BESS Workgroup A. Sajassi, Ed. INTERNET-DRAFT S. Salam Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco Updates: 7385 J. Drake Juniper J. Uttaro ATT S. Boutros VMware J. Rabadan Nokia Expires: December 22, 2017 June 22, 2017 E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12 Abstract The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). A solution framework for supporting this service in MPLS networks is proposed in RFC7387 ("A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network"). This document discusses how those functional requirements can be easily met with Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and how EVPN offers a more efficient implementation of these functions. This document makes use of the most significant bit of the scope governed by the IANA registry created by RFC7385, and hence updates RFC7385 accordingly. 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." Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 E-Tree Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Scenario 2: Leaf OR Root site(s) per AC . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Scenario 3: Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Operation for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.1 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.4 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3 E-TREE Traffic Flows for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.1 E-Tree with MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 Operation for PBB-EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1 Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 4.2 BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3 E-Tree without MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 BGP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1 E-Tree Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2 PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1 Considerations for PMSI Tunnel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 1 Introduction The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) [MEF6.1]. In an E- Tree service, Attachment Circuits (ACs) are labeled as either Root or Leaf ACs. Root ACs can communicate with all other ACs. Leaf ACs can communicate with Root ACs but not with other Leaf ACs. [RFC7387] proposes the solution framework for supporting E-Tree service in MPLS networks. The document identifies the functional components of the overall solution to emulate E-Tree services in addition to Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services on an existing MPLS network. [RFC7432] is a solution for multipoint L2VPN services, with advanced multi-homing capabilities, using BGP for distributing customer/client MAC address reach-ability information over the MPLS/IP network. [RFC7623] combines the functionality of EVPN with [802.1ah] Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) for MAC address scalability. This document discusses how the functional requirements for E-Tree service can be met with (PBB-)EVPN and how (PBB-)EVPN offers a more efficient implementation of these functions. This document makes use of the most significant bit of the scope governed by the IANA registry created by RFC7385, and hence updates RFC7385 accordingly. Section 2 discusses E-TREE scenarios. Section 3 and 4 describe E-TREE solutions for EVPN and PBB-EVPN respectively, and section 5 covers BGP encoding for E-TREE solutions. 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 [KEYWORDS]. 2 E-Tree Scenarios This document categorizes E-Tree scenarios into the following three scenarios, depending on the nature of the Root/Leaf site association: - Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE - Leaf OR Root site(s) per Attachment Circuit (AC) - Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE In this scenario, a PE may receive traffic from either Root ACs OR Leaf ACs for a given MAC-VRF/bridge table, but not both concurrently. In other words, a given EVI on a PE is either associated with root(s) or leaf(s). The PE may have both Root and Leaf ACs albeit for different EVIs. +---------+ +---------+ | PE1 | | PE2 | +---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+ |CE1+---AC1----+--+ | | | MPLS | | | +--+----AC2-----+CE2| +---+ (Root) | |MAC| | | /IP | | |MAC| | (Leaf) +---+ | |VRF| | | | | |VRF| | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ | | | | | | | | +--+----AC3-----+CE3| | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Leaf) +---+ +---------+ +---------+ Figure 1: Scenario 1 In such scenario, using tailored BGP Route Target (RT) import/export policies among the PEs belonging to the same EVI, can be used to restrict the communications among Leaf PEs. To restrict the communications among Leaf ACs connected to the same PE and belonging to the same EVI, split-horizon filtering is used to block traffic from one Leaf AC to another Leaf AC on a MAC-VRF for a given E-TREE EVI. The purpose of this topology constraint is to avoid having PEs with only Leaf sites importing and processing BGP MAC routes from each other. To support such topology constrain in EVPN, two BGP Route-Targets (RTs) are used for every EVPN Instance (EVI): one RT is associated with the Root sites (Root ACs) and the other is associated with the Leaf sites (Leaf ACs). On a per EVI basis, every PE exports the single RT associated with its type of site(s). Furthermore, a PE with Root site(s) imports both Root and Leaf RTs, whereas a PE with Leaf site(s) only imports the Root RT. 2.2 Scenario 2: Leaf OR Root site(s) per AC In this scenario, a PE can receive traffic from both Root ACs and Leaf ACs for a given EVI. In other words, a given EVI on a PE can be associated with both root(s) and leaf(s). Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 +---------+ +---------+ | PE1 | | PE2 | +---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+ |CE1+-----AC1----+--+ | | | | | | +--+---AC2--+CE2| +---+ (Leaf) | |MAC| | | MPLS | | |MAC| | (Leaf) +---+ | |VRF| | | /IP | | |VRF| | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ | | | | | | | | +--+---AC3--+CE3| | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Root) +---+ +---------+ +---------+ Figure 2: Scenario 2 In this scenario, just like the previous scenario (in section 2.1), two Route Targets (one for Root and another for Leaf) can be used. However, the difference is that on a PE with both Root and Leaf ACs, all remote MAC routes are imported and thus there needs to be a way to differentiate remote MAC routes associated with Leaf ACs versus the ones associated with Root ACs in order to apply the proper ingress filtering. In order to recognize the association of a destination MAC address to a Leaf or Root AC and thus support ingress filtering on the ingress PE with both Leaf and Root ACs, MAC addresses need to be colored with Root or Leaf indication before advertisements to other PEs. There are two approaches for such coloring: A) To always use two RTs (one to designate Leaf RT and another for Root RT) B) To allow for a single RT be used per EVI just like [RFC7432] and thus color MAC addresses via a "color" flag in a new extended community as detailed in section 3.1. Approach (A) would require the same data plane enhancements as approach (B) if MAC-VRF and bridge tables used per VLAN, are to remain consistent with [RFC7432] (section 6). In order to avoid data- plane enhancements for approach (A), multiple bridge tables per VLAN may be considered; however, this has major drawbacks as described in appendix-A and thus is not recommended. Given that both approaches (A) and (B) would require exact same data- plane enhancements, approach (B) is chosen here in order to allow for RT usage consistent with baseline EVPN [RFC7432] and for better generality. It should be noted that if one wants to use RT constrain in order to avoid MAC advertisements associated with a Leaf AC to PEs with only Leaf ACs, then two RTs (one for Root and another for Leaf) can still be used with approach (B); however, in such applications Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 Leaf/Root RTs will be used to constrain MAC advertisements and they are not used to color the MAC routes for ingress filtering - i.e., in approach (B), the coloring is always done via the new extended community. For this scenario, if for a given EVI, significant number of PEs have both Leaf and Root sites attached, even though they may start as Root-only or Leaf-only PEs, then a single RT per EVI should be used. The reason for such recommendation is to alleviate the configuration overhead associated with using two RTs per EVI at the expense of having some unwanted MAC addresses on the Leaf-only PEs. 2.3 Scenario 3: Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC In this scenario, a PE may receive traffic from both Root AND Leaf sites on a single Attachment Circuit (AC) of an EVI. This scenario is not covered in both [RFC7387] and [MEF6.1]; however, it is covered in this document for the sake of completeness. In this scenario, since an AC carries traffic from both Root and Leaf sites, the granularity at which Root or Leaf sites are identified is on a per MAC address. This scenario is considered in this document for EVPN service with only known unicast traffic because the Designated Forwarding (DF) filtering per [RFC7432] would not be compatible with the required egress filtering - i.e., Broadcast, Unknown, and Multicast (BUM) traffic is not supported in this scenario and it is dropped by the ingress PE. +---------+ +---------+ | PE1 | | PE2 | +---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+ |CE1+-----AC1----+--+ | | | | | | +--+-----AC2----+CE2| +---+ (Root) | | E | | | MPLS | | | E | | (Leaf/Root)+---+ | | V | | | /IP | | | V | | | | I | | | | | | I | | +---+ | | | | | | | | +--+-----AC3----+CE3| | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Leaf) +---+ +---------+ +---------+ Figure 3: Scenario 3 3 Operation for EVPN [RFC7432] defines the notion of Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 MPLS label used for split-horizon filtering of BUM traffic at the egress PE. Such egress filtering capabilities can be leveraged in provision of E-TREE services as seen shortly. In other words, [RFC7432] has inherent capability to support E-TREE services without defining any new BGP routes but by just defining a new BGP Extended Community for leaf indication as shown later in this document (section 5.1). 3.1 Known Unicast Traffic Since in EVPN, MAC learning is performed in control plane via advertisement of BGP routes, the filtering needed by E-TREE service for known unicast traffic can be performed at the ingress PE, thus providing very efficient filtering and avoiding sending known unicast traffic over MPLS/IP core to be filtered at the egress PE as done in traditional E-TREE solutions (e.g., E-TREE for VPLS [RFC7796]). To provide such ingress filtering for known unicast traffic, a PE MUST indicate to other PEs what kind of sites (root or leaf) its MAC addresses are associated with by advertising a leaf indication flag (via an Extended Community) along with each of its MAC/IP Advertisement routes. The lack of such flag indicates that the MAC address is associated with a root site. This scheme applies to all scenarios described in section 2. Tagging MAC addresses with a leaf indication enables remote PEs to perform ingress filtering for known unicast traffic - i.e., on the ingress PE, the MAC destination address lookup yields, in addition to the forwarding adjacency, a flag which indicates whether the target MAC is associated with a Leaf site or not. The ingress PE cross- checks this flag with the status of the originating AC, and if both are Leafs, then the packet is not forwarded. In situation where MAC moves are allowed among Leaf and Root sites (e.g., non-static MAC), PEs can receive multiple MAC/IP advertisements routes for the same MAC address with different Leaf/Root indications (and possibly different ESIs for multi-homing scenarios). In such situations, MAC mobility procedures (section 15 of [RFC7432]) take precedence to first identify the location of the MAC before associating that MAC with a Root or a Leaf site. To support the above ingress filtering functionality, a new E-TREE Extended Community with a Leaf indication flag is introduced [section 5.2]. This new Extended Community MUST be advertised with MAC/IP Advertisement route. Besides MAC/IP Advertisement route, no other EVPN routes are required to carry this new extended community. Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 3.2 BUM Traffic This specification does not provide support for filtering BUM (Broadcast, Unknown, and Multicast) traffic on the ingress PE because it is not possible to perform filtering of BUM traffic on the ingress PE, as is the case with known unicast described above, due to the multi-destination nature of BUM traffic. As such, the solution relies on egress filtering. In order to apply the proper egress filtering, which varies based on whether a packet is sent from a Leaf AC or a root AC, the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an indication that they originated from a Leaf AC - i.e., to be tagged with a Leaf label as specified in section 5.1. The Leaf label can be upstream assigned for P2MP LSP or downstream assigned for ingress replication tunnels. The main difference between downstream and upstream assigned Leaf label is that in case of downstream assigned not all egress PE devices need to receive the label just like ESI label for ingress replication procedures defined in [RFC7432]. On the ingress PE, the PE needs to place all its Leaf ACs for a given bridge domain in a single split-horizon group in order to prevent intra-PE forwarding among its Leaf ACs. This intra-PE split-horizon filtering applies to BUM traffic as well as known-unicast traffic. There are four scenarios to consider as follows. In all these scenarios, the ingress PE imposes the right MPLS label associated with the originated Ethernet Segment (ES) depending on whether the Ethernet frame originated from a Root or a Leaf site on that Ethernet Segment (ESI label or Leaf label). The mechanism by which the PE identifies whether a given frame originated from a Root or a Leaf site on the segment is based on the AC identifier for that segment (e.g., Ethernet Tag of the frame for 802.1Q frames). Other mechanisms for identifying root or leaf (e.g., on a per MAC address basis) is beyond the scope of this document. 3.2.1 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a leaf AC In this scenario, the ingress PE adds a Leaf label advertised using the E-Tree Extended Community (Section 5.1) indicating a Leaf site. This Leaf label, used for single-homing scenarios, is not on a per ES basis but rather on a per PE basis - i.e., a single Leaf MPLS label is used for all single-homed ES's on that PE. This Leaf label is advertised to other PE devices, using the E-TREE Extended Community (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI of zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all EVIs on the PE with at least one leaf site per EVI. The set of Ethernet A-D per ES routes may be needed if the number of Route Targets (RTs) that Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 need to be sent exceed the limit on a single route per [RFC7432]. The ESI for the Ethernet A-D per ES route is set to zero to indicate single-homed sites. When a PE receives this special Leaf label in the data path, it blocks the packet if the destination AC is of type Leaf; otherwise, it forwards the packet. 3.2.2 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a root AC In this scenario, the ingress PE does not add any ESI label or Leaf label and it operates per [RFC7432] procedures. 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC In this scenario, it is assumed that while different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have different root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being leafs), the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all PEs on the same ES. Furthermore, it is assumed that there is no forwarding among subnets - ie, the service is EVPN L2 and not EVPN IRB [EVPN-IRB]. IRB use cases described in [EVPN-IRB] are outside the scope of this document. In such scenarios, If a multicast or broadcast packet is originated from a leaf AC, then it only needs to carry Leaf label described in section 3.2.1. This label is sufficient in providing the necessary egress filtering of BUM traffic from getting sent to leaf ACs including the leaf AC on the same Ethernet Segment. 3.2.4 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a root AC In this scenario, both the ingress and egress PE devices follows the procedure defined in [RFC7432] for adding and/or processing an ESI MPLS label. 3.3 E-TREE Traffic Flows for EVPN Per [RFC7387], a generic E-Tree service supports all of the following traffic flows: - Ethernet known unicast from Root to Roots & Leaf - Ethernet known unicast from Leaf to Root - Ethernet BUM traffic from Root to Roots & Leafs - Ethernet BUM traffic from Leaf to Roots A particular E-Tree service may need to support all of the above types of flows or only a select subset, depending on the target Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 application. In the case where unicast flows need not be supported, the L2VPN PEs can avoid performing any MAC learning function. The following subsections will describe the operation of EVPN to support E-Tree service with and without MAC learning. 3.3.1 E-Tree with MAC Learning The PEs implementing an E-Tree service must perform MAC learning when unicast traffic flows must be supported among Root and Leaf sites. In this case, the PE(s) with Root sites performs MAC learning in the data-path over the Ethernet Segments, and advertises reachability in EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement Routes. These routes will be imported by all PEs for that EVI (i.e., PEs that have Leaf sites as well as PEs that have Root sites). Similarly, the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC learning in the data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise reachability in EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement Routes. For the scenario described in section 2.1 (or possibly section 2.2), these routes are imported only by PEs with at least one Root site in the EVI - i.e., a PE with only Leaf sites will not import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites may use the Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-homed segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC7432]. To support multicast/broadcast from Root to Leaf sites, either a P2MP tree rooted at the PE(s) with the Root site(s) or ingress replication can be used (section 16 of [RFC7432]). The multicast tunnels are set up through the exchange of the EVPN Inclusive Multicast route, as defined in [RFC7432]. To support multicast/broadcast from Leaf to Root sites, ingress replication should be sufficient for most scenarios where there are only a few Roots (typically two). Therefore, in a typical scenario, a root PE needs to support both a P2MP tunnel in transmit direction from itself to leaf PEs and at the same time it needs to support ingress-replication tunnels in receive direction from leaf PEs to itself. In order to signal this efficiently from the root PE, a new composite tunnel type is defined per section 5.2. This new composite tunnel type is advertised by the root PE to simultaneously indicate a P2MP tunnel in transmit direction and an ingress-replication tunnel in the receive direction for the BUM traffic. If the number of Roots is large, P2MP tunnels originated at the PEs with Leaf sites may be used and thus there will be no need to use the modified PMSI tunnel attribute in section 5.2 for composite tunnel type. Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC learning when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are mainly multicast or broadcast. In this case, the PEs do not exchange EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement Routes. Instead, the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route is used to support BUM traffic. The fields of this route are populated per the procedures defined in [RFC7432], and the multicast tunnel setup criteria are as described in the previous section. Just as in the previous section, if the number of PEs with root sites are only a few and thus ingress replication is desired from leaf PEs to these root PEs, then the modified PMSI attribute as defined in section 5.2 should be used. 4 Operation for PBB-EVPN In PBB-EVPN, the PE advertises a Root/Leaf indication along with each B-MAC Advertisement route, to indicate whether the associated B-MAC address corresponds to a Root or a Leaf site. Just like the EVPN case, the new E-TREE Extended Community defined in section [5.1] is advertised with each MAC Advertisement route. In the case where a multi-homed Ethernet Segment has both Root and Leaf sites attached, two B-MAC addresses are advertised: one B-MAC address is per ES as specified in [RFC7623] and implicitly denoting Root, and the other B-MAC address is per PE and explicitly denoting Leaf. The former B-MAC address is not advertised with the E-TREE extended community but the latter B-MAC denoting Leaf is advertised with the new E-TREE extended community where "Leaf-indication" flag is set. In such multi-homing scenarios where an Ethernet Segment has both Root and Leaf ACs, it is assumed that While different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have different root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being leafs), the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all PEs on the same ES. Furthermore, it is assumed that there is no forwarding among subnets - ie, the service is L2 and not IRB. IRB use case is outside the scope of this document. The ingress PE uses the right B-MAC source address depending on whether the Ethernet frame originated from the Root or Leaf AC on that Ethernet Segment. The mechanism by which the PE identifies whether a given frame originated from a Root or Leaf site on the segment is based on the Ethernet Tag associated with the frame. Other mechanisms of identification, beyond the Ethernet Tag, are outside the scope of this document. Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 Furthermore, a PE advertises two special global B-MAC addresses: one for Root and another for Leaf, and tags the Leaf one as such in the MAC Advertisement route. These B-MAC addresses are used as source addresses for traffic originating from single-homed segments. The B- MAC address used for indicating Leaf sites can be the same for both single-homed and multi-homed segments. 4.1 Known Unicast Traffic For known unicast traffic, the PEs perform ingress filtering: On the ingress PE, the C-MAC destination address lookup yields, in addition to the target B-MAC address and forwarding adjacency, a flag which indicates whether the target B-MAC is associated with a Root or a Leaf site. The ingress PE cross-checks this flag with the status of the originating site, and if both are a Leaf, then the packet is not forwarded. 4.2 BUM Traffic For BUM traffic, the PEs must perform egress filtering. When a PE receives a MAC advertisement route (which will be used as a source B- MAC for BUM traffic), it updates its egress filtering (based on the source B-MAC address), as follows: - If the MAC Advertisement route indicates that the advertised B-MAC is a Leaf, and the local Ethernet Segment is a Leaf as well, then the source B-MAC address is added to its B-MAC list used for egress filtering - i.e., to block traffic from that B-MAC address. - Otherwise, the B-MAC filtering list is not updated. When the egress PE receives the packet, it examines the B-MAC source address to check whether it should filter or forward the frame. Note that this uses the same filtering logic as baseline [RFC7623] and does not require any additional flags in the data-plane. Just as in section 3.2, the PE places all Leaf Ethernet Segments of a given bridge domain in a single split-horizon group in order to prevent intra-PE forwarding among Leaf segments. This split-horizon function applies to BUM traffic as well as known-unicast traffic. 4.3 E-Tree without MAC Learning In scenarios where the traffic of interest is only Multicast and/or broadcast, the PEs implementing an E-Tree service do not need to do any MAC learning. In such scenarios the filtering must be performed on egress PEs. For PBB-EVPN, the handling of such traffic is per Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 section 4.2 without C-MAC learning part of it at both ingress and egress PEs. 5 BGP Encoding This document defines a new BGP Extended Community for EVPN. 5.1 E-Tree Extended Community This Extended Community is a new transitive Extended Community [RFC4360] having a Type field value of 0x06 (EVPN) and the Sub-Type 0x05. It is used for leaf indication of known unicast and BUM traffic. The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x05 | Flags(1 Octet)| Reserved=0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved=0 | Leaf Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: E-TREE Extended Community The Flags field has the following format: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | reserved |L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This document defines the following flags: + Leaf-Indication (L) A value of one indicates a Leaf AC/Site. The rest of flag bits are reserved and should be set to zero. When this Extended Community (EC) is advertised along with MAC/IP Advertisement route (for known unicast traffic) per section 3.1, the Leaf-Indication flag MUST be set to one and Leaf Label SHOULD be set to zero. The label value is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of the Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 Leaf Label field. The received PE SHOULD ignore Leaf Label and only processes Leaf-Indication flag. A value of zero for Leaf-Indication flag is invalid when sent along with MAC/IP advertisement route and an error should be logged. When this EC is advertised along with Ethernet A-D per ES route (with ESI of zero) for BUM traffic to enable egress filtering on disposition PEs per sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3, the Leaf Label MUST be set to a valid MPLS label (i.e., non-reserved assigned MPLS label [RFC3032]) and the Leaf-Indication flag SHOULD be set to zero. The received PE SHOULD ignore the Leaf-Indication flag. A non-valid MPLS label when sent along with the Ethernet A-D per ES route, should be ignored and logged as an error. The reserved bits should be set to zero by the transmitter and should be ignored by the receiver. 5.2 PMSI Tunnel Attribute [RFC6514] defines PMSI Tunnel attribute which is an optional transitive attribute with the following format: +---------------------------------+ | Flags (1 octet) | +---------------------------------+ | Tunnel Type (1 octets) | +---------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (3 octets) | +---------------------------------+ | Tunnel Identifier (variable) | +---------------------------------+ Figure 5: PMSI Tunnel Attribute This document defines a new Composite tunnel type by introducing a new 'Composite Tunnel' bit in the Tunnel Type field and adding a MPLS label to the Tunnel Identifier field of PMSI Tunnel attribute as detailed below. This document uses all other remaining fields per existing definition. Composite tunnel type is advertised by the root PE to simultaneously indicate a non-ingress replication tunnel (e.g., P2MP tunnel) in transmit direction and an ingress-replication tunnel in the receive direction for the BUM traffic. When receiver ingress-replication label is needed, the high-order bit of the tunnel type field (Composite Tunnel bit) is set while the remaining low-order seven bits indicate the tunnel type as before. Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 When this Composite Tunnel bit is set, the "tunnel identifier" field would begin with a three-octet label, followed by the actual tunnel identifier for the transmit tunnel. PEs that don't understand the new meaning of the high-order bit would treat the tunnel type as an undefined tunnel type and would treat the PMSI tunnel attribute as a malformed attribute [RFC6514]. For the PEs that do understand the new meaning of the high-order, if ingress replication is desired when sending BUM traffic, the PE will use the the label in the Tunnel Identifier field when sending its BUM traffic. Using the Composite Tunnel bit for Tunnel Types 0x00 'no tunnel information present' and 0x06 'Ingress Replication' is invalid, and a PE that receives a PMSI Tunnel attribute with such information, considers it as malformed and it SHOULD treat this Update as though all the routes contained in this Update had been withdrawn per section 5 of [RFC6514]. 6 Acknowledgement We would like to thank Dennis Cai, Antoni Przygienda, and Jeffrey Zhang for their valuable comments. The authors would also like to thank Thomas Morin for shepherding this document and providing valuable comments. 7 Security Considerations Since this document uses the EVPN constructs of [RFC7432] and [RFC7623], the same security considerations in these documents are also applicable here. Furthermore, this document provides additional security check by allowing sites (or ACs) of an EVPN instance to be designated as "Root" or "Leaf" and preventing any traffic exchange among "Leaf" sites of that VPN through ingress filtering for known unicast traffic and egress filtering for BUM traffic. 8 IANA Considerations IANA has allocated value 5 in the "EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types" registry defined in [RFC7153] as follow: SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference 0x05 E-TREE Extended Community This document This document creates a one-octet registry called "E-Tree Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC Required" procedure Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 defined in [RFC5226]. Initial registrations are as follows: bit Name Reference 0-6 Reserved This document 7 Leaf-Indication This document 8.1 Considerations for PMSI Tunnel Types The "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry needs to be updated to reflect the use of the most significant bit as "Composite Tunnel" bit (section 5.2). For this purpose, this document updates [RFC7385]. The registry is to be updated, by removing the entries for 0xFB-0xFE and 0x0F, and replacing them by: Value Meaning Reference 0x0B-0x7A Unassigned 0x7B-0x7E Reserved for Experimental Use this document 0x7F Reserved this document 0x80-0xFF Reserved for Composite Tunnels this document The allocation policy for values 0x00 to 0x7A is IETF Review [RFC5226]. The range for experimental use is now 0x7B-0x7E, and value in this range are not to be assigned. The status of 0x7F may only be changed through Standards Action [RFC5226]. 9 References 9.1 Normative References [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5226] T. Narten et al, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", May, 2008. [RFC7387] Key et al., "A Framework for E-Tree Service over MPLS Network", October 2014. [MEF6.1] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 17] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 2", MEF 6.1, April 2008. [RFC7432] Sajassi et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", February, 2015. [RFC7623] Sajassi et al., "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", September, 2015. [RFC7385] Andersson et al., "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points", October, 2014. [RFC7153] Rosen et al., "IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities", March, 2014. [RFC6514] Aggarwal et al., "BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", February, 2012. [RFC4360] Sangli et al., "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", February, 2006. 9.2 Informative References [RFC4360] S. Sangli et al, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", February, 2006. [RFC3032] E. Rosen et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", January 2001. [RFC7796] Y. Jiang et al, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)", March 2016. [EVPN-IRB] A. Sajassi et al, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-03, February 8, 2017. Appendix-A When two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables per VLANs) are used for an E- TREE service (one for root ACs and another for Leaf ACs) on a given PE, then the following complications in data-plane path can result. Maintaining two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables) per VLAN (when both Leaf and Root ACs exists for that VLAN) would either require two lookups be performed per MAC address in each direction in case of a miss, or duplicating many MAC addresses between the two bridge tables belonging to the same VLAN (same E-TREE instance). Unless two lookups are made, duplication of MAC addresses would be needed for both locally learned and remotely learned MAC addresses. Locally learned Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 18] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 MAC addresses from Leaf ACs need to be duplicated onto Root bridge table and locally learned MAC addresses from Root ACs need to be duplicated onto Leaf bridge table. Remotely learned MAC addresses from Root ACs need to be copied onto both Root and Leaf bridge tables. Because of potential inefficiencies associated with data- plane implementation of additional MAC lookup or duplication of MAC entries, this option is not believed to be implementable without dataplane performance inefficiencies in some platforms and thus this document introduces the coloring as described in section 2.2 and detailed in section 3.1. Contributors In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following co-authors have also contributed to this document: Wim Henderickx Nokia Aldrin Isaac Wen Lin Juniper Authors' Addresses Ali Sajassi Cisco Email: sajassi@cisco.com Samer Salam Cisco Email: ssalam@cisco.com John Drake Juniper Email: jdrake@juniper.net Jim Uttaro AT&T Email: ju1738@att.com Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 19] INTERNET DRAFT E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN June 22, 2017 Sami Boutros VMware Email: sboutros@vmware.com Jorge Rabadan Nokia Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com Sajassi et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 20]