Internet-Draft EVPN Weighted Multi-Pathing November 2024
Malhotra, et al. Expires 16 May 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
BESS WorkGroup
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-24
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
N. Malhotra, Ed.
Cisco Systems
A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems
J. Rabadan
Nokia
J. Drake
Juniper
A. Lingala
ATT
S. Thoria
Cisco Systems

Weighted Multi-Path Procedures for EVPN Multi-Homing

Abstract

EVPN enables all-active multi-homing for a CE (Customer Equipment) device connected to two or more PE (Provider Equipment) devices via a LAG (Link Aggregation), such that bridged and routed traffic from remote PEs to hosts attached to the Ethernet Segment can be equally load balanced (it uses Equal Cost Multi Path) across the multi-homing PEs. EVPN also enables multi-homing for IP subnets advertised in IP Prefix routes, so that routed traffic from remote PEs to those IP subnets can be load balanced. This document defines extensions to EVPN procedures to optimally handle unequal access bandwidth distribution across a set of multi-homing PEs in order to:

In order to achieve the above, it specifies signaling extensions and procedures to:

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 16 May 2025.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

In an EVPN IRB (Integrated Routing and Bridging) overlay network as described in [RFC9135], with a CE multi-homed via a EVPN all-active multi-homing, bridged and routed traffic from ingress PEs can be equally load balanced (ECMPed) across the multi-homing egress PEs:

All of the above load balancing and DF election procedures implicitly assume equal bandwidth distribution between the CE and the set of egress PEs. Essentially, with this assumption of equal "access" bandwidth distribution across all egress PEs, all remote traffic is equally load balanced across the egress PEs. This assumption of equal access bandwidth distribution can be restrictive with respect to adding / removing links in a multi-homed LAG interface and may also be easily broken on individual link failures. A solution to handle unequal access bandwidth distribution across a set of egress PEs is specified in this document. Primary motivation behind this proposal is to enable greater flexibility with respect to adding / removing member PE-CE links, as needed and to optimally handle PE-CE link failures.

                      +------------------------+
                      | Underlay Network Fabric|
                      +------------------------+

                          +-----+   +-----+
                          | PE1 |   | PE2 |
                          +-----+   +-----+
                             \         /
                              \  ES-1 /
                               \     /
                               +\---/+
                               | \ / |
                               +--+--+
                                  |
                                 CE1
Figure 1

Consider CE1 that is dual-homed to egress PE1 and egress PE2 via EVPN all-active multi-homing with single member links of equal bandwidth to each PE (aka, equal access bandwidth distribution across PE1 and PE2). If the provider wants to increase link bandwidth to CE1, it must add a link to both PE1 and PE2 in order to maintain equal access bandwidth distribution and inter-work with EVPN ECMP load balancing. In other words, for a dual-homed CE, total number of CE links must be provisioned in multiples of 2 (2, 4, 6, and so on). For a triple-homed CE, number of CE links must be provisioned in multiples of three (3, 6, 9, and so on). To generalize, for a CE that is multi-homed to "n" PEs, number of PE-CE physical links provisioned must be an integral multiple of "n". This is restrictive in case of dual-homing and very quickly becomes prohibitive in case of multi-homing.

Instead, a provider may wish to increase PE-CE bandwidth or number of links in any link increments. As an example, for CE1 dual-homed to egress PE1 and egress PE2 in all-active mode, provider may wish to add a third link to only PE1 to increase total bandwidth for this CE by 50%, rather than being required to increase access bandwidth by 100% by adding a link to each of the two PEs. While existing EVPN based all-active load balancing procedures do not necessarily preclude such asymmetric access bandwidth distribution among the PEs providing redundancy, it may result in unexpected traffic loss due to congestion in the access interface towards CE. This traffic loss is due to the fact that PE1 and PE2 will continue to be treated as equal cost paths at remote PEs, and as a result may attract approximately equal amount of CE1 destined traffic, even when PE2 only has half the bandwidth to CE1 as PE1. This may lead to congestion and traffic loss on the PE2-CE1 link. If bandwidth distribution to CE1 across PE1 and PE2 is 2:1, traffic from remote hosts must also be load balanced across PE1 and PE2 in 2:1 manner.

1.3. Design Requirement 

                           +-----------------------+
                           |Underlay Network Fabric|
                           +-----------------------+

                 +-----+   +-----+           +-----+   +-----+
                 | PE1 |   | PE2 |   .....   | PEx |   | PEn |
                 +-----+   +-----+           +-----+   +-----+
                    \       \                 //        //
                     \ L1    \ L2            // Lx     // Ln
                      \       \             //        //
                     +-\-------\-----------//--------//-+
                     |  \       \  ES-1   //        //  |
                     +----------------------------------+
                                      |
                                      CE
Figure 3

To generalize, if total link bandwidth to a CE is distributed across "n" egress PEs, with Lx being the total bandwidth to PEx across all links, traffic from ingress PEs to this CE must be load balanced unequally across egress PE set [PE1, PE2, ....., PEn] such that, fraction of total unicast and BUM flows destined for CE that are serviced by egress PEx is:

Lx / [L1+L2+.....+Ln]

Figure 3 illustrates a scenario where egress PE1..PEn are attached to a multi-homed Ethernet Segment, however this document generalizes this requirement so that the unequal load balancing can be applied to PEs attached to a vES or to a multi-homed subnet advertised by EVPN IP Prefix routes.

The solution specified below includes extensions to EVPN procedures to achieve the above. Following assumption apply to procedure described in this document:

  • For procedures related to bridged unicast and BUM traffic, EVPN all active multi-homing is assumed.

  • Procedures related to bridged unicast and BUM traffic are applicable to both aliasing and non-alaising mode as defined in [RFC7432].

2. Requirements Language and Terminology

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.

3. Solution Overview

In order to achieve weighted load balancing to an ES or vES for overlay unicast traffic, Ethernet A-D per ES route (EVPN Route Type 1) is leveraged to signal the Ethernet Segment weight to ingress PEs. Using Ethernet A-D per ES route to signal the Ethernet Segment weight provides a mechanism that reacts to changes in access bandwidth or number of access links in a service and host independent manner. Ingress PEs computing the MAC path-lists based on global and aliasing Ethernet A-D routes now have the ability to setup weighted load balancing path-lists based on the ES access bandwidth or number of links received from each egress PE that the ES is multi-homed to.

In order to achieve weighted load balancing of overlay BUM traffic, EVPN ES route (Route Type 4) is leveraged to signal the ES weight to egress PEs within an ES's redundancy group to influence per-service DF election. Egress PEs in an ES redundancy group now have the ability to do service carving in proportion to each egress PE's relative ES weight.

Unequal load balancing to multi-homed subnets is achieved by signaling the weight along with the IP Prefix routes advertised for the subnet.

Procedures to accomplish this are described in greater detail next.

5. Weighted Unicast Traffic Load-balancing to an Ethernet Segment

5.1. Egress PE Behavior

A PE that is part of an Ethernet Segment's redundancy group MUST advertise an additional "EVPN link bandwidth" extended community with Ethernet A-D per ES route (EVPN Route Type 1), that carries total bandwidth of PE's physical links in an Ethernet Segment or a generalized weight. New EVPN link bandwidth extended community defined in this document is used for this purpose.

EVPN link bandwidth extended community MUST NOT be attached to per-EVI RT-1 or to EVPN RT-2 as it is a physical ESI property and hence advertised per-ESI.

5.2. Ingress PE Behavior

An ingress PE MUST ensure that the EVPN link bandwidth extended community is received from all the egress PEs in an Ethernet Segment and check for consistent 'Value-Units' received from each egress PE in an Ethernet Segment. In case of missing EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community or inconsistent 'Value-Units' from any of the egress PEs in an Ethernet Segment, this EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is to be ignored by the ingress PE and ingress PE is to follow regular ECMP forwarding to that Ethernet Segment. Ingress PE MUST generate a syslog when the EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is ignored.

Once consistency of 'Value-Units' is validated, ingress PE SHOULD use the 'Value-Weight' received from each egress PE to compute a relative (normalized) weight for each egress PE, per ES, and then use this relative weight to compute a weighted path-list to be used for load balancing, as opposed to using an ECMP path-list for load balancing across the egress PE paths. Egress PE Weight and resulting weighted path-list computation at ingress PEs is a local matter. An example computation algorithm is shown below to illustrate the idea:

if,

L(x,y) : link bandwidth advertised by egress PE-x for ES-y

W(x,y) : normalized weight assigned to egress PE-x for ES-y

H(y) : Highest Common Factor (HCF) of [L(1,y), L(2,y), ....., L(n,y)]

then, the normalized weight assigned to egress PE-x for ES-y may be computed as follows:

W(x,y) = L(x,y) / H(y)

For a MAC+IP route (EVPN Route Type 2) received with ES-y, ingress PE may compute MAC and IP forwarding path-list weighted by the above normalized weights.

As an example, for a CE multi-homed to PE-1, PE-2, PE-3 via 2, 1, and 1 GE physical links respectively, as part of a LAG represented by ES-10:

L(1, 10) = 2000 Mbps

L(2, 10) = 1000 Mbps

L(3, 10) = 1000 Mbps

H(10) = 1000

Normalized weights assigned to each egress PE for ES-10 are as follows:

W(1, 10) = 2000 / 1000 = 2.

W(2, 10) = 1000 / 1000 = 1.

W(3, 10) = 1000 / 1000 = 1.

For a remote MAC+IP host route received with ES-10, forwarding load balancing path-list may now be computed as: [PE-1, PE-1, PE-2, PE-3] instead of [PE-1, PE-2, PE-3]. This now results in load balancing of all traffic destined for ES-10 across the three egress PEs in proportion to ES-10 bandwidth at each egress PE.

Please note that the pathlist computation algorithm above is for illustration only. Weighted pathlist computation based on the received EVPN link bandwidth extended community is a local implementation choice. As an example, if the received link bandwidth values do not result in a good HCF H(y) in the computation method above to be able to compute reasonable weights that can be programmed in hardware, implementation MAY choose another approximation to arrive at rounded integer weight values that can be programmed in hardware.

Weighted path-list computation must only be done for an ES if EVPN link bandwidth extended community is received from all of the egress PE's advertising reachability to that ES via Ethernet A-D per ES Route Type 1. In an unlikely event that EVPN link bandwidth extended community is not received from one or more egress PEs, forwarding path-list should be computed using regular ECMP semantics. Note that a default weight cannot be assumed for an egress PE that does not advertise its link bandwidth as the weight to be used in path-list computation is relative.

If per-ES RT-1 is not advertised or withdrawn from any of the egress PE(s), as per [RFC7432], egress PE is removed from the forwarding path-list for that [EVI, ES]. Hence, the weighted path-list MUST be re-computed.

In an unlikely scenario that per-[ES, EVI] RT-1 is not advertised from any of the egress PE(s), as per [RFC7432], egress PE is not included in the forwarding path-list for that [EVI, ES]. Hence, the weighted path-list for the [EVI, ES] MUST be computed based only on the weights received from egress PEs that advertised the per-[ES, EVI] RT-1.

6. Weighted BUM Traffic Load-Sharing across an Ethernet Segment

Optionally, load sharing of per-service DF role, weighted by individual egress PE's link-bandwidth share within a multi-homed ES may also be achieved.

In order to do that, a new DF Election Capability [RFC8584] called "BW" (Bandwidth Weighted DF Election) is defined. BW MAY be used along with some DF Election Types, as described in the following sections.

6.1. The BW Capability in the DF Election Extended Community

[RFC8584] defines a new extended community for PEs within a redundancy group to signal and agree on uniform DF Election Type and Capabilities for each ES. This document requests IANA to allocate a bit in the "DF Election capabilities" registry setup by [RFC8584]:

Bit 4: BW (Bandwidth Weighted DF Election)

ES routes advertised with the BW bit set will indicate the desire of the advertising egress PE to consider the link-bandwidth in the DF Election algorithm defined by the value in the "DF Type".

As per [RFC8584], all the egress PEs in the ES MUST advertise the same Capabilities and DF Type, otherwise the PEs will fall back to Default [RFC7432] DF Election procedure.

The BW Capability MAY be advertised with the following DF Types:

  • Type 0: Default DF Election algorithm, as in [RFC7432]

  • Type 1: HRW (Highest Random Weight) algorithm, as in [RFC8584]

  • Type 2: Preference algorithm, as in [EVPN-DF-PREF]

  • Type 4: HRW per-multicast flow DF Election, as in [EVPN-PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF]

The following sections describe how the DF Election procedures are modified for the above DF Types when the BW Capability is used.

6.2. BW Capability and Default DF Election algorithm

When all the PEs in the Ethernet Segment (ES) agree to use the BW Capability with DF Type 0, the Default DF Election procedure as defined in [RFC7432] is modified as follows:

  • Each PE advertises a "EVPN Link Bandwidth" extended community along with the ES route to signal the PE-CE link bandwidth (LBW) for the ES.

  • A receiving egress PE MUST use the ES link bandwidth extended community received from each egress PE to compute a relative weight for each egress PE in an Ethernet Segment.

  • The DF Election procedure MUST now use this weighted list of egress PEs to compute the per-VLAN Designated Forwarder, such that the DF role is distributed in proportion to this normalized weight. As a result, a single PE may have multiple ordinals in the DF candidate PE list and 'N' used in (V mod N) operation as defined in [RFC7432] is modified to be total number of ordinals instead of being total number of egress PEs in an Ethernet Segment.

Considering the same example as in Section 5.2, the candidate PE list for DF election is:

[PE-1, PE-1, PE-2, PE-3].

The DF for a given VLAN-a on ES-10 is now computed as (VLAN-a mod 4). This would result in the DF role being distributed across PE1, PE2, and PE3 in portion to each PE's normalized weight for ES-10.

6.3. BW Capability and HRW DF Election algorithm (Type 1 and 4)

[RFC8584] introduces Highest Random Weight (HRW) algorithm (DF Type 1) for DF election in order to solve potential DF election skew depending on Ethernet tag space distribution. [EVPN-PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF] further extends HRW algorithm for per-multicast flow based hash computations (DF Type 4). This section describes extensions to HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election specified in [RFC8584] and in [EVPN-PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF] in order to achieve DF election distribution that is weighted by link bandwidth.

6.3.1. BW Increment

A new variable called "bandwidth increment" is computed for each [PE, ES] advertising the ES link bandwidth extended community as follows:

In the context of an ES,

L(i) = Link bandwidth advertised by PE(i) for this ES

Lmin = lowest link bandwidth advertised across all PEs for this ES

Bandwidth increment, "b(i)" for a given PE(i) advertising a link bandwidth of L(i) is defined as an integer value computed as:

b(i) = L(i) / Lmin

As an example,

with L(1) = 10, L(2) = 10, L(3) = 20

bandwidth increment for each PE would be computed as:

b(1) = 1, b(2) = 1, b(3) = 2

with L(1) = 10, L(2) = 10, L(3) = 10

bandwidth increment for each PE would be computed as:

b(1) = 1, b(2) = 1, b(3) = 1

Note that the bandwidth increment must always be an integer, including, in an unlikely scenario of a PE's link bandwidth not being an exact multiple of Lmin. If it computes to a non-integer value (including as a result of link failure), it MUST be rounded down to an integer.

6.3.2. HRW Hash Computations with BW Increment

HRW algorithm as described in [RFC8584] and in [EVPN-PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF] computes a random hash value for each PE(i), where, (0 < i <= N), PE(i) is the PE at ordinal i, and Address(i) is the IP address of PE(i).

For 'N' PEs sharing an Ethernet segment, this results in 'N' candidate hash computations. The PE that has the highest hash value is selected as the DF.

We refer to this hash value as "affinity" in this document. Hash or affinity computation for each PE(i) is extended to be computed one per bandwidth increment associated with PE(i) instead of a single affinity computation per PE(i).

PE(i) with b(i) = j, results in j affinity computations:

affinity(i, x), where 1 < x <= j

This essentially results in number of candidate HRW hash computations for each PE that is directly proportional to that PE's relative bandwidth within an ES and hence gives PE(i) a probability of being DF in proportion to it's relative bandwidth within an ES.

As an example, consider an ES that is multi-homed to two PEs, PE1 and PE2, with equal bandwidth distribution across PE1 and PE2. This would result in a total of two candidate hash computations:

affinity(PE1, 1)

affinity(PE2, 1)

Now, consider a scenario with PE1's link bandwidth as 2x that of PE2. This would result in a total of three candidate hash computations to be used for DF election:

affinity(PE1, 1)

affinity(PE1, 2)

affinity(PE2, 1)

which would give PE1 2/3 probability of getting elected as a DF, in proportion to its relative bandwidth in the ES.

Depending on the chosen HRW hash function, affinity function MUST be extended to include bandwidth increment in the computation.

For e.g.,

affinity function specified in [EVPN-PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF] MUST be extended as follows to incorporate bandwidth increment j:

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

affinity or random function specified in [RFC8584] MUST be extended as follows to incorporate bandwidth increment j:

affinity(v, Es, Address(i,j)) = (1103515245((1103515245.Address(i).j + 12345) XOR D(v,Es))+12345)(mod 2^31)

6.4. BW Capability and Preference DF Election algorithm

This section applies to ES'es where all the PEs in the ES agree use the BW Capability with DF Type 2. The BW Capability modifies the Preference DF Election procedure [EVPN-DF-PREF], by adding the LBW value as a tie-breaker as follows:

Section 4.1, bullet (f) in [EVPN-DF-PREF] is updated to now consider the LBW value as below:

f) In case of equal Preference in two or more PEs in the ES, the tie-breakers will be the DP (Don't Preempt me) bit, the LBW value and the lowest IP PE in that order. For instance:

  • If vES1 parameters were [Pref=500,DP=0,LBW=1000] in PE1 and [Pref=500,DP=1, LBW=2000] in PE2, PE2 would be elected due to the DP bit.

  • If vES1 parameters were [Pref=500,DP=0,LBW=1000] in PE1 and [Pref=500,DP=0, LBW=2000] in PE2, PE2 would be elected due to a higher LBW, even if PE1's IP address is lower.

  • The LBW exchanged value has no impact on the Non-Revertive option described in [EVPN-DF-PREF].

6.5. Cost-Benefit Tradeoff on Link Failures

While incorporating link bandwidth into the DF election process provides optimal BUM traffic distribution across the ES links, it also implies that DF elections are re-adjusted on link failures or bandwidth changes. If the operator does not wish to have this level of churn in their DF election, then they should not advertise the BW capability. Not advertising BW capability may result in less than optimal BUM traffic distribution while still retaining the ability to allow an ingress PE to do weighted ECMP for its unicast traffic to a set of egress PEs.

7. Additional Considerations

7.1. Real-time Available Bandwidth

PE-CE link bandwidth availability may sometimes vary in real-time disproportionately across PE-CE links within a multi-homed ES due to various factors such as flow based hashing combined with fat flows and unbalanced hashing. Reacting to real-time available bandwidth is at this time outside the scope of this document.

7.2. Weighted Load-balancing to Multi-homed Subnets

EVPN Link bandwidth extended community may also be used to achieve unequal load-balancing of prefix routed traffic by including this extended community in EVPN Route Type 5. When included in EVPN RT-5, its value is to be interpreted as egress PE's relative weight for the prefix included in this RT-5. Ingress PE will then compute the forwarding path-list for the prefix route using weighted paths received from each egress PE. EVPN Link bandwidth extended community MUST be encoded with "Value-Units = 0x01" to signal a generalized weight associated with the advertising PE.

7.3. Weighted Load-balancing without EVPN aliasing

[RFC7432] defines per-[ES, EVI] RT-1 based EVPN aliasing procedure as an optional propcedure. In an unlikely scenario where an EVPN implementation does not support EVPN aliasing procedures, MAC forwarding path-list at the ingress PE is computed based on per-ES RT-1 and RT-2 routes received from egress PEs instead of per-ES RT-1 and per-[ES, EVI] RT-1 from egress PEs. In such a case, only the weights received via per-ES RT-1 from the egress PEs included in the MAC path-list are to be considered for weighted path-list computation.

7.4. EVPN IRB Multi-homing With Non-EVPN routing

EVPN-LAG based multi-homing on an IRB gateway may also be deployed together with non-EVPN routing, such as global routing or an L3VPN routing control plane. Key property that differentiates this set of use cases from EVPN IRB use cases discussed earlier is that EVPN control plane is used only to enable LAG interface based multi-homing and not as an overlay VPN control plane. Applicability of weighted ECMP procedures specified in this document to these set of use cases is an area of further consideration beyond the scope of this document.

8. Operational Considerations

9. Security Considerations

Security considerations discussed in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] apply to this document. Methods described in this document further extend signaling of multi-homed devices using ESI LAG. They are hence subject to same considerations if the control plane or data plane was to be compromised. As an example, if control plane is compromised, signaling of heavily skewed Link Bandwidth Attributes could result in all traffic to be directed towards one PE resulting in its host facing links to be overloaded. Exposure to such an attack is limited by suggested syslogs discussed in Operational Consideration section. Considerations for protecting control and data plane described in [RFC7432] are equally applicable to signaling of Link Bandwidth Attribute defined in this document.

10. IANA Considerations

10.1. Bandwidth Weighted DF Election Capability

[RFC8584] defines a new extended community for PEs within a redundancy group to signal and agree on uniform DF Election Type and Capabilities for each ES. This document requests IANA to allocate a bit in the "DF Election capabilities" registry setup by [RFC8584] with the following suggested bit number:

Bit 4: BW (Bandwidth Weighted DF Election)

10.3. Value-Units Registry

IANA is requested to set up a registry called "Value-Units" for the 1-octet field in the EVPN Link Bandwidth Extended Community. New registrations will be made through the "RFC Required" procedure defined in [RFC8126]. The following are suggested initial values in that registry exist:

Value       Name                             Reference
----        ----------------                 -------------
0           Weight in units of Mbps          This document
1           Generalized Weight               This document
2-255       Unassigned

11. Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank Satya Mohanty for valuable review and inputs with respect to HRW and weighted HRW algorithm refinements specified in this document. Authors would also like to thank Bruno Decraene and Sergey Fomin for valuable review and comments.

12. Contributors 

Satya Ranjan Mohanty
Cisco Systems
US
Email: [email protected]

13. References

13.1. Normative References

[EVPN-DF-PREF]
Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Przygienda, T., Lin, W., Drake, J., Sajassi, A., Mohanty, S., "Preference-based EVPN DF Election", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-06, , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-06.txt>.
[EVPN-PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF]
Sajassi, A., mishra, m., Thoria, S., Rabadan, J., and J. Drake, "Per multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election for EVPN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-04, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-04.txt>.
[EVPN-VIRTUAL-ES]
Sajassi, A., Brissette, P., Schell, R., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., "EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-06, , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-06.txt>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7606]
Chen, E., Scudder, J., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[RFC7814]
Xu, X., Jacquenet, C., Raszuk, R., Boyes, T., and B. Fee, "Virtual Subnet: A BGP/MPLS IP VPN-Based Subnet Extension Solution", RFC 7814, DOI 10.17487/RFC7814, , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7814>.
[RFC8584]
Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, R., Sajassi, N., Drake, A., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>.

13.2. Informative References

Mohapatra, P. and R. Fernando, "BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-07, , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-07.txt>.
[RFC9135]
Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Thoria, S., Drake, J., and J. Rabadan, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN", RFC 9135, DOI 10.17487/RFC9135, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9135>.

Link bandwidth extended community described in [BGP-LINK-BW] for layer 3 VPNs was considered for re-use here. This Link bandwidth extended community is however defined in [BGP-LINK-BW] as optional non-transitive. Since it is not possible to change deployed behavior of extended community defined in [BGP-LINK-BW], it was decided to define a new one. In inter-AS scenarios, link-bandwidth needs to be signaled to eBGP neighbors. When signaled across AS boundary, this extended community can be used to achieve optimal load-balancing towards egress PEs in a different AS. This is applicable both when next-hop is changed or unchanged across AS boundaries.

Authors' Addresses

Neeraj Malhotra (editor)
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
John Drake
Juniper
Avinash Lingala
ATT
200 S. Laurel Avenue
Middletown, CA 07748
United States of America
Samir Thoria
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America