Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws
INTERNET-DRAFT Sami Boutros
Intended Status: Standard Track VMware
Ali Sajassi
Samer Salam
Cisco Systems
John Drake
Juniper Networks
J. Rabadan
Nokia
Expires: November 15, 2017 May 14, 2017
Virtual Private Wire Service support in Ethernet VPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14.txt
Abstract
This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used to
support Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN
enables the following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well
as all-active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates
the need for Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides fast protection
convergence upon node or link failure.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
Copyright (c) 2017 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
2 Service interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 Single-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Multi-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
1 Introduction
This document describes how EVPN can be used to support VPWS in
MPLS/IP networks. The use of EVPN mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS)
brings the benefits of EVPN to Point to Point (P2P) services. These
benefits include single-active redundancy as well as all-active
redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore, the use of
EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for traditional way of PW signaling
for P2P Ethernet services, as described in section 4.
[RFC7432] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a
given customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any Media Access
Control (MAC) lookup. This capability is ideal in providing P2P
services (aka VPWS services). [MEF] defines Ethernet Virtual Private
Line (EVPL) service as P2P service between a pair of ACs (designated
by VLANs) and Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service, in which all
traffic flows are between a single pair of ports, that in EVPN
terminology would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments ES(es).
EVPL can be considered as a VPWS with only two ACs. In delivering an
EVPL service, the traffic forwarding capability of EVPN is based on
the exchange of a pair of Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes;
whereas, for more general VPWS as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding
capability of EVPN is based on the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD
routes (one Ethernet AD route per AC/ES). In a VPWS service, the
traffic from an originating Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to
a single destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed
and the MPLS label associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI)
Ethernet A-D route can be used in forwarding user traffic to the
destination AC.
For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is
identified by a pair of per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes which together
identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service
instance. In the control plane the VPWS service instance is
identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by
each Provider Edge node (PE). In the data plane the value of the MPLS
label advertised by one PE is used by the other PE to send traffic
for that VPWS service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard
EVPN, the VPWS service instance identifier has uniqueness within an
EVPN instance.
For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for Port-based,
VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero
Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN-
VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a
non-zero value for all four service interface types.
In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN-
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when
a PE advertises per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance
serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of the MPLS
label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service
instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the
disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and
subsequently perform any required tag translation. For EVPL service,
the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain
tagged with the originating VLAN-ID (VID) and any VID translation
MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service, the
Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered.
The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the
Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN
encapsulation as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope
per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier
set in the Ethernet A-D route. When using VXLAN encap, the BGP
Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D
route as described in [ietf-evpn-overlay]. The VXLAN VNI like the
MPLS label that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel
Ethernet packets from all the service interface types defined in
section 2. The EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document has no
dependency on the tunneling technology.
The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI
route is not used to identify the service. However it can be used for
flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the
[RFC7432] baseline.
As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast
convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is
used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed
Customer Edge node (CE) and to synchronize state between them.
1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
EVPN: Ethernet VPN
MAC: Media Access Control
MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching.
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance.
PE: Provide Edge Node.
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router
CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch.
EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line.
EPL: Ethernet Private Line.
EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN.
EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN.
S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier.
C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier.
VID: VLAN-ID.
VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service.
EVI: EVPN Instance.
P2P: Point to Point.
VXLAN: Virtual Extensible LAN.
DF: Designated Forwarder.
L2: Layer 2.
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit.
eBGP: Exterior Border Gateway Protocol.
iBGP: Internal Border Gateway Protocol.
ES: Ethernet Segment on a PE refers to the link attached to it, this
link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs in multi
homed cases, or could be a single link in single homed cases.
ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier.
Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multi-homed to two
or more PEs and when only a single PE in such redundancy group can
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given
VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single-
Active".
All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when
all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the
multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or
redundancy is referred to as "All-Active".
VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service
labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream
assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D
per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the
disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only
one VPWS service identifier.
2 Service interface
2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface
With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds
to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a
one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS
service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect
functionality between an MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service
instance identifier and a specific <port,VLAN>. If the VLAN is
represented by different VIDs on different PEs and different ES(es),
(e.g., a different VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE
needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to its Ethernet
segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an
MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a
VID translation MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be
performed on the disposition PE.
2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface
With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier
corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE
provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label
identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of
VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN
is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is
allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label
alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross-connect
traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label.
The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating
VID.
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface
This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service
interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same
VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to
those described in Section 2.2.
2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface
Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN-
based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this
service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one
tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this
service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of
VLAN-based service.
3. BGP Extensions
This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to
signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to
the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to
the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance
identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit value
is used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services
using a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating
that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D
route with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be
configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier. When
each PE has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the
VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be noted that the
same VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs.
The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI
Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which
the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice
as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a
given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be
configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi-
point services.
3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be
included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is
mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
+------------------------------------+
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
| Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)|
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| L2 MTU (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags
The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining
bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when
receiving this community.
Name Meaning
P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it
indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE.
MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by
all active PE(s).
B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it
indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE.
C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
when sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is recommended to
include the control word in the absence of Entropy Label.
L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the
MTU in bytes.
A received L2 MTU of zero means no MTU checking against local MTU is
needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and
if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as
the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance.
The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its
usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the
ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all-
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
active redundancy is used for this ES.
In multihoming scenarios, the B and P flags MUST be cleared. A PE
that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the
route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P
clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE.
In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no Designated
Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active
and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A
remote PE will do per-flow load-balancing to the PEs that set the P
Flag for the same Ethernet Tag and ESI. The B Flag in control flags
SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be
ignored by receiving PE(s) if set.
In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service
instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for
the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag
clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and
the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal
both P and B Flags clear. When the primary PE/ES fails, the primary
PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS
service instance from the remote PE and the remote PEs should then
send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF
re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there
will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected backup PE that
will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD
receive the P Flag set from only one Primary PE and the B Flag set
from only one Backup PE. However during transient situations, a
remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE will select
the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding traffic. A
remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE will select
the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P
Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding traffic.
If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST
NOT be set and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN-
encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP.
4 Operation
The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with
EVPN.
Ethernet Ethernet
Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native
Service | | Service
(AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC)
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
| V V V V V V |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| |
| CE1| | | |CE2 |
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| |
+----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+
^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^
| Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 |
| | |
| | |
| EVPN Inter-provider point |
| |
|<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->|
Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model
iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3,
possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are
established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are
established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4.
All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI
Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter-
AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP
attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link
between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface,
as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two
nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs,
one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID
used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to
identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't
perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS
label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is
needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service.
For single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the
ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS
service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service.
For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the
ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to
the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value
on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a
multihoming all-active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing
of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all cases
traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric.
The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique
across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the
per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS
to the other AS.
A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw
all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site
on a given PE.
5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling
In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done
concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label
signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either
through manual provisioning or through BGP.
In existing implementations of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs),
redundancy is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN
implementation of VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy
modes can be supported.
In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to
carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among
different PEs multi-homed to a single CE.
Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the
withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL
services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence
requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to
deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate
the group of backup PWs associated with the access link.
Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms
not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local
AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route
by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the
backup PE.
6 Failure Scenarios
On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single
and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the
associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the
failed port or link.
6.1 Single-Homed CEs
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements
for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port
failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw
the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.
6.2 Multi-Homed CEs
For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single-
Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique
is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can
withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the
VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the
backup PE.
7 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin
Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar
Hussain, Alvaro Retana and Acee Lindem for their feedback and
contributions to this document.
8 Security Considerations
The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in
[RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally
applicable.
This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support
data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432]
and in [ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable.
9 IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type:
SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference
0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes [RFCXXXX]
This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes
Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC
Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226].
Initial registrations are as follows:
P Advertising PE is the Primary PE.
B Advertising PE is the Backup PE.
C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present.
10 References
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
10.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March
1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks",
RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L.
Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., et al, "VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying
Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, August
2014
10.2 Informative References
[MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase
2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008,
https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[ietf-evpn-overlay] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07.txt,
work in progress, December, 2016
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have also contributed to this document:
Daniel Voyer Bell Canada
Authors' Addresses
Sami Boutros
VMware, Inc.
Email: sboutros@vmware.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Samer Salam
Cisco
Email: ssalam@cisco.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Email: dws@steinbergnet.net
Patrice Brissette
Cisco
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Thomas Beckhaus
Deutsche Telecom
Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Ryan Bickhart
Juniper Networks
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT VPWS support in EVPN May 14, 2017
Email: rbickhart@juniper.net
Boutros Expires November 15, 2017 [Page 15]
