wdiff rfc8395.original rfc8395.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Patel
Intended Status: Standard Track
Request for Comments: 8395 Arrcus
Updates: 4761 S. Boutros
Category: Standards Track VMware
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Liste
Cisco
B. Wen
Comcast
J. Rabadan
Nokia

Expires: September 3, 2018 March 2,
June 2018

Extensions to BGP Signaled BGP-Signaled Pseudowires to support
Support Flow-Aware Transport Labels
draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-04

Abstract

This draft document defines protocol extensions required to synchronize
flow label states among Provider Edges PE(s) (PEs) when using the BGP-based
signaling procedures. These protocol extensions are equally
applicable to point-to-point Layer2 Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
(L2VPNs). This draft document updates RFC 4761 by defining new flags in
the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.

Status of this This Memo

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

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum
(IETF). It represents the consensus of six months the IETF community. It has
received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for publication by other documents at any
time. It the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work available in progress."

The list Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8395.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ......................................3
2. Modifications to the Layer2 Info Extended Community . . . . . . . . 5 .............4
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. ........................5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. .............................................6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. .........................................6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. ......................................................7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. .......................................7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .....................................7
Acknowledgements ...................................................8
Contributors .......................................................8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1 .................................................9

1. Introduction

The mechanism described in [RFC6391] uses an additional label (Flow
Label) in the MPLS label stack to allow Label Switch Switching Routers
(LSRs) to balance flows within Pseudowires (PWs) at a finer
granularity than the individual Pseudowires PWs 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 [RFC8077].

A pseudowire (PW) PW [RFC3985] is transported over one single network path, even if Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
ECMPs exist between the ingress and egress PW provider edge (PE)
equipment. This is required to preserve the characteristics of the
emulated service.

This draft document introduces an optional mode of operation allowing to
transport a PW
to be transported over ECMPs, for example when the use of these ECMPs is
known to be beneficial to the operation of the PW. This
specification uses the principles defined in [RFC6391], [RFC6391] and augments
the BGP-signaling procedures of [RFC4761] and [RFC6624]. The use of
a single path to preserve the packet delivery order remains the
default mode of operation of a PW, PW and is described in [RFC4385] and
[RFC4928].

High bandwidth

High-bandwidth Ethernet-based services are a prime example that use
of the optional mode benefits from the ability to load-balance flows
in a PW over multiple PSN paths. In general, load-balancing is
applicable when the PW attachment circuit bandwidth and PSN core link
bandwidth are of the same order of magnitude.

To achieve the load-balancing goal, [RFC6391] introduces the notion
of an additional Label Stack Entry (LSE) (Flow (flow label) located at the
bottom of the stack (right after PW LSE). Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) LSRs commonly generate a
hash of the label stack in order to discriminate and distribute flows
over available ECMPs. The presence of the Flow 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 inter-AS scenarios
described in [RFC4761] section 3.4, Section 3.4 of [RFC4761], the Flow flow label should never be
handled by the ASBRs, ASBRs; only the terminating PEs on each AS will be
responsible for popping or pushing this label. This is equally
applicable to Method B [RFC4761] section as described in 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. ASBR. Therefore, the Flow flow
label will remain untouched across AS boundaries.

1.1

1.1. Requirements Language

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

2. Modifications to the Layer2 Info Extended Community

The Layer2 Info Extended Community is used to signal control
information about the pseudowires PWs to be setup. set up. The extended community Extended Community
format is described in [RFC4761]. The format of this extended
community Extended
Community is described as:

+------------------------------------+
| Extended community Community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+

Figure 1: Layer2 Info Extended Community

Control Flags:

This field contains bit flags relating to the control information
about pseudowires. PWs. This field is augmented with a definition of 2 two new
flags field. fields.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Z|Z|Z|Z|T|R|C|S| (Z = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: Control Flags Bit Vector

With reference to the Control Flags Bit Vector, the following bits in
the Control Flags are defined; the defined. The remaining bits, designated Z, "Z",
MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when receiving
this Extended Community.

T When the bit value is 1, the PE announce announces the ability to send
a Pseudowire PW packet that includes a flow label. When the bit value is
0, the PE is indicating that it will not send a Pseudowire PW packet
containing a flow label.

R When the bit value is 1, the PE is able to receive a
Pseudowire PW packet
with a flow label present. When the bit value is 0, the PE is
unable to receive a Pseudowire PW packet with the flow label present.

C Defined in [RFC4761].

S Defined in [RFC4761].

3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label

As part of the Pseudowire PW signaling procedures described in [RFC4761], a
Layer2 Info Extended Community is advertised in the VPLS Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) BGP NLRI. Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI).

A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a Pseudowire PW packet MUST include in
its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer2 Info Extended Community using Control
Flags field with T = 1.

A PE that is willing to receive a flow label in a Pseudowire PW packet MUST
include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer2 Info Extended Community using
Control Flags field with R = 1.

A PE that receives a VPLS BGP NLRI containing a Layer2 Info Extended
Community with R = 0 MUST NOT include a flow label in the Pseudowire PW 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 PW packet. Under all With any other combinations, combination, a PE MUST NOT include
a flow label in the Pseudowire PW packet.

A PE MAY support the configuration of the flow label (T and R bits)
on a per-service basis (e.g., a VPLS VFI) basis. VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI)).
Furthermore, it is also possible that on a given service, PEs may not
share the same flow label settings. The presence of a flow label is
therefore determined on a per-peer basis and according to the local
and remote T and R bit values. For example, a PE part of a VPLS and
with a local T = 1, 1 must only transmit traffic with a flow label to
those peers that signaled R = 1. And if If the same PE has local R = 1, it
must only expect to receive traffic with a flow label from peers with
T = 1. Any other traffic must not have a flow label. A PE expecting
to receive traffic from a remote peer with a flow label MAY drop
traffic that has no flow label. A PE expecting to receive traffic
from a remote peer with no flow label MAY drop traffic that has a
flow label.

Modification of flow label settings may impact traffic over a PW PW, as
these could trigger changes in the PEs data-plane programming (i.e.
imposition / disposition (i.e.,
imposition/disposition of the flow label). This is an implementation
specific
implementation-specific behavior and is outside the scope of this draft.
document.

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 document will always advertise a value of ZERO zero in the position
assigned by this draft to the R bit and therefore bit;
therefore, a flow label will never be included in a packet sent to it
by one of its peers. Similarly, it will always advertise a value of ZERO
zero in the position
assigned by this draft to the T bit and therefore bit; therefore, a peer will know that a flow label will
never be included in a packet sent by it.

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 and John Drake for
their review and comments.

5 Contributors

In addition to the authors listed above, the following individuals
also contributed to this document:

Eric Lent

John Brzozowski

Steven Cotter

4. IANA Considerations

Although [RFC4761] defined a Control Flags Bit Vector as part of the
Layer2 Info Extended Community, it did not ask for the creation of a
registry.

This document requests that IANA creates a registry for

Per this bit
vector and that it be called document, IANA has created the "Layer2 Info Extended
Community Control Flags Bit Vector" registry.

This registry should be created here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-
extended-communities.xhtml.

Considering
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities>.

Based on [RFC4761] and this document, the initial contents of this
registry is are as follows:

Value Name Reference
----- -------------------------------- --------------
S Sequenced delivery of frames RFC4761
C Presence of a Control Word RFC4761
T Request to send a flow label This document
R Ability to receive a flow label This document
C Presence of a Control Word RFC 4761
S Sequenced delivery of frames RFC 4761

As per [RFC4761] and this document, the remaining bits are
unassigned, and MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored
when receiving the Layer2 Info Extended Community.

5. Security Considerations

This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing [RFC4271] and [RFC4761].

6. References

8.1.

6.1. Normative References

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

[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed.,
"A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.

[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.

[RFC8126] M. Cotton, et al., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFCs",
RFC 8126, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, June 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

8.2.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.

[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.

[RFC8077] Martini, L., Ed., and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and
Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)",
STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8077>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.

[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.

[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6624>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Bertrand Duvivier and John Drake for
their review and comments.

Contributors

In addition to the authors listed above, the following individuals
also contributed to this document:

Eric Lent

John Brzozowski

Steven Cotter

Authors' Addresses

Keyur Patel
Arrcus
Email: keyur@arrcus.com

Sami Boutros
VMware
Email: sboutros@vmware.com boutros.sami@gmail.com

Jose Liste
Cisco
Email: jliste@cisco.com

Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: bin_wen@cable.comcast.com

Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com