One document matched: draft-keyupate-l2vpn-fat-pw-bgp-00.txt
Network Working Group K. Patel
Internet-Draft S. Boutros
Intended status: Standards Track J. Liste
Expires: April 21, 2014 Cisco Systems
B. Wen
Comcast
October 18, 2013
Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires Extension for BGP
draft-keyupate-l2vpn-fat-pw-bgp-00.txt
Abstract
[RFC6391] describes a mechanism that uses an additional label (Flow
Label) in the MPLS label stack that allows Label Switch Routers to
balance flows within Pseudowires at a finer granularity than the
individual Pseudowires across the Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
that exists within the Packet Switched Network (PSN).
Furthermore,[RFC6391] defines the LDP protocol extensions required to
synchronize the flow label states between the ingress and egress PEs
when using the signaling procedures defined in the [RFC4447].
This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow
label states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures
defined in [RFC4761]. These protocol extensions are equally
applicable to point-to-point L2VPNs defined in [RFC6624].
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 http://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 April 21, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Modifications to Layer 2 Info Extended Community . . . . . . 3
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
A pseudowire (PW)[RFC3985] is normally transported over one single
network path, even if multiple Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
exist between the ingress and egress PW provider edge (PE) equipment.
This is required to preserve the characteristics of the emulated
service. The use of a single path to preserve the packet delivery
order remains the default mode of operation of a PW and is described
in [RFC4385], [RFC4928].
Using the principles defined in [RFC6391], this draft augments the
BGP-signaling procedures of [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] to allow an
OPTIONAL mode that may be employed when the use of ECMPs is known to
be beneficial to the operation of the PW.
High bandwidth Ethernet-based services are a prime example that
benefits from the ability to load-balance flows in a PW over multiple
PSN paths. In general, this notion is applicable to cases where the
ratio between the PW access speed and the PSNs core link bandwidth is
large.
To achieve the load-balancing goal,[RFC6391] introduces the notion of
an additional Label Stack Entry (LSE) (Flow label) located at the
bottom of the stack (right after PW LSE). Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) commonly generate a hash of the label stack in order to
discriminate and distribute flows over available ECMPs. The presence
of the Flow label (closely associated to a flow determined by the
ingress PE) will normally provide the greatest entropy.
Furthermore, following the procedures for Inter-AS scenarios
described in [RFC4761] section 3.4, the Flow label should never be
handled by the ASBRs, only the terminating PEs on each AS will be
responsible for popping or pushing this label. This is equally
applicable to Method B [section 3.4.2] of [RFC4761] where ASBRs are
responsible for swapping the PW label as traffic traverses from ASBR
to PE and ASBR to ASBR directions. Therefore, the Flow label will
remain untouched across AS boundaries.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Modifications to Layer 2 Info Extended Community
The Layer 2 Info Extended Community is used to signal control
information about the pseudowires to be setup. The extended
community format is described in [RFC4761]. The format of this
extended community is described as:
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
+------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
Layer 2 Info Extended Community
Control Flags:
This field contains bit flags relating to the control
information about pseudowires. This field is augmented with
a definition of 2 new flags field.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |T|R|C|S| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Control Flags Bit Vector
With Reference to the Control Flags Bit Vector, the following bits in
the Control Flags are defined; the remaining bits, designated MBZ,
MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when receiving
this Extended Community.
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
S Defined in [RFC4761].
C Defined in [RFC4761].
R When the bit value is 1, the PE is able to receive a
Pseudowire packet with a flow label present. When the bit
value is 0, the PE is unable to receive a Pseudowire packet
with the flow label present.
T When the bit value is 1, the PE is requesting the ability
to send a Pseudowire packet that includes a flow label.
When the bit value is 0, the PE is indicating that it will
not send a Pseudowire packet containing a flow label.
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label
As part of the Pseudowire signaling procedures described in
[RFC4761], a Layer 2 Info Extended Community is advertised in the
VPLS BGP NLRI. This draft recommends that the Control Flags field of
this extended community be used to synchronize the flow label states
amongst PEs for a given L2VPN.
A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a Pseudowire packet MUST
include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer 2 Info Extended Community using
Control Flags field with T = 1.
A PE that is willing to receive a flow label in a Pseudowire packet
MUST include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer 2 Info Extended Community
using Control Flags field with R = 1.
A PE that receives a VPLS BGP NLRI containing a Layer 2 Info Extended
Community with R = 0 NUST NOT include a flow label in the Pseudowire
packet.
Therefore, a PE sending a Control Flags field with T = 1 and
receiving a Control Flags field with R = 1 MUST include a flow label
in the Pseudowire packet. Under all other combinations, a PE MUST
NOT include a flow label in the Pseudowire packet.
The signaling procedures in [RFC4761] state that the unspecified bits
in the Control Flags field (bits 0-5) MUST be set to zero when
sending and MUST be ignored when receiving. The signaling procedure
described here is therefore backwards compatible with existing
implementations. A PE not supporting the extensions described in
this draft will always sent a value of ZERO in the position assigned
by this draft to the R bit and therefore, flow labels will never be
inserted by its remote peers.
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
Note that what is signaled is the desire to include the flow LSE in
the label stack. The value of the flow label is a local matter for
the ingress PE, and the label value itself is not signaled.
4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bertrand Duvivier for the review and
comments.
5. Contributors
In addition to the authors listed above, the following individuals
also contributed to this document:
Eric Lent
6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing [RFC4271].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
4761, January 2007.
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC
4928, June 2007.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, November
2011.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2842] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 2842, May 2000.
[RFC2858] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000.
[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 6624, May 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
Jose Liste
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: jliste@cisco.com
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-DraftFlow-Aware Transport of PWs Extension for BGP October 2013
Bin Wen
Comcast
1701 John F Kennedy Blvd
Philadelphia, PA 19103
USA
Email: bin_wen@cable.comcast.com
Patel, et al. Expires April 21, 2014 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 21:33:21 |