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
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Patel
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
June 2018
Extensions to BGP-Signaled Pseudowires to
Support Flow-Aware Transport Labels
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions required to synchronize
flow label states among Provider Edges (PEs) when using the BGP-based
signaling procedures. These protocol extensions are equally
applicable to point-to-point Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
(L2VPNs). This document updates RFC 4761 by defining new flags in
the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.
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 Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8395.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
2. Modifications to the Layer2 Info Extended Community .............4
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label ........................5
4. IANA Considerations .............................................6
5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. References ......................................................7
6.1. Normative References .......................................7
6.2. Informative References .....................................7
Acknowledgements ...................................................8
Contributors .......................................................8
Authors' Addresses .................................................9
1. Introduction
The mechanism described in [RFC6391] uses an additional label (Flow
Label) in the MPLS label stack to allow Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) to balance flows within Pseudowires (PWs) at a finer
granularity than the individual 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 PW [RFC3985] is transported over one single network path, even if
ECMPs exist between the ingress and egress PW provider edge (PE)
equipment. This is required to preserve the characteristics of the
emulated service.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
This document introduces an optional mode of operation allowing a PW
to be transported over ECMPs, for example when the use of ECMPs is
known to be beneficial to the operation of the PW. This
specification uses the principles defined in [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 and is described in [RFC4385] and
[RFC4928].
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 label) located at the
bottom of the stack (right after PW LSE). 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 Section 3.4 of [RFC4761], 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 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. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
2. Modifications to the Layer2 Info Extended Community
The Layer2 Info Extended Community is used to signal control
information about the PWs to be set up. The Extended Community
format is described in [RFC4761]. The format of this Extended
Community is described as:
+------------------------------------+
| Extended Community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Layer2 Info Extended Community
Control Flags:
This field contains bit flags relating to the control information
about PWs. This field is augmented with a definition of two new
flags 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 remaining bits, designated "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 announces the ability to send
a PW packet that includes a flow label. When the bit value is
0, the PE is indicating that it will not send a PW packet
containing a flow label.
R When the bit value is 1, the PE is able to receive a PW packet
with a flow label present. When the bit value is 0, the PE is
unable to receive a PW packet with the flow label present.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
C Defined in [RFC4761].
S Defined in [RFC4761].
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label
As part of the PW signaling procedures described in [RFC4761], a
Layer2 Info Extended Community is advertised in the Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI).
A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a 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 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 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 PW packet. With any other combination, a PE MUST NOT include
a flow label in the 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 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 must only transmit traffic with a flow label to
those peers that signaled R = 1. 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, as
these could trigger changes in the PEs data-plane programming (i.e.,
imposition/disposition of the flow label). This is an
implementation-specific behavior and is outside the scope of this
document.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
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 document will always advertise a value of zero in the R 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 in the T 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. 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.
Per this document, IANA has created the "Layer2 Info Extended
Community Control Flags Bit Vector" registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities>.
Based on [RFC4761] and this document, the initial contents of this
registry are as follows:
Value Name Reference
----- -------------------------------- --------------
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 [RFC4271] and [RFC4761].
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
6. References
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,
<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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., 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,
<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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<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, <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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
[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,
<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,
<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
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
RFC 8395 BGP-Signaled FAT PW Labels June 2018
Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Sami Boutros
VMware
Email: 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
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
^L
|
