ietf-corpus

rfc-8614

Updated Processing of Control Flags for BGP Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)

R. Singh, K. Kompella, S. Palislamovic
date2019-06 streamIETF areartg wgbess statusPROPOSED STANDARD pages9 canonicalhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8614 doi10.17487/RFC8614
This document updates the meaning of the Control Flags field in the "Layer2 Info Extended Community" used for BGP Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) as defined in RFC 4761. This document updates RFC 4761.

updates

Extracted elements (18)

design-rationale §2

RFC 4761 did not specify PE behavior in mixed environments where some PEs support Control Word (CW) or sequencing and others do not. If a PE set the C-bit or S-bit and the remote PE disagreed, the PW would not come up, which was overly restrictive for real deployments.

mpls, bgp, routing

design-rationale §3.2

The S-bit mismatch causes PW non-establishment (SHOULD NOT come up) rather than graceful fallback, specifically to prevent out-of-sequence delivery in multihomed scenarios where multiple PEs serve the same site with differing sequencing capabilities.

mpls, bgp, routing

interoperability-note §5

A PE advertising C-bit=1 must set up its data plane to conditionally strip the CW only for frames received from PEs that indicated they send CW-marked frames, and must not strip CW from frames received from PEs that advertised C-bit=0.

mpls, bgp, routing

interoperability-note §3

This document updates RFC 4761 by changing C-bit mismatch behavior (PW now comes up without CW instead of failing) and S-bit mismatch behavior (PW SHOULD NOT come up, replacing the implicit fail). Implementations upgrading from RFC 4761 must account for both behavioral changes.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §3.1 MUST NOT

If both PEs advertise a C-bit of 0, CWs MUST NOT be used on the PW.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §3.2 MUST

If both PEs at the ends of a PW set the S-bit to 1, non-zero sequence numbers MUST be used in both directions of the PW.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §3.2 MUST NOT

If both PEs send an S-bit of 0, sequence numbers MUST NOT be used on the PW.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §3.1 MUST

If the PEs at both ends of a PW set the C-bit to 1, CWs MUST be used in both directions of the PW.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §3.2 SHOULD NOT

If the PEs at both ends of the PW do not agree on the S-bit setting, the PW SHOULD NOT come up, to avoid out-of-sequence ordering issues in multihoming scenarios as described in RFC 4385 Section 4.2.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §6.1 SHOULD

In multihoming scenarios, each PW SHOULD be evaluated independently for C-bit requirements, rather than enforcing a uniform CW policy across all PWs representing the same service destination endpoint.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §6.2 SHOULD

In multihoming scenarios, the S-bit evaluation SHOULD be independent per PW, following the same rules as Section 3.2; an S-bit mismatch prevents PW establishment for that specific PW, potentially leaving a multihomed site effectively single-homed.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §4 SHOULD

The ingress router for a P2MP LSP should send separate NLRIs for the cases of using the CW and not using the CW.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §4 MUST NOT

The set of leaves on the two P2MP LSPs rooted at a given PE MUST NOT contain any PEs that advertised an S-bit value different from what the root PE itself is advertising; such PEs are excluded from both LSPs.

mpls, bgp, routing, multicast

normative-requirement §3.2 MAY

When a deployment is known not to utilize multihoming, an implementation MAY provide a user-configurable override allowing the PW to come up despite an S-bit mismatch; the PE advertising S-bit=0 must set sequence numbers to 0, and the receiving PE must not expect non-zero sequence numbers.

mpls, bgp, routing

normative-requirement §4 MUST

When using P2MP LSPs as VPLS transport with mixed CW support, a source PE that supports CW MUST set up two different P2MP LSPs: one transporting CW-marked frames to PEs that advertised C-bit=1, and another transporting frames without CW to PEs that advertised C-bit=0.

mpls, bgp, routing, multicast

protocol-element §3.1

The C-bit in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community is redefined: setting it now means the PE has the *ability* to send and receive frames with a Control Word, not that the PE unconditionally requires CW use.

mpls, bgp, routing

protocol-element §3.2

The S-bit in the Control Flags field is redefined: setting it means the PE has the ability to set sequence numbers per Section 4.1 of RFC 4385 and process them per Section 4.2, rather than unconditionally requiring sequencing.

mpls, bgp, routing

security-consideration §7

Bit-flipping media errors that cause C/S-bit mismatches between PEs no longer adversely affect PW availability (under the updated rules); they cause CW non-use or disable sequence number expectations. This is no worse than the prior RFC 4761 behavior where such errors caused the PW to not come up at all.

mpls, bgp, security, routing