1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Sajassi, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8317 S. Salam
Updates: <a href="./rfc7385">7385</a> Cisco
Category: Standards Track J. Drake
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper
J. Uttaro
ATT
S. Boutros
VMware
J. Rabadan
Nokia
January 2018
<span class="h1">Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and</span>
<span class="h1">Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)</span>
Abstract
The MEF 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 described in <a href="./rfc7387">RFC 7387</a>, "A Framework
for Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Network". This document discusses how those
functional requirements can be met with a solution based on <a href="./rfc7432">RFC 7432</a>,
"BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", with some extensions and a
description of how such a solution can offer a more efficient
implementation of these functions than that of <a href="./rfc7796">RFC 7796</a>,
"Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS)". This document makes use of the most significant bit of the
Tunnel Type field (in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel
attribute) governed by the IANA registry created by <a href="./rfc7385">RFC 7385</a>; hence,
it updates <a href="./rfc7385">RFC 7385</a> accordingly.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8317">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8317</a>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. E-Tree Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Scenario 1: Leaf or Root Site(s) per PE . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Scenario 2: Leaf or Root Site(s) per AC . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Scenario 3: Leaf or Root Site(s) per MAC Address . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Operation for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
4.2.1. BUM Traffic Originated from a Single-Homed Site on a
Leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
4.2.2. BUM Traffic Originated from a Single-Homed Site on a
Root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
4.2.3. BUM Traffic Originated from a Multihomed Site on a
Leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
4.2.4. BUM Traffic Originated from a Multihomed Site on a
Root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. E-Tree Traffic Flows for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>. E-Tree with MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>. E-Tree without MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Operation for PBB-EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. E-Tree without MAC Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. BGP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. E-Tree Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Considerations for PMSI Tunnel Types . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Multiple Bridge Tables per E-Tree Service Instance . 22
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The MEF Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint Ethernet service
known as Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) [<a href="#ref-MEF6.1" title=""Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 2"">MEF6.1</a>]. In an E-Tree service, a
customer site that is typically represented by an Attachment Circuit
(AC) (e.g., an 802.1Q VLAN tag [<a href="#ref-IEEE.802.1Q">IEEE.802.1Q</a>]), is labeled as either a
Root or a Leaf site. A customer site may also be represented by a
Media Access Control (MAC) address along with a VLAN tag. Root sites
can communicate with all other customer sites (both Root and Leaf
sites). However, Leaf sites can communicate with Root sites but not
with other Leaf sites. In this document, unless explicitly mentioned
otherwise, a site is always represented by an AC.
[<a id="ref-RFC7387">RFC7387</a>] describes a solution framework for supporting E-Tree
service in MPLS networks. This document identifies the functional
components of an overall solution to emulate E-Tree services in MPLS
networks and supplements the multipoint-to-multipoint Ethernet LAN
(E-LAN) services specified in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] and [<a href="./rfc7623" title=""Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)"">RFC7623</a>].
[<a id="ref-RFC7432">RFC7432</a>] defines EVPN, a solution for multipoint Layer 2 Virtual
Private Network (L2VPN) services with advanced multihoming
capabilities that uses BGP for distributing customer/client MAC
address reachability information over the MPLS/IP network. [<a href="./rfc7623" title=""Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)"">RFC7623</a>]
combines the functionality of EVPN with [<a href="#ref-IEEE.802.1ah">IEEE.802.1ah</a>] Provider
Backbone Bridging (PBB) for MAC address scalability.
This document discusses how the functional requirements for E-Tree
service can be met with a solution based on EVPN [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] and
PBB-EVPN [<a href="./rfc7623" title=""Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)"">RFC7623</a>] with some extensions to their procedures and BGP
attributes. Such a solution based on PBB-EVPN or EVPN can offer a
more efficient implementation of these functions than that of
[<a href="./rfc7796" title=""Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)"">RFC7796</a>], "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS)". This efficiency is achieved by performing filtering
of unicast traffic at the ingress Provider Edge (PE) nodes as opposed
to egress filtering where the traffic is sent through the network and
gets filtered and discarded at the egress PE nodes. The details of
this ingress filtering are described in <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>. Since this
document specifies a solution based on [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>], the knowledge of
that document is a prerequisite. This document makes use of the most
significant bit of the Tunnel Type field (in the PMSI Tunnel
attribute) governed by the IANA registry created by [<a href="./rfc7385" title=""IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points"">RFC7385</a>]; hence,
it updates [<a href="./rfc7385" title=""IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points"">RFC7385</a>] accordingly. <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a> discusses E-Tree
scenarios, Sections <a href="#section-4">4</a> and <a href="#section-5">5</a> describe E-Tree solutions for EVPN and
PBB-EVPN (respectively), and <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a> covers BGP encoding for E-Tree
solutions.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Specification of Requirements</span>
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
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Terms and Abbreviations</span>
Broadcast Domain: In a bridged network, the broadcast domain
corresponds to a Virtual LAN (VLAN), where a VLAN is typically
represented by a single VLAN ID (VID) but can be represented by
several VIDs where Shared VLAN Learning (SVL) is used per
[<a href="#ref-IEEE.802.1ah">IEEE.802.1ah</a>].
Bridge Table: An instantiation of a broadcast domain on a MAC-VRF.
CE: A Customer Edge device, e.g., a host, router, or switch.
EVI: An EVPN Instance spanning the Provider Edge (PE) devices
participating in that EVPN.
MAC-VRF: A Virtual Routing and Forwarding table for Media Access
Control (MAC) addresses on a PE.
ES: When a customer site (device or network) is connected to one or
more PEs via a set of Ethernet links, then that set of links is
referred to as an "Ethernet Segment".
ESI: An Ethernet Segment Identifier is a unique non-zero identifier
that identifies an ES.
Ethernet Tag: An Ethernet Tag identifies a particular broadcast
domain, e.g., a VLAN. An EVPN instance consists of one or more
broadcast domains.
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint.
PE: Provider Edge device.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. E-Tree Scenarios</span>
This document categorizes E-Tree scenarios into the following three
categories, depending on the nature of the Root/Leaf site
association:
Scenario 1: either Leaf or Root site(s) per PE;
Scenario 2: either Leaf or Root site(s) per Attachment Circuit (AC);
or,
Scenario 3: either Leaf or Root site(s) per MAC address.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Scenario 1: Leaf or Root Site(s) per PE</span>
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. In other
words, a given EVPN Instance (EVI) on a Provider Edge (PE) device 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 this scenario, tailored BGP Route Target (RT) import/export
policies among the PEs belonging to the same EVI can be used to
prevent communication among Leaf PEs. To prevent communication 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 a topology constraint in EVPN, two BGP RTs are used for every
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 a Root site(s) imports both Root and
Leaf RTs, whereas a PE with a Leaf site(s) only imports the Root RT.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
For this scenario, if it is desired to use only a single RT per EVI
(just like E-LAN services in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>]), then approach B in Scenario
2 (described below) needs to be used.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Scenario 2: Leaf or Root Site(s) per AC</span>
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).
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+
|CE1+-----AC1----+--+ | | | | | | +--+---AC2--+CE2|
+---+ (Leaf) | |MAC| | | MPLS | | |MAC| | (Leaf) +---+
| |VRF| | | /IP | | |VRF| |
| | | | | | | | | | +---+
| | | | | | | | +--+---AC3--+CE3|
| +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Root) +---+
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 2: Scenario 2
In this scenario, (as in Scenario 1 <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a>), two RTs (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; thus, in order to apply the proper ingress filtering, 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 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
a Root or Leaf-Indication before advertising 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), or
(B) to allow for a single RT to be used per EVI, just like
[<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>], and, thus, color MAC addresses via a "color" flag in
a new extended community as detailed in <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
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 <a href="./rfc7432#section-6">Section 6 of [RFC7432]</a>. 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
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>); thus, it is not recommended.
Given that both approaches A and B would require the same data-plane
enhancements, approach B is chosen here in order to allow for RT
usage consistent with baseline EVPN [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] and for better
generality. It should be noted that if one wants to use RT
constraints 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, Leaf/Root RTs will be used to constrain MAC
advertisements and 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).
If, for a given EVI, a 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 a 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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Scenario 3: Leaf or Root Site(s) per MAC Address</span>
In this scenario, a customer Root or Leaf site is represented by a
MAC address on an AC and a PE may receive traffic from both Root and
Leaf sites on that AC for an EVI. This scenario is not covered in
either [<a href="./rfc7387" title=""A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network"">RFC7387</a>] or [<a href="#ref-MEF6.1" title=""Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 2"">MEF6.1</a>]; 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 basis. This
scenario is considered in this document for EVPN service with only
known unicast traffic because the Designated Forwarder (DF) filtering
per [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] would not be compatible with the required egress
filtering; that is, Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM)
traffic is not supported in this scenario; it is dropped by the
ingress PE.
For this scenario, the approach B in Scenario 2 is used in order to
allow for single RT usage by service providers.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---+ | +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | +---+
|CE1+-----AC1----+--+ | | | | | | +--+-----AC2----+CE2|
+---+ (Root) | | E | | | MPLS | | | E | | (Leaf/Root)+---+
| | V | | | /IP | | | V | |
| | I | | | | | | I | | +---+
| | | | | | | | +--+-----AC3----+CE3|
| +---+ | +------+ | +---+ | (Leaf) +---+
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 3: Scenario 3
In conclusion, the approach B in scenario 2 is the recommended
approach across all the above three scenarios, and the corresponding
solution is detailed in the following sections.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Operation for EVPN</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC7432">RFC7432</a>] defines the notion of the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI)
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 it will be seen shortly for BUM
traffic. For known unicast traffic, additional extensions to
[<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] are needed (i.e., a new BGP extended community for Leaf-
Indication described in <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>) in order to enable ingress
filtering as described in detail in the following sections.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Known Unicast Traffic</span>
In EVPN, MAC learning is performed in the control plane via
advertisement of BGP routes. Because of this, the filtering needed
by an 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 the MPLS/IP core to be filtered at
the egress PE, as is done in traditional E-Tree solutions (i.e.,
E-Tree for VPLS [<a href="./rfc7796" title=""Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)"">RFC7796</a>]).
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. This is done by advertising a Leaf-
Indication flag (via an extended community) along with each of its
MAC/IP Advertisement routes learned from a Leaf site. The lack of
such a flag indicates that the MAC address is associated with a Root
site. This scheme applies to all scenarios described in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
Tagging MAC addresses with a Leaf-Indication enables remote PEs to
perform ingress filtering for known unicast traffic; that is, on the
ingress PE, the MAC destination address lookup yields (in addition to
the forwarding adjacency) a flag that indicates whether or not the
target MAC is associated with a Leaf site. 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 a situation where MAC moves are allowed among Leaf and Root sites
(e.g., non-static MAC), PEs can receive multiple MAC/IP Advertisement
routes for the same MAC address with different Root or Leaf-
Indications (and possibly different ESIs for multihoming scenarios).
In such situations, MAC mobility procedures (see <a href="./rfc7432#section-15">Section 15 of
[RFC7432]</a>) 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 (see
<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>). This new extended community MUST be advertised with
MAC/IP Advertisement routes learned from a Leaf site. Besides MAC/IP
Advertisement routes, no other EVPN routes are required to carry this
new extended community for the purpose of known unicast traffic.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. BUM Traffic</span>
This specification does not provide support for filtering Broadcast,
Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) traffic on the ingress PE; due
to the multidestination nature of BUM traffic, it is not possible to
perform filtering of the same on the ingress PE. 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 of when they originated from a Leaf AC (i.e., to
be tagged with a Leaf label as specified in <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>). This Leaf
label allows for disposition PE (e.g., egress PE) to perform the
necessary egress filtering function in a data plane similar to the
ESI label in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>]. The allocation of the Leaf label is on a
per-PE basis (e.g., independent of ESI and EVI) as described in the
following sections.
The Leaf label can be upstream assigned for Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) Label Switched Path (LSP) or downstream assigned for Ingress
Replication tunnels. The main difference between a downstream- and
upstream-assigned Leaf label is that, in the case of downstream-
assigned Leaf labels, not all egress PE devices need to receive the
label in MPLS-encapsulated BUM packets, just like the ESI label for
Ingress Replication procedures defined in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>].
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
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 [<a href="#ref-IEEE.802.1Q">IEEE.802.1Q</a>]).
Other mechanisms for identifying Root or Leaf sites, such as the use
of the source MAC address of the receiving frame, are optional. The
scenarios below are described in context of a Root/Leaf AC, however,
they can be extended to the Root/Leaf MAC address if needed.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>. BUM Traffic Originated from a Single-Homed Site on a Leaf AC</span>
In this scenario, the ingress PE adds a Leaf label advertised using
the E-Tree extended community (see <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>), which indicates 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 ESs on that PE). This Leaf
label is advertised to other PE devices using the E-Tree extended
community (see <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>) along with an Ethernet Auto-Discovery per
ES (EAD-ES) route with an ESI of zero and a set of RTs corresponding
to all EVIs on the PE where each EVI has at least one Leaf site.
Multiple EAD-ES routes will need to be advertised if the number of
RTs that need to be carried exceed the limit on a single route per
[<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>]. The ESI for the EAD-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.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.2" href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a>. BUM Traffic Originated from a Single-Homed Site on a Root AC</span>
In this scenario, the ingress PE does not add any ESI or Leaf labels
and it operates per the procedures in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>].
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.3" href="#section-4.2.3">4.2.3</a>. BUM Traffic Originated from a Multihomed Site on a Leaf AC</span>
In this scenario, it is assumed that while different ACs (VLANs) on
the same ES could have a 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 (i.e., the service
is EVPN L2 and not EVPN Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB)
[<a href="#ref-EVPN-INTEGRATED">EVPN-INTEGRATED</a>]). IRB use cases described in [<a href="#ref-EVPN-INTEGRATED">EVPN-INTEGRATED</a>] are
outside the scope of this document.
In this scenario, if a multicast or broadcast packet is originated
from a Leaf AC, then it only needs to carry a Leaf label as described
in <a href="#section-4.2.1">Section 4.2.1</a>. 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 ES.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.4" href="#section-4.2.4">4.2.4</a>. BUM Traffic Originated from a Multihomed Site on a Root AC</span>
In this scenario, both the ingress and egress PE devices follow the
procedure defined in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] for adding and/or processing an ESI
MPLS label; that is, existing procedures for BUM traffic in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>]
are sufficient and there is no need to add a Leaf label.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. E-Tree Traffic Flows for EVPN</span>
Per [<a href="./rfc7387" title=""A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network"">RFC7387</a>], a generic E-Tree service supports all of the following
traffic flows:
- known unicast traffic from Root to Roots & Leafs
- known unicast traffic from Leaf to Roots
- BUM traffic from Root to Roots & Leafs
- 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
application. In the case where only multicast and broadcast flows
need to 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.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.1" href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>. E-Tree with MAC Learning</span>
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 ESs 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 ESs and advertise reachability in EVPN
MAC/IP Advertisement routes. For scenarios where two different RTs
are used per EVI (one to designate a Root site and another to
designate a Leaf site), the MAC/IP Advertisement 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 Auto-Discovery per EVI (EAD-EVI)
routes for aliasing (in the case of multihomed segments) and EAD-ES
routes for mass MAC withdrawal per [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>].
To support multicast/broadcast from Root to Leaf sites, either a P2MP
tree rooted at the PE(s) with the Root site(s) (e.g., Root PEs) or
Ingress Replication can be used (see <a href="./rfc7432#section-16">Section 16 of [RFC7432]</a>). The
multicast tunnels are set up through the exchange of the EVPN
Inclusive Multicast route, as defined in [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>].
To support multicast/broadcast from Leaf to Root sites, either
Ingress Replication tunnels from each Leaf PE or a P2MP tree rooted
at each Leaf PE can be used. The following two paragraphs describe
when each of these tunneling schemes can be used and how to signal
them.
When there are only a few Root PEs with small amount of multicast/
broadcast traffic from Leaf PEs toward Root PEs, then Ingress
Replication tunnels from Leaf PEs toward Root PEs should be
sufficient. Therefore, if a Root PE needs to support a P2MP tunnel
in the transmit direction from itself to Leaf PEs, and, at the same
time, it wants to support Ingress Replication tunnels in the receive
direction, the Root PE can signal it efficiently by using a new
composite tunnel type defined in <a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>. This new composite
tunnel type is advertised by the Root PE to simultaneously indicate a
P2MP tunnel in the transmit direction and an Ingress Replication
tunnel in the receive direction for the BUM traffic.
If the number of Root PEs is large, P2MP tunnels (e.g., Multipoint
LDP (mLDP) or RSVP-TE) originated at the Leaf PEs may be used; thus,
there will be no need to use the modified PMSI Tunnel attribute and
the composite tunnel type values defined in <a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.2" href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>. E-Tree without MAC Learning</span>
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. In such
scenarios, the small amount of unicast traffic (if any) is sent as
part of BUM traffic.
The fields of this route are populated per the procedures defined in
[<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>], and the multicast tunnel setup criteria are as described
in the previous section.
Just as in the previous section, if the number of Root PEs are only a
few and, thus, Ingress Replication is desired from Leaf PEs to these
Root PEs, then the modified PMSI attribute and the composite tunnel
type values defined in <a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a> should be used.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Operation for PBB-EVPN</span>
In PBB-EVPN, the PE advertises a Root or Leaf-Indication along with
each Backbone MAC (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
<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> is advertised with each EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route.
In the case where a multihomed ES has both Root and Leaf sites
attached, two B-MAC addresses are advertised: one B-MAC address is
per ES (as specified in [<a href="./rfc7623" title=""Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)"">RFC7623</a>]) and implicitly denotes Root, and
the other B-MAC address is per PE and explicitly denotes 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 a "Leaf-indication" flag is set.
In multihoming scenarios where an ES has both Root and Leaf ACs, it
is assumed that while different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have
a 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 (i.e., the service is L2 and not IRB). An
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 ES. The mechanism by which the PE identifies whether a given
frame originated from a Root or Leaf site on the segment is based on
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
the Ethernet Tag associated with the frame. Other mechanisms of
identification, beyond the Ethernet Tag, are outside the scope of
this document.
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 multihomed segments.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Known Unicast Traffic</span>
For known unicast traffic, the PEs perform ingress filtering: on the
ingress PE, the Customer/Client MAC (C-MAC) [<a href="./rfc7623" title=""Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)"">RFC7623</a>] destination
address lookup yields, in addition to the target B-MAC address and
forwarding adjacency, a flag that indicates whether the target B-MAC
is associated with a Root or a Leaf site. The ingress PE also checks
the status of the originating site; if both are Leafs, then the
packet is not forwarded.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. BUM Traffic</span>
For BUM traffic, the PEs must perform egress filtering. When a PE
receives an EVPN MAC/IP 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 EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route indicates that the
advertised B-MAC is a Leaf, and the local ES 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.
- If the EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route indicates that the
advertised B-MAC has changed its designation from a Leaf to a
Root, and the local ES is a Leaf, then the source B-MAC address is
removed from the B-MAC list corresponding to the local ES used for
egress filtering (i.e., to unblock traffic from that B-MAC
address).
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 the split-horizon
filtering described in <a href="./rfc7623#section-6.2.1.3">Section 6.2.1.3 of [RFC7623]</a> and does not
require any additional flags in the data plane.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
Just as in <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>, the PE places all Leaf ESs 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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. E-Tree without MAC Learning</span>
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
<a href="#section-5.2">Section 5.2</a> without the need for C-MAC learning (in the data plane)
in the I-component (C-bridge table) of PBB-EVPN PEs (at both ingress
and egress PEs).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. BGP Encoding</span>
This document defines a new BGP extended community for EVPN.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. E-Tree Extended Community</span>
This extended community is a new transitive extended community
[<a href="./rfc4360" title=""BGP Extended Communities Attribute"">RFC4360</a>] 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. It indicates that the frame is originated from a Leaf site.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |L| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
This document defines the following flags:
+ Leaf-Indication (L)
A value of one indicates a Leaf AC/site. The rest of the flag bits
are reserved and should be set to zero.
When this extended community is advertised along with the MAC/IP
Advertisement route (for known unicast traffic) per <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>, the
Leaf-Indication flag MUST be set to one and the Leaf label SHOULD be
set to zero. The receiving PE MUST ignore Leaf label and only
process the Leaf-Indication flag. A value of zero for the Leaf-
Indication flag is invalid when sent along with a MAC/IP
Advertisement route, and an error should be logged.
When this extended community is advertised along with the EAD-ES
route (with an ESI of zero) for BUM traffic to enable egress
filtering on disposition PEs per Sections <a href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a> and <a href="#section-4.2.3">4.2.3</a>, the Leaf
label MUST be set to a valid MPLS label (i.e., a non-reserved,
assigned MPLS label [<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>]) and the Leaf-Indication flag SHOULD be
set to zero. The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the
high-order 20 bits of the Leaf label field. The receiving PE MUST
ignore the Leaf-Indication flag. A non-valid MPLS label, when sent
along with the EAD-ES route, should be ignored and logged as an
error.
The reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero by the transmitter and MUST
be ignored by the receiver.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. PMSI Tunnel Attribute</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC6514">RFC6514</a>] defines the PMSI Tunnel attribute, which is an optional
transitive attribute with the following format:
+-------------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octet) |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Ingress Replication MPLS Label (3 octets) |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+-------------------------------------------+
Table 1: PMSI Tunnel Attribute
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
This document defines a new composite tunnel type by introducing a
new 'composite tunnel' bit in the Tunnel Type field and adding an
MPLS label to the Tunnel Identifier field of the PMSI Tunnel
attribute, as detailed below. All other fields remain as defined in
[<a href="./rfc6514" title=""BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs"">RFC6514</a>]. Composite tunnel type is advertised by the Root PE to
simultaneously indicate a non-Ingress-Replication tunnel (e.g., P2MP
tunnel) in the transmit direction and an Ingress Replication tunnel
in the receive direction for the BUM traffic.
When receiver Ingress Replication labels are 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
(for the existing Tunnel Types). When this composite tunnel bit is
set, the "tunnel identifier" field begins 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 treat
the Tunnel Type as an undefined Tunnel Type and treat the PMSI Tunnel
attribute as a malformed attribute [<a href="./rfc6514" title=""BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs"">RFC6514</a>]. That is why the
composite tunnel bit is allocated in the Tunnel Type field rather
than the Flags field. 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 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. A PE
that receives a PMSI Tunnel attribute with such information considers
it malformed, and it SHOULD treat this Update as though all the
routes contained in this Update had been withdrawn per <a href="./rfc6514#section-6">Section 6 of
[RFC6514]</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Since this document uses the EVPN constructs of [<a href="./rfc7432" title=""BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"">RFC7432</a>] and
[<a href="./rfc7623" title=""Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)"">RFC7623</a>], the same security considerations in these documents are
also applicable here. Furthermore, this document provides an
additional security check by allowing sites (or ACs) of an EVPN
instance to be designated as a "Root" or "Leaf" by the network
operator / service provider and thus prevent any traffic exchange
among "Leaf" sites of that VPN through ingress filtering for known
unicast traffic and egress filtering for BUM traffic. Since (by
default and for the purpose of backward compatibility) an AC that
doesn't have a Leaf designation is considered a Root AC, in order to
avoid any traffic exchange among Leaf ACs, the operator SHOULD
configure the AC with a proper role (Leaf or Root) before activating
the AC.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has allocated sub-type value 5 in the "EVPN Extended Community
Sub-Types" registry defined in [<a href="./rfc7153" title=""IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities"">RFC7153</a>] as follows:
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
defined in [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>]. Initial registrations are as follows:
Bit Name Reference
---- -------------- -------------
0-6 Unassigned
7 Leaf-Indication This document
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Considerations for PMSI Tunnel Types</span>
The "P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Types" registry in
the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry has been
updated to reflect the use of the most significant bit as the
"composite tunnel" bit (see <a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>).
For this purpose, this document updates [<a href="./rfc7385" title=""IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points"">RFC7385</a>] by changing the
previously unassigned values (i.e., 0x08 - 0xFA) as follows:
Value Meaning Reference
--------- ----------------------------- --------------
0x0C-0x7A Unassigned
0x7B-0x7E Experimental This Document
0x7F Reserved This Document
0x80-0xFA Reserved for Composite Tunnel This Document
0xFB-0xFE Experimental [<a href="./rfc7385" title=""IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points"">RFC7385</a>]
0xFF Reserved [<a href="./rfc7385" title=""IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points"">RFC7385</a>]
The allocation policy for values 0x08-0x7A is per IETF Review
[<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>]. The range for "Experimental" has been expanded to include
the previously assigned range of 0xFB-0xFE and the new range of
0x7B-0x7E. The values in these ranges are not to be assigned. The
value 0x7F, which is the mirror image of (0xFF), is reserved in this
document.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-MEF6.1">MEF6.1</a>] MEF Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 2",
MEF 6.1, April 2008, <<a href="https://mef.net/PDF_Documents/technical-specifications/MEF6-1.pdf">https://mef.net/PDF_Documents/</a>
<a href="https://mef.net/PDF_Documents/technical-specifications/MEF6-1.pdf">technical-specifications/MEF6-1.pdf</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4360">RFC4360</a>] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", <a href="./rfc4360">RFC 4360</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6514">RFC6514</a>] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", <a href="./rfc6514">RFC 6514</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7153">RFC7153</a>] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP
Extended Communities", <a href="./rfc7153">RFC 7153</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153,
March 2014, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7385">RFC7385</a>] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "IANA Registry for
P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code
Points", <a href="./rfc7385">RFC 7385</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7385, October 2014,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7385">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7385</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7387">RFC7387</a>] Key, R., Ed., Yong, L., Ed., Delord, S., Jounay, F., and
L. Jin, "A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service
over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network",
<a href="./rfc7387">RFC 7387</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7387, October 2014,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7387">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7387</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7432">RFC7432</a>] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", <a href="./rfc7432">RFC 7432</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7623">RFC7623</a>] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", <a href="./rfc7623">RFC 7623</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623</a>>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC8126">RFC8126</a>] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
<a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-EVPN-INTEGRATED">EVPN-INTEGRATED</a>]
Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Thoria, S., Drake, J., Rabadan,
J., and L. Yong, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in
EVPN", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-03">draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-03">subnet-forwarding-03</a>, February 2017.
[<a id="ref-IEEE.802.1ah">IEEE.802.1ah</a>]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks", Clauses 25 and 26, IEEE
Std 802.1Q, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6009146.
[<a id="ref-IEEE.802.1Q">IEEE.802.1Q</a>]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Bridges and Bridged Networks - Media Access
Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6009146.
[<a id="ref-RFC3032">RFC3032</a>] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7796">RFC7796</a>] Jiang, Y., Ed., Yong, L., and M. Paul, "Ethernet-Tree
(E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)",
<a href="./rfc7796">RFC 7796</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7796, March 2016,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7796">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7796</a>>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Multiple Bridge Tables per E-Tree Service Instance</span>
When two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables per VLAN) 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 a 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 require either that two
lookups be performed per MAC address in each direction in case of a
miss or that the duplication of many MAC addresses between the two
bridge tables belonging to the same VLAN (same E-Tree instance) be
made. Unless two lookups are made, duplication of MAC addresses
would be needed for both locally learned and remotely learned MAC
addresses. Locally learned MAC addresses from Leaf ACs need to be
duplicated onto a Root bridge table, and locally learned MAC
addresses from Root ACs need to be duplicated onto a 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 data-plane performance
inefficiencies in some platforms; thus, this document introduces the
coloring as described in <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a> and detailed in <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>.
<span class="grey">Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8317">RFC 8317</a> E-Tree Support in EVPN and PBB-EVPN January 2018</span>
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Eric Rosen, Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Aldrin
Issac, Wim Henderickx, Dennis Cai, and Antoni Przygienda for their
valuable comments and contributions. The authors would also like to
thank Thomas Morin for shepherding this document and providing
valuable comments.
Authors' Addresses
Ali Sajassi (editor)
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
Sami Boutros
VMware
Email: sboutros@vmware.com
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Sajassi, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
</pre>
|
