The IESG has approved the following document: - 'MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels' (draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Jim Guichard, Andrew Alston and John Scudder. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/ Technical Summary The MVPN specifications allow a single Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tunnel to carry traffic of multiple VPNs. The EVPN specifications allow a single P2MP tunnel to carry traffic of multiple Broadcast Domains (BDs). These features require the ingress router of the P2MP tunnel to allocate an upstream-assigned MPLS label for each VPN or for each BD. A packet sent on a P2MP tunnel then carries the label that is mapped to its VPN or BD (in some cases, a distinct upstream- assigned label is needed for each flow.) Since each ingress router allocates labels independently, with no coordination among the ingress routers, the egress routers may need to keep track of a large number of labels. The number of labels may need to be as large (or larger) than the product of the number of ingress routers times the number of VPNs or BDs. However, the number of labels can be greatly reduced if the association between a label and a VPN or BD is made by provisioning, so that all ingress routers assign the same label to a particular VPN or BD. New procedures are needed in order to take advantage of such provisioned labels. These new procedures also apply to Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) tunnels. This document updates RFCs 6514, 7432 and 7582 by specifying the necessary procedures. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No issues were found in the working group on this draft and it didn't generate any controversy. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? There are reported implementations of this draft. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephane Litkowski. The Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
