[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

BESS WorkGroup                                              Ali. Sajassi
Internet-Draft                                         Mankamana. Mishra
Intended status: Standards Track                           Samir. Thoria
Expires: December 30, 2018                                 Cisco Systems
                                                          Jorge. Rabadan
                                                                   Nokia
                                                             John. Drake
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                           June 28, 2018


       Per multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election for EVPN
         draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-01

Abstract

   [RFC7432] describes mechanism to elect designated forwarder (DF) at
   the granularity of (ESI, EVI) which is per VLAN (or per group of
   VLANs in case of VLAN bundle or VLAN-aware bundle service).  However,
   the current level of granularity of per-VLAN is not adequate for some
   applications.[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] improves base
   line DF election by introducing HRW DF election.
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] introduces applicability of EVPN
   to Multicast flows, routes to sync them and a default DF election.
   This document is an extension to HRW base draft
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] and further enhances HRW
   algorithm for the Multicast flows to do DF election at the
   granularity of (ESI, VLAN, Mcast flow).

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2018.






Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  The DF Election Extended Community  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  HRW base per multicast flow EVPN DF election  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  DF election for IGMP (S,G) membership request . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  DF election for IGMP (*,G) membership request . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Default DF election procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Procedure to use per multicast flow DF election algorithm . .   8
   6.  Triggers for DF re-election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   EVPN based All-Active multi-homing is becoming the basic building
   block for providing redundancy in next generation data center
   deployments as well as service provider access/aggregation networks.
   [RFC7432] defines the role of a designated forwarder as the node in
   the redundancy group that is responsible to forward Broadcast,
   Unknown unicast, Multicast (BUM) traffic on that Ethernet Segment (CE
   device or network) in All-Active multi-homing.

   The default DF election mechanism allows selecting a DF at the
   granularity of (ES, VLAN) or (ES, VLAN bundle) for BUM traffic.
   While [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] improve on the
   default DF election procedure, some service provider residential
   applications require a finer granularity, where whole multicast flows
   are delivered on a single VLAN.



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


                               (Multicast sources)
                                        |
                                        |
                                      +---+
                                      |CE4|
                                      +---+
                                        |
                                        |
                                  +-----+-----+
                     +------------|   PE-1    |------------+
                     |            |           |            |
                     |            +-----------+            |
                     |                                     |
                     |                   EVPN              |
                     |                                     |
                     |                                     |
                     | (DF)                           (NDF)|
               +-----------+                        +-----------+
               |  |EVI-1|  |                        |  |EVI-1|  |
               |   PE-2    |------------------------|   PE-3    |
               +-----------+                        +-----------+
                      AC1  \                       / AC2
                            \                     /
                             \      ESI-1        /
                              \                 /
                               \               /
                               +---------------+
                               |    CE2        |
                               +---------------+
                                      |
                                      |
                             (Multiple receivers)


                   Figure 1: Multi-homing Network of EVPN
                             for IPTV deployments

   Consider the above topology, which shows a typical residential
   deployment scenario, where multiple receivers are behind an all-
   active multihoming segments.  All of the multicast traffic is
   provisioned on EVI-1.  Assume PE-2 get elected as DF.  According to
   [RFC7432], PE-2 will be responsible for forwarding multicast traffic
   to that Ethernet segment.

   o  Forcing sole data plane forwarding responsibility on PE-2 is a
      limitation in the current DF election mechanism.  The topology at
      Figure 1 would always have only one of the PE to be elected as DF
      irrespective of which current DF election mechanism is in use



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


      defined in [RFC7432] or
      [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework].

   o  The problem may also manifest itself in a different way.  For
      example, AC1 happens to use 80% of its available bandwidth to
      forward unicast data.  And now there is need to serve multicast
      receivers where it would require more than 20% of AC1 bandwidth.
      In this case, AC1 becomes oversubscribed and multicast traffic
      drop would be observed even though there is already another link
      (AC2) present in network which can be used more efficiently load
      balance the multicast traffic.

   In this document, we propose an extension to the HRW base draft to
   allow DF election at the granularity of (ESI, VLAN, Mcast flow) which
   would allow multicast flows to be better distributed among redundancy
   group PEs to share the load.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]  .

   With respect to EVPN, this document follows the terminology that has
   been defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC4601] for multicast terminology.

3.  The DF Election Extended Community

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] defines an extended
   community, which would be used for PEs in redundancy group to reach a
   consensus as to which DF election procedure is desired.  A PE can
   notify other participating PEs in redundancy group about its
   willingness to support Per multicast flow base DF election capability
   by signaling a DF election extended community along with Ethernet-
   Segment Route (Type-4).  The current proposal extends the existing
   extended community defined in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework].  This draft defines new a
   DF type.

   o  DF type (1 octet) - Encodes the DF Election algorithm values
      (between 0 and 255) that the advertising PE desires to use for the
      ES.

      *  Type 0: Default DF Election algorithm, or modulus-based
         algorithms in [RFC7432].

      *  Type 1: HRW algorithm defined in
         [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework]



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


      *  Type 2: Handshake defines in
         [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery]

      *  Type 3: Time-Synch defined in
         [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery]

      *  Type 4: HRW base per (S,G) multicast flow DF election
         (explained in this document)

      *  Type 5: HRW base per (*,G) multicast flow DF election
         (explained in this document)

      *  Type 6 - 254: Unassigned

      *  Type 255: Reserved for Experimental Use.

   o  The [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] describes encoding
      of capabilities associated to the DF election algorithm using
      Bitmap field.  When these capabilities bits are set along with the
      DF type-4 and type-5, they need to be interpreted in context of
      this new DF type-4 and type-5.  For example, consider a scenario
      where all PEs in the same redundancy group (same ES) can support
      both AC-DF, DF type-4 and DF type-5 and receive such indications
      from the other PEs in the ES.  In this scenario, if a VLAN is not
      active in a PE, then the DF election procedure on all PEs in the
      ES should factor that in and exclude that PE in the DF election
      per multicast flow.

   o  A PE SHOULD attach the DF election Extended Community to ES route
      and Extended Community MUST be sent if the ES is locally
      configured for DF type Per Multicast flow DF election.  Only one
      DF Election Extended community can be sent along with an ES route.

   o  When a PE receives the ES Routes from all the other PEs for the
      ES, it checks if all of other PEs have advertised their desire to
      proceed by Per multicast flow DF election.  If all peering PEs
      have done so, it performs DF election based on Per multicast flow
      procedure.  But if:

      *  There is at least one PE which advertised route-4 ( AD per ES
         Route) which does not indicate its capability to perform Per
         multicast flow DF election.  OR

      *  There is at least one PE signaling single active in the AD per
         ES route






Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


      it MUST be considered as an indication to support of only Default
      DF election [RFC7432] and DF election procedure in [RFC7432] MUST
      be used.

4.  HRW base per multicast flow EVPN DF election

   This document is an extension of
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework], so this draft does not
   repeat the description of HRW algorithm itself.

   EVPN PE does the discovery of redundancy groups based on [RFC7432].
   If redundancy group consists of N peering EVPN PE nodes, after the
   discovery all PEs build an unordered list of IP address of all the
   nodes in the redundancy group.  The procedure defined in this draft
   does not require the list of PEs to be ordered.  Address [i] denotes
   the IP address of the [i]th EVPN PE in redundancy group where (0 < i
   <= N ).

4.1.  DF election for IGMP (S,G) membership request

   The DF is the PE who has maximum weight for (S, G, V, Es) where

   o  S - Multicast Source

   o  G - Multicast Group

   o  V - VLAN ID.

   o  Es - Ethernet Segment Identifier

   Address[i] is address of the ith PE.  The PEs IP address length does
   not matter as only the lower-order 31 bits are modulo significant.

   1.  Weight

       *  The weight of PE(i) to (S,G,VLAN ID, Es) is calculated by
          function, weight (S,G,V, Es, Address(i)), where (0 < i <= N),
          PE(i) is the PE at ordinal i.

       *  Weight (S,G,V, Es, Address(i)) = (1103515245.
          ((1103515245.Address(i) + 12345) XOR D(S,G,V,ESI))+12345) (mod
          2^31)

       *  In case of tie, the PE whose IP address is numerically least
          is chosen.

   2.  Digest




Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


       *  D(S,G,V, Es) = CRC_32(S,G,V, Es)

       *  Here D(S,G,V,Es) is the 31-bit digest (CRC_32 and discarding
          the MSB) of the Source IP, Group IP, Vlan ID and Es.  The CRC
          MUST proceed as if the architecture is in network byte order
          (big-endian).

4.2.  DF election for IGMP (*,G) membership request

   The DF is the PE who has maximum weight for (G, V, Es) where

   o  G - Multicast Group

   o  V - VLAN ID.

   o  Es - Ethernet Segment Identifier

   Address[i] is address of the ith PE.  The PEs IP address length does
   not matter as only the lower-order 31 bits are modulo significant.

   1.  Weight

       *  The weight of PE(i) to (G,VLAN ID, Es) is calculated by
          function, weight (G,V, Es, Address(i)), where (0 < i <= N),
          PE(i) is the PE at ordinal i.

       *  Weight (G,V, Es, Address(i)) = (1103515245.
          ((1103515245.Address(i) + 12345) XOR D(G,V,ESI))+12345) (mod
          2^31)

       *  In case of tie, the PE whose IP address is numerically least
          is chosen.

   2.  Digest

       *  D(G,V, Es) = CRC_32(G,V, Es)

       *  Here D(G,V,Es) is the 31-bit digest (CRC_32 and discarding the
          MSB) of the Group IP, Vlan ID and Es.  The CRC MUST proceed as
          if the architecture is in network byte order (big-endian).

4.3.  Default DF election procedure

   Per multicast DF election procedure would be applicable only when
   host behind Attachment Circuit (of the Es) start sending IGMP
   membership requests.  Membership requests are synced using procedure
   defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy], and each of the PE in
   redundancy group can use per flow DF election and create DF state per



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


   multicast flow.  The HRW DF election "Type 1" procedure defined in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] MUST be used for the Es DF
   election and SHOULD be performed on Es even before learning multicast
   membership request state.  This default election procedure MUST be
   used at port level but will be overwritten by Per flow DF election as
   and when new membership request state are learnt.

5.  Procedure to use per multicast flow DF election algorithm


                                     Multicast  Source
                                             |
                                             |
                                             |
                                             |
                                         +---------+
                          +--------------+  PE-4   +--------------+
                          |              |         |              |
                          |              +---------+              |
                          |                                       |
                          |              EVPN CORE                |
                          |                                       |
                          |                                       |
                          |                                       |
                      +---------+        +---------+         +---------+
                      |  PE-1   +--------+   PE-2  +---------+   PE-3  |
                      |  EVI-1  |        |  EVI-1  |         | EVI-1   |
                      +---------+        +---------+         +---------+
                           |__________________|___________________|
                         AC-1    ESI-1        | AC-2               AC-3
                                         +---------+
                                         |  CE-1   |
                                         |         |
                                         +---------+
                                              |
                                              |
                                              |
                                              |
                                      Multicast Receivers

                      Figure-2 : Multihomed network

   Figure-2 shows multihomed network.  Where EVPN PE-1, PE-2, PE-3 are
   multihomed to CE-1.  Multiple multicast receivers are behind all
   active multihoming segment.

   1.  PEs connected to the same Ethernet segment can automatically
       discover each other through exchange of the Ethernet Segment



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


       Route.  This draft does not change any of this procedure, it
       still uses the procedure defined in [RFC7432].

   2.  Each of the PEs in redundancy group advertise Ethernet segment
       route with extended community indicating their ability to
       participate in per multicast flow DF election procedure.  Since
       Per multicast flow would not be applicable unless PE learns about
       membership request from receiver, there is a need to have the
       default DF election among PEs in redundancy group for BUM
       traffic.  Until multicast membership state are learnt, we use the
       the DF election procedure in Section 4.3, namely HRW per (v,Es)
       as defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] .

   3.  When a receiver starts sending membership requests for (s1,g1),
       where s1 is multicast source address and g1 is multicast group
       address, CE-1 could hash membership request (IGMP join) to any of
       the PEs in redundancy group.  Let's consider it is hashed to PE-
       2.  [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] defines a procedure to
       sync IGMP join state among redundancy group of PEs.  Now each of
       the PE would have information about membership request (s1,g1)
       and each of them run DF election procedure Section 4.1 to elect
       DF among participating PEs in redundancy group.  Consider PE-2
       gets elected as DF for multicast flow (s1,g1).

       1.  PE-1 forwarding state would be nDF for flow (s1,g1) and DF
           for rest other BUM traffic.

       2.  PE-2 forwarding state would be DF for flow (s1,g1) and nDF
           for rest other BUM traffic.

       3.  PE-3 forwarding state would be nDF for flow (s1,g1) and rest
           other BUM traffic.

   4.  As and when new multicast membership request comes, same
       procedure as above would continue.

   5.  If Section 3 has DF type 4, For membership request (S,G) it MUST
       use Section 4.1 to elect DF among participating PEs.  And
       membership request (*,G) MUST use Section 4.2 to elect DF among
       participating PEs.

6.  Triggers for DF re-election

   There are multiple triggers which can cause DF re-election.  Some of
   the triggers could be

   1.  Local ES going down due to physical failure or configuration
       change triggers DF re-election at peering PE.



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


   2.  Detection of new PE through ES route.

   3.  AC going up / down

   4.  ESI change

   5.  Remote PE removed / Down

   6.  Local configuration change of DF election Type and peering PE
       consensus on new DF Type

   This document does not provide any new mechanism to handle DF re-
   election procedure.  It uses the existing mechanism defined in
   [RFC7432].  Whenever either of the triggers occur, a DF re-election
   would be done. and all of the flows would be redistributed among
   existing PEs in redundancy group for ES.

7.  Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] are valid for
   this document.

8.  IANA Considerations

   Allocation of DF type in DF extended community for EVPN.

9.  Acknowledgement

   Authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments and contributions
   of Luc Andre Burdet.

10.  Normative References

   [HRW1999]  IEEE, "Using name-based mappings to increase hit rates",
              IEEE HRW, February 1998.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework]
              Rabadan, J., satyamoh@cisco.com, s., Sajassi, A., Drake,
              J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for EVPN
              Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", draft-ietf-
              bess-evpn-df-election-framework-03 (work in progress), May
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery]
              Sajassi, A., Badoni, G., Rao, D., Brissette, P., Drake,
              J., and J. Rabadan, "Fast Recovery for EVPN DF Election",
              draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-00 (work in
              progress), June 2018.



Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
              Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Yeung, D., Drake, J.,
              and W. Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-
              bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-00 (work in progress), March
              2017.

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

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

Authors' Addresses

   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems
   821 Alder Drive,
   MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
   UNITED STATES

   Email: sajassi@cisco.com


   Mankamana Mishra
   Cisco Systems
   821 Alder Drive,
   MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
   UNITED STATES

   Email: mankamis@cisco.com











Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-DraPer multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election   June 2018


   Samir Thoria
   Cisco Systems
   821 Alder Drive,
   MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
   UNITED STATES

   Email: sthoria@cisco.com


   Jorge Rabadan
   Nokia
   777 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   UNITED STATES

   Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com


   John Drake
   Juniper Networks

   Email: jdrake@juniper.net





























Sajassi, et al.         Expires December 30, 2018              [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/