Internet DRAFT - draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election
BESS WorkGroup Ali. Sajassi
Internet-Draft Mankamana. Mishra
Intended status: Standards Track Samir. Thoria
Expires: December 30, 2018 Cisco Systems
Jorge. Rabadan
Nokia
John. Drake
Juniper Networks
June 28, 2018
Per multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election for EVPN
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-01
Abstract
[RFC7432] describes mechanism to elect designated forwarder (DF) at
the granularity of (ESI, EVI) which is per VLAN (or per group of
VLANs in case of VLAN bundle or VLAN-aware bundle service). However,
the current level of granularity of per-VLAN is not adequate for some
applications.[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] improves base
line DF election by introducing HRW DF election.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] introduces applicability of EVPN
to Multicast flows, routes to sync them and a default DF election.
This document is an extension to HRW base draft
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] and further enhances HRW
algorithm for the Multicast flows to do DF election at the
granularity of (ESI, VLAN, Mcast flow).
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 December 30, 2018.
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The DF Election Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. HRW base per multicast flow EVPN DF election . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. DF election for IGMP (S,G) membership request . . . . . . 6
4.2. DF election for IGMP (*,G) membership request . . . . . . 7
4.3. Default DF election procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Procedure to use per multicast flow DF election algorithm . . 8
6. Triggers for DF re-election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
EVPN based All-Active multi-homing is becoming the basic building
block for providing redundancy in next generation data center
deployments as well as service provider access/aggregation networks.
[RFC7432] defines the role of a designated forwarder as the node in
the redundancy group that is responsible to forward Broadcast,
Unknown unicast, Multicast (BUM) traffic on that Ethernet Segment (CE
device or network) in All-Active multi-homing.
The default DF election mechanism allows selecting a DF at the
granularity of (ES, VLAN) or (ES, VLAN bundle) for BUM traffic.
While [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] improve on the
default DF election procedure, some service provider residential
applications require a finer granularity, where whole multicast flows
are delivered on a single VLAN.
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
(Multicast sources)
|
|
+---+
|CE4|
+---+
|
|
+-----+-----+
+------------| PE-1 |------------+
| | | |
| +-----------+ |
| |
| EVPN |
| |
| |
| (DF) (NDF)|
+-----------+ +-----------+
| |EVI-1| | | |EVI-1| |
| PE-2 |------------------------| PE-3 |
+-----------+ +-----------+
AC1 \ / AC2
\ /
\ ESI-1 /
\ /
\ /
+---------------+
| CE2 |
+---------------+
|
|
(Multiple receivers)
Figure 1: Multi-homing Network of EVPN
for IPTV deployments
Consider the above topology, which shows a typical residential
deployment scenario, where multiple receivers are behind an all-
active multihoming segments. All of the multicast traffic is
provisioned on EVI-1. Assume PE-2 get elected as DF. According to
[RFC7432], PE-2 will be responsible for forwarding multicast traffic
to that Ethernet segment.
o Forcing sole data plane forwarding responsibility on PE-2 is a
limitation in the current DF election mechanism. The topology at
Figure 1 would always have only one of the PE to be elected as DF
irrespective of which current DF election mechanism is in use
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
defined in [RFC7432] or
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework].
o The problem may also manifest itself in a different way. For
example, AC1 happens to use 80% of its available bandwidth to
forward unicast data. And now there is need to serve multicast
receivers where it would require more than 20% of AC1 bandwidth.
In this case, AC1 becomes oversubscribed and multicast traffic
drop would be observed even though there is already another link
(AC2) present in network which can be used more efficiently load
balance the multicast traffic.
In this document, we propose an extension to the HRW base draft to
allow DF election at the granularity of (ESI, VLAN, Mcast flow) which
would allow multicast flows to be better distributed among redundancy
group PEs to share the load.
2. 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 [RFC2119] .
With respect to EVPN, this document follows the terminology that has
been defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC4601] for multicast terminology.
3. The DF Election Extended Community
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] defines an extended
community, which would be used for PEs in redundancy group to reach a
consensus as to which DF election procedure is desired. A PE can
notify other participating PEs in redundancy group about its
willingness to support Per multicast flow base DF election capability
by signaling a DF election extended community along with Ethernet-
Segment Route (Type-4). The current proposal extends the existing
extended community defined in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework]. This draft defines new a
DF type.
o DF type (1 octet) - Encodes the DF Election algorithm values
(between 0 and 255) that the advertising PE desires to use for the
ES.
* Type 0: Default DF Election algorithm, or modulus-based
algorithms in [RFC7432].
* Type 1: HRW algorithm defined in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework]
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
* Type 2: Handshake defines in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery]
* Type 3: Time-Synch defined in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery]
* Type 4: HRW base per (S,G) multicast flow DF election
(explained in this document)
* Type 5: HRW base per (*,G) multicast flow DF election
(explained in this document)
* Type 6 - 254: Unassigned
* Type 255: Reserved for Experimental Use.
o The [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] describes encoding
of capabilities associated to the DF election algorithm using
Bitmap field. When these capabilities bits are set along with the
DF type-4 and type-5, they need to be interpreted in context of
this new DF type-4 and type-5. For example, consider a scenario
where all PEs in the same redundancy group (same ES) can support
both AC-DF, DF type-4 and DF type-5 and receive such indications
from the other PEs in the ES. In this scenario, if a VLAN is not
active in a PE, then the DF election procedure on all PEs in the
ES should factor that in and exclude that PE in the DF election
per multicast flow.
o A PE SHOULD attach the DF election Extended Community to ES route
and Extended Community MUST be sent if the ES is locally
configured for DF type Per Multicast flow DF election. Only one
DF Election Extended community can be sent along with an ES route.
o When a PE receives the ES Routes from all the other PEs for the
ES, it checks if all of other PEs have advertised their desire to
proceed by Per multicast flow DF election. If all peering PEs
have done so, it performs DF election based on Per multicast flow
procedure. But if:
* There is at least one PE which advertised route-4 ( AD per ES
Route) which does not indicate its capability to perform Per
multicast flow DF election. OR
* There is at least one PE signaling single active in the AD per
ES route
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
it MUST be considered as an indication to support of only Default
DF election [RFC7432] and DF election procedure in [RFC7432] MUST
be used.
4. HRW base per multicast flow EVPN DF election
This document is an extension of
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework], so this draft does not
repeat the description of HRW algorithm itself.
EVPN PE does the discovery of redundancy groups based on [RFC7432].
If redundancy group consists of N peering EVPN PE nodes, after the
discovery all PEs build an unordered list of IP address of all the
nodes in the redundancy group. The procedure defined in this draft
does not require the list of PEs to be ordered. Address [i] denotes
the IP address of the [i]th EVPN PE in redundancy group where (0 < i
<= N ).
4.1. DF election for IGMP (S,G) membership request
The DF is the PE who has maximum weight for (S, G, V, Es) where
o S - Multicast Source
o G - Multicast Group
o V - VLAN ID.
o Es - Ethernet Segment Identifier
Address[i] is address of the ith PE. The PEs IP address length does
not matter as only the lower-order 31 bits are modulo significant.
1. Weight
* The weight of PE(i) to (S,G,VLAN ID, Es) is calculated by
function, weight (S,G,V, Es, Address(i)), where (0 < i <= N),
PE(i) is the PE at ordinal i.
* Weight (S,G,V, Es, Address(i)) = (1103515245.
((1103515245.Address(i) + 12345) XOR D(S,G,V,ESI))+12345) (mod
2^31)
* In case of tie, the PE whose IP address is numerically least
is chosen.
2. Digest
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
* D(S,G,V, Es) = CRC_32(S,G,V, Es)
* Here D(S,G,V,Es) is the 31-bit digest (CRC_32 and discarding
the MSB) of the Source IP, Group IP, Vlan ID and Es. The CRC
MUST proceed as if the architecture is in network byte order
(big-endian).
4.2. DF election for IGMP (*,G) membership request
The DF is the PE who has maximum weight for (G, V, Es) where
o G - Multicast Group
o V - VLAN ID.
o Es - Ethernet Segment Identifier
Address[i] is address of the ith PE. The PEs IP address length does
not matter as only the lower-order 31 bits are modulo significant.
1. Weight
* The weight of PE(i) to (G,VLAN ID, Es) is calculated by
function, weight (G,V, Es, Address(i)), where (0 < i <= N),
PE(i) is the PE at ordinal i.
* Weight (G,V, Es, Address(i)) = (1103515245.
((1103515245.Address(i) + 12345) XOR D(G,V,ESI))+12345) (mod
2^31)
* In case of tie, the PE whose IP address is numerically least
is chosen.
2. Digest
* D(G,V, Es) = CRC_32(G,V, Es)
* Here D(G,V,Es) is the 31-bit digest (CRC_32 and discarding the
MSB) of the Group IP, Vlan ID and Es. The CRC MUST proceed as
if the architecture is in network byte order (big-endian).
4.3. Default DF election procedure
Per multicast DF election procedure would be applicable only when
host behind Attachment Circuit (of the Es) start sending IGMP
membership requests. Membership requests are synced using procedure
defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], and each of the PE in
redundancy group can use per flow DF election and create DF state per
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
multicast flow. The HRW DF election "Type 1" procedure defined in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] MUST be used for the Es DF
election and SHOULD be performed on Es even before learning multicast
membership request state. This default election procedure MUST be
used at port level but will be overwritten by Per flow DF election as
and when new membership request state are learnt.
5. Procedure to use per multicast flow DF election algorithm
Multicast Source
|
|
|
|
+---------+
+--------------+ PE-4 +--------------+
| | | |
| +---------+ |
| |
| EVPN CORE |
| |
| |
| |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| PE-1 +--------+ PE-2 +---------+ PE-3 |
| EVI-1 | | EVI-1 | | EVI-1 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|__________________|___________________|
AC-1 ESI-1 | AC-2 AC-3
+---------+
| CE-1 |
| |
+---------+
|
|
|
|
Multicast Receivers
Figure-2 : Multihomed network
Figure-2 shows multihomed network. Where EVPN PE-1, PE-2, PE-3 are
multihomed to CE-1. Multiple multicast receivers are behind all
active multihoming segment.
1. PEs connected to the same Ethernet segment can automatically
discover each other through exchange of the Ethernet Segment
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
Route. This draft does not change any of this procedure, it
still uses the procedure defined in [RFC7432].
2. Each of the PEs in redundancy group advertise Ethernet segment
route with extended community indicating their ability to
participate in per multicast flow DF election procedure. Since
Per multicast flow would not be applicable unless PE learns about
membership request from receiver, there is a need to have the
default DF election among PEs in redundancy group for BUM
traffic. Until multicast membership state are learnt, we use the
the DF election procedure in Section 4.3, namely HRW per (v,Es)
as defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] .
3. When a receiver starts sending membership requests for (s1,g1),
where s1 is multicast source address and g1 is multicast group
address, CE-1 could hash membership request (IGMP join) to any of
the PEs in redundancy group. Let's consider it is hashed to PE-
2. [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] defines a procedure to
sync IGMP join state among redundancy group of PEs. Now each of
the PE would have information about membership request (s1,g1)
and each of them run DF election procedure Section 4.1 to elect
DF among participating PEs in redundancy group. Consider PE-2
gets elected as DF for multicast flow (s1,g1).
1. PE-1 forwarding state would be nDF for flow (s1,g1) and DF
for rest other BUM traffic.
2. PE-2 forwarding state would be DF for flow (s1,g1) and nDF
for rest other BUM traffic.
3. PE-3 forwarding state would be nDF for flow (s1,g1) and rest
other BUM traffic.
4. As and when new multicast membership request comes, same
procedure as above would continue.
5. If Section 3 has DF type 4, For membership request (S,G) it MUST
use Section 4.1 to elect DF among participating PEs. And
membership request (*,G) MUST use Section 4.2 to elect DF among
participating PEs.
6. Triggers for DF re-election
There are multiple triggers which can cause DF re-election. Some of
the triggers could be
1. Local ES going down due to physical failure or configuration
change triggers DF re-election at peering PE.
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
2. Detection of new PE through ES route.
3. AC going up / down
4. ESI change
5. Remote PE removed / Down
6. Local configuration change of DF election Type and peering PE
consensus on new DF Type
This document does not provide any new mechanism to handle DF re-
election procedure. It uses the existing mechanism defined in
[RFC7432]. Whenever either of the triggers occur, a DF re-election
would be done. and all of the flows would be redistributed among
existing PEs in redundancy group for ES.
7. Security Considerations
The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] are valid for
this document.
8. IANA Considerations
Allocation of DF type in DF extended community for EVPN.
9. Acknowledgement
Authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments and contributions
of Luc Andre Burdet.
10. Normative References
[HRW1999] IEEE, "Using name-based mappings to increase hit rates",
IEEE HRW, February 1998.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework]
Rabadan, J., satyamoh@cisco.com, s., Sajassi, A., Drake,
J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for EVPN
Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-df-election-framework-03 (work in progress), May
2018.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery]
Sajassi, A., Badoni, G., Rao, D., Brissette, P., Drake,
J., and J. Rabadan, "Fast Recovery for EVPN DF Election",
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-00 (work in
progress), June 2018.
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Yeung, D., Drake, J.,
and W. Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-00 (work in progress), March
2017.
[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>.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive,
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
UNITED STATES
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive,
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
UNITED STATES
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election June 2018
Samir Thoria
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive,
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
UNITED STATES
Email: sthoria@cisco.com
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
UNITED STATES
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Sajassi, et al. Expires December 30, 2018 [Page 12]
