part
ADV. of ADV. Actual process of assigning Route Distinguisher values must
guarantee its uniqueness per PE node. Therefore, two multi-homed
PEs offering the same VPLS service to a common set of CEs MUST
allocate different RD values for this site respectively.
3.3.2.2. MH-ID 3.3.2.2. MH-ID
MH-ID is simply set to the VE-ID field in the NLRI part of ADV. MH-ID is simply set to the VE-ID field in the NLRI part of ADV. The
same MH-ID MUST be assigned to all PEs that are connected to the
same multi-homed site.
3.3.2.3. VBO 3.3.2.3. VBO
VBO is simply set to the VE Block Offset field in the NLRI part of VBO is simply set to the VE Block Offset field in the NLRI part of
ADV. This field will typically be zero. ADV. This field will typically be zero.
3.3.2.4. DOM 3.3.2.4. DOM
This variable, indicating the VPLS domain to which ADV belongs, is This variable, indicating the VPLS domain to which ADV belongs, is
derived by applying BGP policy to the Route Target extended derived by applying BGP policy to the Route Target extended
communities in ADV. The details of how this is done are outside the communities in ADV. The details of how this is done are outside the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
3.3.2.5. ACS 3.3.2.5. ACS
ACS is the status of the attachment circuits for a given site of a ACS is the status of the attachment circuits for a given site of a
VPLS. ACS = 1 if all attachment circuits for the site are down, and VPLS. ACS = 1 if all attachment circuits for the site are down, and
0 otherwise. 0 otherwise.
For BGP-based Multi-homing, ADV MUST contain an L2-info extended For BGP-based Multi-homing, ADV MUST contain an L2-info extended
community; within this community are control flags. One of these community; within this community are control flags. One of these
flags is the 'D' bit, described in [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-auto-site-id]. flags is the 'D' bit, described in [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-auto-site-id].
ACS is set to the value of the 'D' bit in ADV. ACS is set to the value of the 'D' bit in ADV.
3.3.2.6. PREF 3.3.2.6. PREF
PREF is derived from the Local Preference (LP) attribute in ADV as PREF is derived from the Local Preference (LP) attribute in ADV as
well as the VPLS Preference field (VP) in the L2-info extended well as the VPLS Preference field (VP) in the L2-info extended
community. If the Local Preference attribute is missing, LP is set community. If the Local Preference attribute is missing, LP is set
to 0; if the L2-info community is missing, VP is set to 0. The to 0; if the L2-info community is missing, VP is set to 0. The
following table shows how PREF is computed from LP and VP. following table shows how PREF is computed from LP and VP.
+---------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+ +---------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| VP | LP Value | PREF | Comment | | VP | LP Value | PREF | Comment |
| Value | | Value | | | Value | | Value | |
+---------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+ +---------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | malformed advertisement, | | 0 | 0 | 0 | malformed advertisement, |
| | | | unless ACS=1 | | | | | unless ACS=1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 0 | 1 to (2^16-1) | LP | backwards compatibility | | 0 | 1 to (2^16-1) | LP | backwards compatibility |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 0 | 2^16 to | (2^16-1) | backwards compatibility | | 0 | 2^16 to | (2^16-1) | backwards compatibility |
| | (2^32-1) | | | | | (2^32-1) | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| >0 | LP same as VP | VP | Implementation supports VP | | >0 | LP same as VP | VP | Implementation supports VP |
| | | | | | | | | |
| >0 | LP != VP | 0 | malformed advertisement | | >0 | LP != VP | 0 | malformed advertisement |
+---------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+ +---------+---------------+----------+------------------------------+
Table 1 Table 1
3.3.2.7. PE-ID 3.3.2.7. PE-ID
If ADV contains a Route Origin (RO) community (see Section 4.1) with If ADV contains a Route Origin (RO) community (see Section 4.1) with
type 0x01, then PE-ID is set to the Global Administrator sub-field of type 0x01, then PE-ID is set to the Global Administrator sub-field
the RO. Otherwise, if ADV has an ORIGINATOR_ID attribute, then PE-ID of the RO. Otherwise, if ADV has an ORIGINATOR_ID attribute, then
is set to the ORIGINATOR_ID. Otherwise, PE-ID is set to the BGP PE-ID is set to the ORIGINATOR_ID. Otherwise, PE-ID is set to the
Identifier. BGP Identifier.
3.3.3. Election Procedures 3.3.3. Election Procedures
The election procedures described in this section apply equally to The election procedures described in this section apply equally to
BGP VPLS and LDP VPLS. BGP VPLS and LDP VPLS. Subset of these procedures documented in
standard BGP best path selection deals with general IP Prefix BGP
route selection processing as defined in RFC 4271 and RFC 4364. A
separate part of the algorithm defined under VPLS DF election is
very specific to designated forwarded election procedures performed
on per VPLS instance bases. Given that the notion of VPLS
advertisement is not commonly used destination IP Prefix, a concept
of bucketization is introduced. By bucketizing advertisements and
running them through two different sets of procedures based on
variables of interest, we are effectively adopting common sets of
route selection rules to the VPLS environment. A distinction MUST
NOT be made on whether the NLRI is a multi-homing NLRI or not. Note
that this is a conceptual description of the process; an
implementation MAY choose to realize this differently as long as the
semantics are preserved.
Election occurs in two stages. The first stage divides all received 3.3.3.1. Bucketization and BGP Best Path Selection
VPLS advertisements into buckets of relevant and comparable
advertisements. Distinction MUST NOT be made on whether the NLRI is
a multi-homing NLRI or not. In this stage, advertisements may be
discarded as not being relevant to DF election. The second stage
picks a single "winner" from each bucket by repeatedly applying a
tie-breaking algorithm on a pair of advertisements from that bucket.
The tie-breaking rules are such that the order in which
advertisements are picked from the bucket does not affect the final
result. Note that this is a conceptual description of the process;
an implementation MAY choose to realize this differently as long as
the semantics are preserved.
Note: these procedures supersede the tie breaking rules described in From the advertisement
(Section 9.1.2.2) [RFC4271]
3.3.3.1. Bucketization for BGP DF Election ADV -> <RD, MH-ID, VBO, ACS, PREF, PE-ID>
An advertisement we select variables of interest that satisfy a notion of the same
route as it is applicable to BGP election. As such, advertisements
with the exact same RD, MH-ID and VBO are candidates for BGP
Selection and put into BGP election bucket.
ADV -> <RD, MH-ID, VBO, ACS, PREF, PE-ID> ADV -> <RD, MH-ID, VBO>
is put into the bucket for <RD, MH-ID, VBO>. In other words, the A standard set of BGP path selection rules, as defined in RFC 4271
information in BGP DF election consists of <RD, MH-ID, VBO> and only and 4264 is applied as tie-breaking mechanism. These tie-breaking
advertisements with exact same <RD, MH-ID, VBO> are candidates for DF rules are applied to candidate advertisements by a BGP speaker
election. responsible for processing and redistribution of BGP VPLS and MH
NLRI. If there is no winner and both ADVs are from the same PE, BGP
path selection should simply consider this an update.
3.3.3.2. Bucketization for VPLS DF Election 3.3.3.2. Bucketization and VPLS DF Election
An advertisement An advertisement
ADV -> <RD, MH-ID, VBO, DOM, ACS, PREF, PE-ID> ADV -> <RD, MH-ID, VBO, DOM, ACS, PREF, PE-ID>
is discarded if DOM is not of interest to the VPLS PE. Otherwise, is discarded if DOM is not of interest to the VPLS PE. Otherwise,
ADV is put into the bucket for <DOM, MH-ID>. In other words, all ADV is put into the bucket for <DOM, MH-ID>. In other words, all
advertisements for a particular VPLS domain that have the same MH-ID advertisements for a particular VPLS domain that have the same MH-ID
are candidates for VPLS DF election. and common DOM are candidates for VPLS DF election. Tie breaking
rules for VPLS DF election are different from standard BGP best path
3.3.3.3. Tie-breaking Rules selection. As outlined in 3.3, the main reason for that is the fact
that only single VPLS PE can be a designated forwarder for a given
This section describes the tie-breaking rules for both BGP and VPLS site. Tie-breaking rules for VPLS DF election are applied to
DF election. Tie-breaking rules for BGP DF election are applied to candidate advertisements by all VPLS PEs and the actions taken by
candidate advertisements by any BGP speaker. Since RD must be same VPLS PEs based on the VPLS DF election result are described
for advertisements to be candidates for BGP DF election, use of
unique RDs will result in no candidate advertisements for BGP tie-
breaking rules and thus, a BGP speaker in such a case will simply not
do BGP DF election. Tie-breaking rules for VPLS DF election are
applied to candidate advertisements by all VPLS PEs and the actions
taken by VPLS PEs based on the VPLS DF election result are described
in Section 3.4. in Section 3.4.
Given two advertisements ADV1 and ADV2 from a given bucket, first Given two advertisements ADV1 and ADV2 from a given bucket, first
compute the variables needed for DF election: compute the variables needed for DF election:
ADV1 -> <RD1, MH-ID1, VBO1, DOM1, ACS1, PREF1, PE-ID1> ADV1 -> <RD1, MH-ID1, VBO1, DOM1, ACS1, PREF1, PE-ID1>
ADV2 -> <RD2, MH-ID2, VBO2, DOM2, ACS2, PREF2, PE-ID2> ADV2 -> <RD2, MH-ID2, VBO2, DOM2, ACS2, PREF2, PE-ID2>
Note that MH-ID1 = MH-ID2 and DOM1 = DOM2, since ADV1 and ADV2 came Note that MH-ID1 = MH-ID2 and DOM1 = DOM2, since ADV1 and ADV2 came
from the same bucket. If this is for BGP DF election, RD1 = RD2 and from the same bucket. Then the following tie-breaking rules MUST be
VBO1 = VBO2 as well. Then the following tie-breaking rules MUST be
applied in the given order. applied in the given order.
1. if (ACS1 != 1) AND (ACS2 == 1) ADV1 wins; stop 1. if (ACS1 != 1) AND (ACS2 == 1) ADV1 wins; stop
if (ACS1 == 1) AND (ACS2 != 1) ADV2 wins; stop if (ACS1 == 1) AND (ACS2 != 1) ADV2 wins; stop
else continue else continue
2. if (PREF1 > PREF2) ADV1 wins; stop;
else if (PREF1 < PREF2) ADV2 wins; stop;
else continue
3. if (PE-ID1 < PE-ID2) ADV1 wins; stop; 2. if (PREF1 > PREF2) ADV1 wins; stop;
else if (PE-ID1 > PE-ID2) ADV2 wins; stop; else if (PREF1 < PREF2) ADV2 wins; stop;
else ADV1 and ADV2 are from the same VPLS PE else continue
For BGP DF election, if there is no winner and ADV1 and ADV2 are from 3. if (PE-ID1 < PE-ID2) ADV1 wins; stop;
the same PE, BGP DF election should simply consider this as an else if (PE-ID1 > PE-ID2) ADV2 wins; stop;
update. else ADV1 and ADV2 are from the same VPLS PE
For VPLS DF election, if there is no winner and ADV1 and ADV2 are If there is no winner and ADV1 and ADV2 are from the same PE, a VPLS
from the same PE, a VPLS PE MUST retain both ADV1 and ADV2. PE MUST retain both ADV1 and ADV2.
3.4. DF Election on PEs 3.4. VPLS DF Election on PEs
DF election algorithm MUST be run by all multi-homed VPLS PEs. In DF election algorithm MUST be run by all multi-homed VPLS PEs. In
addition, all other PEs SHOULD also run the DF election algorithm. addition, all other PEs SHOULD also run the DF election algorithm.
As a result of the DF election, multi-homed PEs that lose the DF As a result of the DF election, multi-homed PEs that lose the DF
election for a MH-ID MUST put the ACs associated with the MH-ID in election for a MH-ID MUST put the ACs associated with the MH-ID in
non-forwarding state. non-forwarding state. DF election result on the egress PEs can be
used in traffic forwarding decision.
DF election result on the egress PEs can be used in traffic Figure 2 shows two customer sites, CE1 and CE4, connected to PE1
forwarding decision. Figure 2 shows two customer sites, CE1 and CE4, with CE1 multi-homed to PE1 and PE2. If PE1 is the designated
connected to PE1 with CE1 multi-homed to PE1 and PE2. If PE1 is the forwarder for CE1, based on the DF election result, PE3 can chose to
designated forwarder for CE1, based on the DF election result, PE3 not send unknown unicast and multicast traffic to PE2 as PE2 is not
can chose to not send unknown unicast and multicast traffic to PE2 as the designated forwarder for any customer site and it has no other
PE2 is not the designated forwarder for any customer site and it has single homed sites connected to it.
no other single homed sites connected to it.
4. Multi-AS VPLS 3.5. Pseudowire binding and traffic forwarding rules
3.5.1. Site-ID Binding Properties
For the use case where a single PE provides connectivity to a set of
CEs from which some on multi-homed and others are not, only single
pseudowire MAY be established. For example, if PE1 provides VPLS
service to CE1 and CE4 which are both part of the same VPLS domain,
but different sites, and CE1 is multi-homed, but CE4 is not (as
described in figure 2), PE3 would establish only single pseudowire
toward PE1. A design needs to ensure that regardless of PE1's
forwarding state in respect to DF or non-DF for multi-homed CE1,
PE3s access to CE4 is established. Since label allocation and
pseudowire established is tied to site-ID, we need to ensure that
proper pseudowire bindings are established.
For set of given advertisements with the common DOM but with
different Site-ID values, a VPLS PE speaker SHOULD instantiate and
bind the pseudowire based on advertisement with the lowest Site-ID
value. Otherwise, binding would be completely random and during DF
changes for multi-homed site, non-multi-homed CE might suffer
traffic loss.
3.5.2. Standby Pseudowire Properties
As the notion of the convergence is addressed for transport plane by
use of RSVP FRR and LDP LFA, it is evident that similar solution is
required at the service level plane as well. This is most evident
in large-scale deployments as it takes quite long time to converge.
Ingress PE usually has to handle multiple relatively larger tasks
and re-signal all pseudowires affected by egress PE or AC failure.
Therefore, an implementation MAY choose to optimize the convergence
by pre-signaling the second, standby, pseudowire toward non-DF end
point for every active VPLS in 1:1 fashion. This greatly improves
the convergence times. However, details of such implementation are
still under research.
4. Multi-AS VPLS
This section describes multi-homing in an inter-AS context. This section describes multi-homing in an inter-AS context.
4.1. Route Origin Extended Community 4.1. Route Origin Extended Community
Due to lack of information about the PEs that originate the VPLS Due to lack of information about the PEs that originate the VPLS
NLRIs in inter-AS operations, Route Origin Extended Community NLRIs in inter-AS operations, Route Origin Extended Community
[RFC4360] is used to carry the source PE's IP address. [RFC4360] is used to carry the source PE's IP address.
To use Route Origin Extended Community for carrying the originator To use Route Origin Extended Community for carrying the originator
VPLS PE's loopback address, the type field of the community MUST be VPLS PE's loopback address, the type field of the community MUST be
set to 0x01 and the Global Administrator sub-field MUST be set to the set to 0x01 and the Global Administrator sub-field MUST be set to
PE's loopback IP address. the PE's loopback IP address.
4.2. VPLS Preference 4.2. Preference
When multiple PEs are assigned the same site ID for multi-homing, it When multiple PEs are assigned the same site ID for multi-homing, it
is often desired to be able to control the selection of a particular is often desired to be able to control the selection of a particular
PE as the designated forwarder. Section 3.5 in [RFC4761] describes PE as the designated forwarder. Section 3.5 in [RFC4761] describes
the use of BGP Local Preference in path selection to choose a the use of BGP Local Preference in path selection to choose a
particular NLRI, where Local Preference indicates the degree of particular NLRI, where Local Preference indicates the degree of
preference for a particular VE. The use of Local Preference is preference for a particular VE. The use of Local Preference is
inadequate when VPLS PEs are spread across multiple ASes as Local inadequate when VPLS PEs are spread across multiple ASes as Local
Preference is not carried across AS boundary. A new field, VPLS Preference is not carried across AS boundary. A new field, VPLS
preference (VP), is introduced in this document that can be used to preference (VP), is introduced in this document that can be used to
accomplish this. VPLS preference indicates a degree of preference accomplish this. VPLS preference indicates a degree of preference
for a particular customer site. VPLS preference is not mandatory for for a particular customer site. VPLS preference is not mandatory
intra-AS operation; the algorithm explained in Section 3.3 will work for intra-AS operation; the algorithm explained in Section 3.3 will
with or without the presence of VPLS preference. work with or without the presence of VPLS preference.
Section 3.2.4 in [RFC4761] describes the Layer2 Info Extended Section 3.2.4 in [RFC4761] describes the Layer2 Info Extended
Community that carries control information about the pseudowires. Community that carries control information about the pseudowires.
The last two octets that were reserved now carries VPLS preference as The last two octets that were reserved now carries VPLS preference
shown in Figure 3. as shown in Figure 3.
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) | | Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) | | Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) | | Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) | | Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| VPLS Preference (2 octets) | | VPLS Preference (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Layer2 Info Extended Community Figure 3: Layer2 Info Extended Community
A VPLS preference is a 2-octets unsigned integer. A value of zero A VPLS preference is a 2-octets unsigned integer. A value of zero
indicates absence of a VP and is not a valid preference value. This indicates absence of a VP and is not a valid preference value. This
interpretation is required for backwards compatibility. interpretation is required for backwards compatibility.
Implementations using Layer2 Info Extended Community as described in Implementations using Layer2 Info Extended Community as described in
(Section 3.2.4) [RFC4761] MUST set the last two octets as zero since (Section 3.2.4) [RFC4761] MUST set the last two octets as zero since
it was a reserved field. it was a reserved field.
For backwards compatibility, if VPLS preference is used, then BGP For backwards compatibility, if VPLS preference is used, then BGP
Local Preference MUST be set to the value of VPLS preference. Note Local Preference MUST be set to the value of VPLS preference. Note
that a Local Preference value of zero for a MH-ID is not valid unless that a Local Preference value of zero for a MH-ID is not valid nless
'D' bit in the control flags is set (see 'D' bit in the control flags is set (see [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-auto-
[I-D.kothari-l2vpn-auto-site-id]). In addition, Local Preference site-id]). In addition, Local Preference value greater than or
value greater than or equal to 2^16 for VPLS advertisements is not equal to 2^16 for VPLS advertisements is not valid.
valid.
4.3. Use of BGP-MH attributes in Inter-AS Methods 4.3. Use of BGP-MH attributes in Inter-AS Methods
Section 3.4 in [RFC4761] and section 4 in [RFC6074] describe three Section 3.4 in [RFC4761] and section 4 in [RFC6074] describe three
methods (a, b and c) to connect sites in a VPLS to PEs that are methods (a, b and c) to connect sites in a VPLS to PEs that are
across multiple AS. Since VPLS advertisements in method (a) do across multiple AS. Since VPLS advertisements in method (a) do not
not cross AS boundaries, multi-homing operations for method (a) cross AS boundaries, multi-homing operations for method (a) remain
remain exactly the same as they are within as AS. However, for exactly the same as they are within as AS. However, for method (b)
method (b) and (c), VPLS advertisements do cross AS boundary. This and (c), VPLS advertisements do cross AS boundary. This section
section describes the VPLS operations for method (b) and method (c). describes the VPLS operations for method (b) and method (c).
Consider Figure 4 for inter-AS VPLS with multi-homed customer sites. Consider Figure 4 for inter-AS VPLS with multi-homed customer sites.
4.3.1. Inter-AS Method (b): EBGP Redistribution of VPLS Information 4.3.1. Inter-AS Method (b): EBGP Redistribution of VPLS Information
between ASBRs between ASBRs
AS1 AS2 AS1 AS2
........ ........ ........ ........
CE2 _______ . . . . CE2 _______ . . . .
___ PE1 . . PE3 --- CE3 ___ PE1 . . PE3 --- CE3
/ : . . : / : . . :
__/ : : : : __/ : : : :
CE1 __ : ASBR1 --- ASBR2 : CE1 __ : ASBR1 --- ASBR2 :
\ : : : : \ : : : :
\___ PE2 . . PE4 ---- CE4 \___ PE2 . . PE4 ---- CE4
. . . . . . . .
........ ........ ........ ........
Figure 4: Inter-AS VPLS Figure 4: Inter-AS VPLS
A customer has four sites, CE1, CE2, CE3 and CE4. CE1 is multi-homed A customer has four sites, CE1, CE2, CE3 and CE4. CE1 is multi-
to PE1 and PE2 in AS1. CE2 is single-homed to PE1. CE3 and CE4 are homed to PE1 and PE2 in AS1. CE2 is single-homed to PE1. CE3 and
also single homed to PE3 and PE4 respectively in AS2. Assume that in CE4 are also single homed to PE3 and PE4 respectively in AS2.
addition to the base LDP/BGP VPLS addressing (VSI-IDs/VE-IDs), MH ID Assume that in addition to the base LDP/BGP VPLS addressing (VSI-
1 is assigned for CE1. After running DF election algorithm, all four IDs/VE-IDs), MH ID 1 is assigned for CE1. After running DF election
VPLS PEs must elect the same designated forwarder for CE1 site. algorithm, all four VPLS PEs must elect the same designated
Since BGP Local Preference is not carried across AS boundary, VPLS forwarder for CE1 site. Since BGP Local Preference is not carried
preference as described in Section 4.2 MUST be used for carrying site across AS boundary, VPLS preference as described in Section 4.2 MUST
preference in inter-AS VPLS operations. be used for carrying site preference in inter-AS VPLS operations.
For Inter-AS method (b) ASBR1 will send a VPLS NLRI received from PE1 For Inter-AS method (b) ASBR1 will send a VPLS NLRI received from
to ASBR2 with itself as the BGP nexthop. ASBR2 will send the PE1 to ASBR2 with itself as the BGP nexthop. ASBR2 will send the
received NLRI from ASBR1 to PE3 and PE4 with itself as the BGP received NLRI from ASBR1 to PE3 and PE4 with itself as the BGP
nexthop. Since VPLS PEs use BGP Local Preference in DF election, for nexthop. Since VPLS PEs use BGP Local Preference in DF election,
backwards compatibility, ASBR2 MUST set the Local Preference value in for backwards compatibility, ASBR2 MUST set the Local Preference
the VPLS advertisements it sends to PE3 and PE4 to the VPLS value in the VPLS advertisements it sends to PE3 and PE4 to the VPLS
preference value contained in the VPLS advertisement it receives from preference value contained in the VPLS advertisement it receives
ASBR1. ASBR1 MUST do the same for the NLRIs it sends to PE1 and PE2. from ASBR1. ASBR1 MUST do the same for the NLRIs it sends to PE1
If ASBR1 receives a VPLS advertisement without a valid VPLS and PE2. If ASBR1 receives a VPLS advertisement without a valid
preference from a PE within its AS, then ASBR1 MUST set the VPLS VPLS preference from a PE within its AS, then ASBR1 MUST set the
preference in the advertisements to the Local Preference value before VPLS preference in the advertisements to the Local Preference value
sending it to ASBR2. Similarly, ASBR2 must do the same for before sending it to ASBR2. Similarly, ASBR2 must do the same for
advertisements without VPLS Preference it receives from PEs within advertisements without VPLS Preference it receives from PEs within
its AS. Thus, in method (b), ASBRs MUST update the VPLS and Local its AS. Thus, in method (b), ASBRs MUST update the VPLS and Local
Preference based on the advertisements they receive either from an Preference based on the advertisements they receive either from an
ASBR or a PE within their AS. ASBR or a PE within their AS.
In Figure 4, PE1 will send the VPLS advertisements with Route Origin In Figure 4, PE1 will send the VPLS advertisements with Route Origin
Extended Community containing its loopback address. PE2 will do the Extended Community containing its loopback address. PE2 will do the
same. Even though PE3 receives the VPLS advertisements for VE-ID 1 same. Even though PE3 receives the VPLS advertisements for VE-ID 1
and 2 from the same BGP nexthop, ASBR2, the source PE address and 2 from the same BGP nexthop, ASBR2, the source PE address
contained in the Route Origin Extended Community is different for the contained in the Route Origin Extended Community is different for
CE1 and CE2 advertisements, and thus, PE3 creates two PWs, one for the CE1 and CE2 advertisements, and thus, PE3 creates two PWs, one
CE1 (for VE-ID 1) and another one for CE2 (for VE-ID 2). for CE1 (for VE-ID 1) and another one for CE2 (for VE-ID 2).
4.3.2. Inter-AS Method (c): Multi-Hop EBGP Redistribution of VPLS 4.3.2. Inter-AS Method (c): Multi-Hop EBGP Redistribution of VPLS
Information between ASes Information between ASes
In this method, there is a multi-hop E-BGP peering between the PEs or In this method, there is a multi-hop E-BGP peering between the PEs
Route Reflectors in AS1 and the PEs or Route Reflectors in AS2. or Route Reflectors in AS1 and the PEs or Route Reflectors in AS2.
There is no VPLS state in either control or data plane on the ASBRs. There is no VPLS state in either control or data plane on the ASBRs.
The multi-homing operations on the PEs in this method are exactly the The multi-homing operations on the PEs in this method are exactly
same as they are in intra-AS scenario. However, since Local the same as they are in intra-AS scenario. However, since Local
Preference is not carried across AS boundary, the translation of LP Preference is not carried across AS boundary, the translation of LP
to VP and vice versa MUST be done by RR, if RR is used to reflect to VP and vice versa MUST be done by RR, if RR is used to reflect
VPLS advertisements to other ASes. This is exactly the same as what VPLS advertisements to other ASes. This is exactly the same as what
a ASBR does in case of method (b). A RR must set the VP to the LP an ASBR does in case of method (b). A RR must set the VP to the LP
value in an advertisement before sending it to other ASes and must value in an advertisement before sending it to other ASes and must
set the LP to the VP value in an advertisement that it receives from set the LP to the VP value in an advertisement that it receives from
other ASes before sending to the PEs within the AS. other ASes before sending to the PEs within the AS.
5. MAC Flush Operations 5. MAC Flush Operations
In a service provider VPLS network, customer MAC learning is confined In a service provider VPLS network, customer MAC learning is
to PE devices and any intermediate nodes, such as a Route Reflector, confined to PE devices and any intermediate nodes, such as a Route
do not have any state for MAC addresses. Reflector, do not have any state for MAC addresses.
Topology changes either in the service provider's network or in Topology changes either in the service provider's network or in
customer's network can result in the movement of MAC addresses from customer's network can result in the movement of MAC addresses from
one PE device to another. Such events can result into traffic being one PE device to another. Such events can result into traffic being
dropped due to stale state of MAC addresses on the PE devices. Age dropped due to stale state of MAC addresses on the PE devices. Age
out timers that clear the stale state will resume the traffic out timers that clear the stale state will resume the traffic
forwarding, but age out timers are typically in minutes, and forwarding, but age out timers are typically in minutes, and
convergence of the order of minutes can severely impact customer's convergence of the order of minutes can severely impact customer's
service. To handle such events and expedite convergence of traffic, service. To handle such events and expedite convergence of traffic,
flushing of affected MAC addresses is highly desirable. flushing of affected MAC addresses is highly desirable.
This section describes the scenarios where VPLS flush is desirable This section describes the scenarios where VPLS flush is desirable
and the specific VPLS Flush TLVs that provide capability to flush the and the specific VPLS Flush TLVs that provide capability to flush
affected MAC addresses on the PE devices. All operations described the affected MAC addresses on the PE devices. All operations
in this section are in context of a particular VPLS domain and not described in this section are in context of a particular VPLS domain
across multiple VPLS domains. Mechanisms for MAC flush are described and not across multiple VPLS domains. Mechanisms for MAC flush are
in [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-vpls-flush] for BGP based VPLS and in [RFC4762] described in [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-vpls-flush] for BGP based VPLS and
for LDP based VPLS. in [RFC4762] for LDP based VPLS.
5.1. MAC List FLush 5.1. MAC List FLush
If multiple customer sites are connected to the same PE, PE1 as shown If multiple customer sites are connected to the same PE, PE1 as
in Figure 2, and redundancy per site is desired when multi-homing shown in Figure 2, and redundancy per site is desired when multi-
procedures described in this document are in effect, then it is homing procedures described in this document are in effect, then it
desirable to flush just the relevant MAC addresses from a particular is desirable to flush just the relevant MAC addresses from a
site when the site connectivity is lost. particular site when the site connectivity is lost.
To flush particular set of MAC addresses, a PE SHOULD originate a To flush particular set of MAC addresses, a PE SHOULD originate a
flush message with MAC list that contains a list of MAC addresses flush message with MAC list that contains a list of MAC addresses
that needs to be flushed. In Figure 2, if connectivity between CE1 that needs to be flushed. In Figure 2, if connectivity between CE1
and PE1 goes down and if PE1 was the designated forwarder for CE1, and PE1 goes down and if PE1 was the designated forwarder for CE1,
PE1 MAY send a list of MAC addresses that belong to CE1 to all its PE1 MAY send a list of MAC addresses that belong to CE1 to all its
BGP peers. BGP peers.
It is RECOMMENDED that in case of excessive link flap of customer It is RECOMMENDED that in case of excessive link flap of customer
attachment circuit in a short duration, a PE should have a means to attachment circuit in a short duration, a PE should have a means to
throttle advertisements of flush messages so that excessive flooding throttle advertisements of flush messages so that excessive flooding
of such advertisements do not occur. of such advertisements do not occur.
5.2. Implicit MAC Flush 5.2. Implicit MAC Flush
Implicit MAC Flush refers to the use of BGP MH advertisements by the Implicit MAC Flush refers to the use of BGP MH advertisements by the
PEs to flush the MAC addresses learned from the previous designated PEs to flush the MAC addresses learned from the previous designated
forwarder. forwarder.
In case of a failure, when connectivity to a customer site is lost, In case of a failure, when connectivity to a customer site is lost,
remote PEs learn that a particular site is no longer reachable. The remote PEs learn that a particular site is no longer reachable. The
local PE either withdraws the VPLS NLRI that it previously advertised local PE either withdraws the VPLS NLRI that it previously
for the site or it sends a BGP update message for the site's VPLS advertised for the site or it sends a BGP update message for the
NLRI with the 'D' bit set. In such cases, the remote PEs can flush site's VPLS NLRI with the 'D' bit set. In such cases, the remote
all the MACs that were learned from the PE which reported the PEs can flush all the MACs that were learned from the PE which
failure. reported the failure.
However, in cases when a designated forwarder change occurs in However, in cases when a designated forwarder change occurs in
absence of failures, such as when an attachment circuit comes up, the absence of failures, such as when an attachment circuit comes up,
BGP MH advertisement from the PE reporting the change is not the BGP MH advertisement from the PE reporting the change is not
sufficient for MAC flush procedures. Consider the case in Figure 2 sufficient for MAC flush procedures. Consider the case in Figure 2
where PE1-CE1 link is non-operational and PE2 is the designated where PE1-CE1 link is non-operational and PE2 is the designated
forwarder for CE1. Also assume that Local Preference of PE1 is forwarder for CE1. Also assume that Local Preference of PE1 is
higher than PE2. When PE1-CE1 link becomes operational, PE1 will higher than PE2. When PE1-CE1 link becomes operational, PE1 will
send a BGP MH advertisement to all it's peers. If PE3 elects PE1 as send a BGP MH advertisement to all it's peers. If PE3 elects PE1 as
the new designated forwarder for CE1 and as a result flushes all the the new designated forwarder for CE1 and as a result flushes all the
MACs learned from PE1 before PE2 elects itself as the non-designated MACs learned from PE1 before PE2 elects itself as the non-designated
forwarder, there is a chance that PE3 might learn MAC addresses from forwarder, there is a chance that PE3 might learn MAC addresses from
PE2 and as a result may black-hole traffic until those MAC addresses PE2 and as a result may black-hole traffic until those MAC addresses
are deleted due to age out timers. are deleted due to age out timers.
A new flag 'F' is introduced in the Control Flags Bit Vector as a A new flag 'F' is introduced in the Control Flags Bit Vector as a
deterministic way to indicate when to flush. deterministic way to indicate when to flush.
Control Flags Bit Vector Control Flags Bit Vector
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D|A|F|Z|Z|Z|C|S| (Z = MUST Be Zero) |D|A|F|Z|Z|Z|C|S| (Z = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Figure 5
A designatd forwarder must set the F bit and a non-designated A designated forwarder must set the F bit and a non-designated
forwarder must clear the F bit when sending BGP MH advertisements. A forwarder must clear the F bit when sending BGP MH advertisements.
state transition from one to zero for the F bit can be used by a A state transition from one to zero for the F bit can be used by a
remote PE to flush all the MACs learned from the PE that is remote PE to flush all the MACs learned from the PE that is
transitioning from designated forwarder to non-designated forwarder. transitioning from designated forwarder to non-designated forwarder.
5.3. Minimizing the effects of fast link transitions 5.3. Minimizing the effects of fast link transitions
Certain failure scenarios may result in fast transitions of the link Certain failure scenarios may result in fast transitions of the link
towards the multi-homing CE which in turn will generate fast status towards the multi-homing CE which in turn will generate fast status
transitions of one or multiple multi-homed sites reflected through transitions of one or multiple multi-homed sites reflected through
multiple BGP MH advertisements and LDP MAC Flush messages. multiple BGP MH advertisements and LDP MAC Flush messages.
It is recommended that a timer to damp the link flaps be used for the It is recommended that a timer to damp the link flaps be used for
port towards the multi-homed CE to minimize the number of MAC Flush the port towards the multi-homed CE to minimize the number of MAC
events in the remote PEs and the occurrences of BGP state Flush events in the remote PEs and the occurrences of BGP state
compressions for F bit transitions. A timer value more than the time compressions for F bit transitions. A timer value more than the
it takes BGP to converge in the network is recommended. time it takes BGP to converge in the network is recommended.
6. Backwards Compatibility 6. Backwards Compatibility
No forwarding loops are formed when PEs or Route Reflectors that do No forwarding loops are formed when PEs or Route Reflectors that do
not support procedures defined in this section co exist in the not support procedures defined in this section co exist in the
network with PEs or Route Reflectors that do support. network with PEs or Route Reflectors that do support.
6.1. BGP based VPLS 6.1. BGP based VPLS
As explained in this section, multi-homed PEs to the same customer As explained in this section, multi-homed PEs to the same customer
site MUST assign the same MH-ID and related NLRI SHOULD contain the site MUST assign the same MH-ID and related NLRI SHOULD contain the
block offset, block size and label base as zero. Remote PEs that block offset, block size and label base as zero. Remote PEs that
lack support of multi-homing operations specified in this document lack support of multi-homing operations specified in this document
will fail to create any PWs for the multi-homed MH-IDs due to the will fail to create any PWs for the multi-homed MH-IDs due to the
label value of zero and thus, the multi-homing NLRI should have no label value of zero and thus, the multi-homing NLRI should have no
impact on the operation of Remote PEs that lack support of multi- impact on the operation of Remote PEs that lack support of multi-
homing operations specified in this document. homing operations specified in this document.
6.2. LDP VPLS with BGP Auto-discovery 6.2. LDP VPLS with BGP Auto-discovery
The BGP-AD NLRI has a prefix length of 12 containing only a 8 bytes The BGP-AD NLRI has a prefix length of 12 containing only a 8 bytes
RD and a 4 bytes VSI-ID. If a LDP VPLS PEs running BGP AD lacks RD and a 4 bytes VSI-ID. If a LDP VPLS PEs running BGP AD lacks
support of multi-homing operations specified in this document, it support of multi-homing operations specified in this document, it
SHOULD ignore a MH NLRI with the length field of 17. As a result it SHOULD ignore a MH NLRI with the length field of 17. As a result it
will not ask LDP to create any PWs for the multi-homed Site-ID and will not ask LDP to create any PWs for the multi-homed Site-ID and
thus, the multi-homing NLRI should have no impact on LDP VPLS thus, the multi-homing NLRI should have no impact on LDP VPLS
operation. MH PEs may use existing LDP MAC Flush to flush the remote operation. MH PEs may use existing LDP MAC Flush to flush the
LDP VPLS PEs or may use the implicit MAC Flush procedure. remote LDP VPLS PEs or may use the implicit MAC Flush procedure.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
No new security issues are introduced beyond those that are described No new security issues are introduced beyond those that are
in [RFC4761] and [RFC4762]. described in [RFC4761] and [RFC4762].
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
At this time, this memo includes no request to IANA. At this time, this memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Nischal Sheth, and The authors would like to thank Ian Cowburn, Yakov Rekhter, Nischal
Mitali Singh for their insightful comments and probing questions. Sheth, and Mitali Singh for their insightful comments and probing
questions.
10. References This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
10.1. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
RFC 4761, January 2007. Signaling", RFC 4761, January 2007.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., "Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in [RFC6074] Rosen, E., "Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling
L2VPNs", RFC 6074, January 2011. in L2VPNs", RFC 6074, January 2011.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.kothari-l2vpn-vpls-flush] [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-vpls-flush]
Kothari, B. and R. Fernando, "VPLS Flush in BGP-based Kothari, B. and R. Fernando, "VPLS Flush in BGP-based
Virtual Private LAN Service", Virtual Private LAN Service",
draft-kothari-l2vpn-vpls-flush-00 (work in progress), draft-kothari-l2vpn-vpls-flush-00 (work in progress),
October 2008. October 2008.
[I-D.kothari-l2vpn-auto-site-id] [I-D.kothari-l2vpn-auto-site-id]
Kothari, B., Kompella, K., and T. IV, "Automatic Kothari, B., Kompella, K., and T. IV, "Automatic
Generation of Site IDs for Virtual Private LAN Service", Generation of Site IDs for Virtual Private LAN Service",
skipping to change at page 25, line 43 skipping to change at page 28, line 5
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006. (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
RFC 4762, January 2007. Signaling", RFC 4762, January 2007.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bhupesh Kothari Bhupesh Kothari
Cisco Systems Cohere Networks
3750 Cisco Way Email: bhupesh@cohere.net
San Jose, CA 95134, US
Email: bhupesh@cisco.com
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks Contrail Systems
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. Email: kireeti.kompella@gmail.com
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 US
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.be Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.be
Florin Balus Florin Balus
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com
Senad Palislamovic
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: senad.palislamovic@alcatel-lucent.com
James Uttaro James Uttaro
AT&T AT&T
200 S. Laurel Avenue 200 S. Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748, US Middletown, NJ 07748, US
Email: uttaro@att.com Email: uttaro@att.com
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks
Email: wlin@juniper.net
 End of changes. 125 change blocks. 
412 lines changed or deleted 475 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/