Internet DRAFT - draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source

draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source







BESS Workgroup                                           J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               J. Kotalwar
Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sathappan
Expires: May 6, 2021                                               Nokia
                                                                Z. Zhang
                                                                  W. Lin
                                                                 Juniper
                                                                E. Rosen
                                                              Individual
                                                        November 2, 2020


              Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks
             draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-02

Abstract

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

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2021.



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Background on IP Multicast Delivery in EVPN Networks  . .   6
       1.2.1.  Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding  . . . . . . . .   6
       1.2.2.  Inter-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding  . . . . . . . .   7
     1.3.  Multi-Homed IP Multicast Sources in EVPN  . . . . . . . .   8
     1.4.  The Need for Redundant IP Multicast Sources in EVPN . . .  10
   2.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  BGP EVPN Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Warm Standby (WS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources  . . . . .  13
     4.1.  WS Example in an OISM Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  WS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network  . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Hot Standby (HS) Solution for Redundant G-Sources . . . . . .  18
     5.1.  Use of BFD in the HS Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.2.  HS Example in an OISM Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.3.  HS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network  . . . . . . . .  26
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix B.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

1.  Introduction

   Intra and Inter-subnet IP Multicast forwarding are supported in EVPN
   networks.  [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] describes the
   procedures required to optimize the delivery of IP Multicast flows
   when Sources and Receivers are connected to the same EVPN BD



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   (Broadcast Domain), whereas [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] specifies
   the procedures to support Inter-subnet IP Multicast in a tenant
   network.  Inter-subnet IP Multicast means that IP Multicast Source
   and Receivers of the same multicast flow are connected to different
   BDs of the same tenant.

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

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

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

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



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   downstream PEs, and the downstream PEs make sure only one flow is
   forwarded to the interested attached receivers.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   o  PIM: Protocol Independent Multicast.

   o  MVPN: Multicast Virtual Private Networks.

   o  OISM: Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast, as in
      [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast].

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

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

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

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

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

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

   o  SFG: Single Flow Group, i.e., a multicast group address G which
      represents traffic that contains only a single flow.  However,



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


      multiple sources - with the same or different IP - may be
      transmitting an SFG.

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

   o  P-tunnel: Provider tunnel refers to the type of tree a given
      upstream EVPN PE uses to forward multicast traffic to downstream
      PEs.  Examples of P-tunnels supported in this document are Ingress
      Replication (IR), Assisted Replication (AR), Bit Indexed Explicit
      Replication (BIER), multicast Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP)
      or Point to Multi-Point Resource Reservation protocol with Traffic
      Engineering extensions (P2MP RSVP-TE).

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

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

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

      *  EVPN S-PMSIs that don't require the advertisement of S-PMSI AD
         routes.  They use the forwarding information of the IMET
         routes, but upstream PEs send IP Multicast flows only to
         downstream PEs issuing Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET)
         routes for the flow.  These S-PMSIs are only supported with the
         following P-tunnels: Ingress Replication (IR), Assisted
         Replication (AR) and BIER.

   This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
   [RFC7432], [RFC4364], [RFC6513], [RFC6514],
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast],
   [EVPN-RT5] and [EVPN-BUM].



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


1.2.  Background on IP Multicast Delivery in EVPN Networks

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

1.2.1.  Intra-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding

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

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

                    Figure 1: Intra-subnet IP Multicast

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



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   is created and, for instance, PE4 can avoid sending (S1,G1) to R3,
   since R3 is not interested in (S1,G1).

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

   Procedures for Model (b) are specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy].

1.2.2.  Inter-subnet IP Multicast Forwarding

   If the source and receivers are attached to different BDs of the same
   tenant domain, the EVPN network can also use Inclusive or Selective
   Trees as depicted in Figure 2, models (a) and (b) respectively.

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

                    Figure 2: Inter-subnet IP Multicast



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] supports Inclusive or Selective
   Multicast Trees, and as explained in Section 1.2.1, the Selective
   Multicast Trees are setup in a different way, depending on the
   P-tunnel being used by the source BD.  As an example, model (a) in
   Figure 2 illustrates the use of an Inclusive Multicast Tree for BD1
   on PE1.  Since the downstream PEs are not attached to BD1, they will
   all receive (S1,G1) in the context of the SBD and will locally route
   the flow to the local ACs.  Model (b) uses a similar forwarding
   model, however PE1 sends the (S1,G1) flow in a Selective Multicast
   Tree.  If the P-tunnel is IR, AR or BIER, PE1 does not need to
   advertise an S-PMSI A-D route.

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

1.3.  Multi-Homed IP Multicast Sources in EVPN

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









Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

                Figure 3: All-active Multi-homing and OISM

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



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   to PE3's SBD and PE3 will forward to R2 and R3, as per
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] procedures.

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

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

1.4.  The Need for Redundant IP Multicast Sources in EVPN

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

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

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

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

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

2.  Solution Overview

   An SFG is represented as (*,G) if any source that issues multicast
   traffic to G is a redundant G-source.  Alternatively, this document
   allows an SFG to be represented as (S,G), where S is a prefix of any
   length.  In this case, a source is considered a redundant G-source
   for the SFG if it is contained in the prefix.  This document allows
   variable length prefixes in the Sources advertised in S-PMSI A-D
   routes only for the particular application of redundant G-sources.





Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

   o  Warm Standby (WS) Solution

   o  Hot Standby (HS) Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   o  Note that the ESI-label is used here for "ingress filtering" (at
      the egress/downstream PE) as opposed to the [RFC7432] "egress
      filtering" (at the egress/downstream PE) used in the split-horizon



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


      procedures.  In [RFC7432] the ESI-label indicates what egress ACs
      must be skipped when forwarding BUM traffic to the egress.  In
      this document, the ESI-label indicates what ingress traffic must
      be discarded at the downstream PE.

   The use of ESI-labels for SFGs forwarded by upstream PEs require some
   control plane and data plane extensions in the procedures used by
   [RFC7432] for multi-homing.  Upon failure of the selected G-source,
   the downstream PE will switch over to a different selected G-source,
   and will therefore change the RPF check for the (*,G) state.  The
   extensions and associated procedures are described in Section 3 and
   Section 5 respectively.

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

   This document does not impose the support of both solutions on a
   system.  If one solution is supported, the support of the other
   solution is OPTIONAL.

3.  BGP EVPN Extensions

   This document makes use of the following BGP EVPN extensions:

   1.  SFG flag in the Multicast Flags Extended Community

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

   2.  ESI Label Extended Community is used in S-PMSI A-D routes

       The HS solution requires the advertisement of one or more ESI
       Label Extended Communities [RFC7432] that encode the Ethernet
       Segment Identifier(s) associated to an S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G)
       route that advertises the presence of an SFG.  Only the ESI Label
       value in the extended community is relevant to the procedures in
       this document.  The Flags field in the extended community will be
       advertised as 0x00 and ignored on reception.  [RFC7432] specifies
       that the ESI Label Extended Community is advertised along with
       the A-D per ES route.  This documents extends the use of this



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


       extended community so that it can be advertised multiple times
       (with different ESI values) along with the S-PMSI A-D route.

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

   The general procedure is described as follows:

   1.  Configuration of the upstream PEs

       Upstream PEs (possibly attached to redundant G-sources) need to
       be configured to know which groups are carrying only flows from
       redundant G-sources, that is, the SFGs in the tenant domain.
       They will also be configured to know which local BDs may be
       attached to a redundant G-source.  The SFGs can be configured for
       any source, E.g., SFG for "*", or for a prefix that contains
       multiple sources that will issue the same SFG, i.e.,
       "10.0.0.0/30".  In the latter case sources 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2
       are considered as Redundant G-sources, whereas 10.0.0.10 is not
       considered a redundant G-source for the same SFG.

       As an example:

       *  PE1 is configured to know that G1 is an SFG for any source and
          redundant G-sources for G1 may be attached to BD1 or BD2.

       *  Or PE1 can also be configured to know that G1 is an SFG for
          the sources contained in 10.0.0.0/30, and those redundant
          G-sources may be attached to BD1 or BD2.

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

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

       *  Originates an S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G) route for the SFG.  An
          (*,G) route is advertised if the SFG is configured for any
          source, and an (S,G) route is advertised (where the Source can
          have any length) if the SFG is configured for a prefix.

       *  The S-PMSI A-D route is imported by all the PEs attached to
          the tenant domain.  In order to do that, the route will use
          the SBD-RT (Supplementary Broadcast Domain Route-Target) in
          addition to the BD-RT of the BD over which the G-traffic is
          received.  The route SHOULD also carry a DF Election Extended
          Community (EC) and a flag indicating that it conveys an SFG.
          The DF Election EC and its use is specified in [RFC8584].





Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


       *  The above S-PMSI A-D route MAY be advertised with or without
          PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA):

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

          +  With PTA in any other case.

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

   3.  Single Forwarder (SF) Election

       If the PE with a local G-source receives one or more S-PMSI A-D
       routes for the same SFG from a remote PE, it will run a Single
       Forwarder (SF) Election based on the information encoded in the
       DF Election EC.  Two S-PMSI A-D routes are considered for the
       same SFG if they are advertised for the same tenant, and their
       Multicast Source Length, Multicast Source, Multicast Group Length
       and Multicast Group fields match.

       1.  A given DF Alg can only be used if all the PEs running the DF
           Alg have consistent input.  For example, in an OISM network,
           if the redundant G-sources for an SFG are attached to BDs
           with different Ethernet Tags, the Default DF Election Alg
           MUST NOT be used.

       2.  In case the there is a mismatch in the DF Election Alg or
           capabilities advertised by two PEs competing for the SF, the
           lowest PE IP address (given by the Originator Address in the
           S- PMSI A-D route) will be used as a tie-breaker.

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

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

       1.  The non-SF PEs discard any (*,G)/(S,G) packets for the SFG
           received over a local AC.

       2.  The SF accepts any (*,G)/(S,G) packets for the SFG it
           receives over one (and only one) local AC.




Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

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

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

4.1.  WS Example in an OISM Network

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


































Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

               Figure 4: WS Solution for Redundant G-Sources

   The WS solution works as follows:

   1.  Configuration of the upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2

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

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

       Upon receiving (S1,G1) traffic on a local AC, PE1 and PE2
       originate S-PMSI A-D (*,G1) routes with the SBD-RT, DF Election




Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


       Extended Community (EC) and a flag indicating that it conveys an
       SFG.

   3.  Single Forwarder (SF) Election

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.  WS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network

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






















Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

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

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

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

   If fast-failover is required upon the failure of a G-source or PE
   attached to the G-source and the extra bandwidth consumption in the
   tenant network is not an issue, the HS solution should be used.  The
   procedure is as follows:

   1.  Configuration of the PEs



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


       As in the WS case, the upstream PEs where redundant G-sources may
       exist need to be configured to know which groups (for any source
       or a prefix containing the intended sources) are carrying only
       flows from redundant G-sources, that is, the SFGs in the tenant
       domain.

       In addition (and this is not done in WS mode), the individual
       redundant G-sources for an SFG need to be associated with an
       Ethernet Segment (ES) on the upstream PEs.  This is irrespective
       of the redundant G-source being multi-homed or single-homed.
       Even for single-homed redundant G-sources the HS procedure relies
       on the ESI labels for the RPF check on downstream PEs.  The term
       "S-ESI" is used in this document to refer to an ESI associated to
       a redundant G-source.

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

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

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

       A.  Advertises an S-PMSI A-D (*,G)/(S,G) route per each
           configured SFG.  These routes need to be imported by all the
           PEs of the tenant domain, therefore they will carry the BD-RT
           and SBD-RT (if the SBD exists).  The route also carries the
           ESI Label Extended Communities needed to convey all the
           S-ESIs associated to the SFG in the PE.

       B.  The S-PMSI A-D route will convey a PTA in the same cases as
           in the WS procedure.

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





Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

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

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

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

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

   4.  Processing of A-D per ES/EVI routes and RPF check on the
       downstream PEs

       The A-D per ES/EVI routes are received and imported in all the
       PEs in the tenant domain.  The processing of the A-D per ES/EVI
       routes on a given PE depends on its configuration:

       A.  The PEs attached to the same BD of the BD-RT that is included
           in the A-D per ES/EVI routes will process the routes as in
           [RFC7432] and [RFC8584].  If the receiving PE is attached to
           the same ES as indicated in the route, [RFC7432] split-
           horizon procedures will be followed and the DF Election
           candidate list may be modified as in [RFC8584] if the ES
           supports the AC-DF capability.

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





Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


       C.  Upon importing A-D per ES routes corresponding to different
           S-ESes, a PE MUST select a primary S-ES and add an RPF check
           to the (*,G)/(S,G) state in the BD or SBD.  This RPF check
           will discard all ingress packets to (*,G)/(S,G) that are not
           received with the ESI-label of the primary S-ES.  The
           selection of the primary S-ES is a matter of local policy.

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

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

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

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

5.1.  Use of BFD in the HS Solution

   In addition to using the state of the A-D per EVI, A-D per ES or
   S-PMSI A-D routes to modify the RPF check on (*,G)/(S,G) as discussed
   in Section 5, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol MAY
   be used to find the status of the multipoint tunnels used to forward
   the SFG from the redundant G-sources.




Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   The BGP-BFD Attribute is advertised along with the S-PMSI A-D or IMET
   routes (depending on whether I-PMSI or S-PMSI trees are used) and the
   procedures described in [EVPN-BFD] are used to bootstrap multipoint
   BFD sessions on the downstream PEs.

5.2.  HS Example in an OISM Network

   Figure 6 illustrates the HS model in an OISM network.  Consider S1
   and S2 are redundant G-sources for the SFG (*,G1) in BD1 (any source
   using G1 is assumed to transmit an SFG).  S1 and S2 are (all-active)
   multi-homed to upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2.  The receivers are attached
   to downstream PEs, PE3 and PE5, in BD3 and BD1, respectively.  S1 and
   S2 are assumed to be connected by a LAG to the multi-homing PEs, and
   the multicast traffic can use the link to either upstream PE.  The
   diagram illustrates how S1 sends the G-traffic to PE1 and PE1
   forwards to the remote interested downstream PEs, whereas S2 sends to
   PE2 and PE2 forwards further.  In this HS model, the interested
   downstream PEs will get duplicate G-traffic from the two G-sources
   for the same SFG.  While the diagram shows that the two flows are
   forwarded by different upstream PEs, the all-active multi-homing
   procedures may cause that the two flows come from the same upstream
   PE.  Therefore, finding out the upstream PE for the flow is not
   enough for the downstream PEs to program the required RPF check to
   avoid duplicate packets on the receiver.



























Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

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

   In this scenario, the HS solution works as follows:

   1.  Configuration of the upstream PEs, PE1 and PE2

       PE1 and PE2 are configured to know that G1 is an SFG for any
       source (a source prefix length could have been configured
       instead) and the redundant G-sources for G1 use S-ESIs ESI-1 and
       ESI-2 respectively.  Both ESes are configured in both PEs and the
       ESI value can be configured or auto-derived.  The ESI-label
       values are allocated from a DCB
       [I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label] and are configured




Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


       either locally or by a centralized controller.  We assume ESI-1
       is configured to use ESI-label-1 and ESI-2 to use ESI-label-2.

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

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

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

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

   3.  Processing of A-D per ES/EVI routes and RPF check

       PE1 and PE2 received each other's ES and A-D per ES/EVI routes.
       Regular [RFC7432] [RFC8584] procedures will be followed for DF
       Election and programming of the ESI-labels for egress split-
       horizon filtering.  PE3/PE4 import the A-D per ES/EVI routes in
       the SBD.  Since PE3 has created a (*,G1) state based on local
       interest, PE3 will add an RPF check to (*,G1) so that packets
       coming with ESI-label-2 are discarded (lowest ESI value is
       assumed to give the primary S-ES).

   4.  G-traffic forwarding and fault detection

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

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



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


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

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

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

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




Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


5.3.  HS Example in a Single-BD Tenant Network

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

6.  Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] are valid for this document.

   From a security perspective, out of the two methods described in this
   document, the WS method is considered lighter in terms of control
   plane and therefore its impact is low on the processing capabilities
   of the PEs.  The HS method adds more burden on the control plane of
   all the PEs of the tenant with sources and receivers.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a Bit in the Multicast Flags Extended
   Community to indicate that a given (*,G) or (S,G) in an S-PMSI A-D
   route is associated with an SFG.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

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

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

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
              Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Drake, J., and W. Lin,
              "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-
              mld-proxy-05 (work in progress), April 2020.





Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast]
              Lin, W., Zhang, Z., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Rabadan, J., and
              A. Sajassi, "EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM)
              Forwarding", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-05 (work in
              progress), October 2020.

   [RFC8584]  Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake,
              J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet
              VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility",
              RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label]
              Zhang, Z., Rosen, E., Lin, W., Li, Z., and I. Wijnands,
              "MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels", draft-
              zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01 (work in
              progress), April 2018.

8.2.  Informative References

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

   [EVPN-BUM]
              Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., and K. Patel, "Updates on
              EVPN BUM Procedures", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-bum-
              procedure-updates-06, June 2019.

   [DF-PREF]  Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Przygienda, T., Lin, W.,
              Drake, J., Sajassi, A., and S. Mohanty, "Preference-based
              EVPN DF Election", internet-draft ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-
              04.txt, June 2019.

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



Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   [EVPN-BFD]
              Govindan, V., Mallik, M., Sajassi, A., and G. Mirsky,
              "Fault Management for EVPN networks", internet-draft ietf-
              bess-evpn-bfd-01.txt, October 2020.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Mankamana Mishra and Ali Sajassi for
   their review and valuable comments.

Appendix B.  Contributors

Authors' Addresses

   Jorge Rabadan (editor)
   Nokia
   777 Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com


   Jayant Kotalwar
   Nokia
   701 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043 USA

   Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com


   Senthil Sathappan
   Nokia
   701 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043 USA

   Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com


   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks

   Email: zzhang@juniper.net








Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           EVPN Redundant Sources            November 2020


   Wen Lin
   Juniper Networks

   Email: wlin@juniper.net


   Eric C. Rosen
   Individual

   Email: erosen52@gmail.com









































Rabadan, et al.            Expires May 6, 2021                 [Page 29]