The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Weighted Multi-Path Procedures for EVPN Multi-Homing' (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-35.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan Talaulikar. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/ Technical Summary Ethernet VPN (EVPN) provides all-active multi-homing for Customer Equipment (CE) devices connected to multiple Provider Edge (PE) devices, enabling equal cost load balancing of both bridged and routed traffic across the set of multi-homing PEs. However, existing procedures implicitly assume equal access bandwidth distribution among the multi-homing PEs, which can constrain link additions or removals and may not handle unequal PE-CE link bandwidth following link failures. This document specifies extensions to EVPN procedures to support weighted multi-pathing in proportion to PE-CE link bandwidth or operator-defined weights, thereby providing greater flexibility and resilience in multi-homing deployments. The extensions include signaling mechanisms to distribute traffic across egress PEs based on relative bandwidth or weight, and enhancements to Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) designated forwarder (DF) election to achieve weighted DF distribution across the multi- homing PE set. The document updates RFC 8584 and related EVPN DF election extensions (i.e. draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df- election and draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df) to enable weighted load balancing across different DF election algorithms. 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? There is a strong consensus on this document. The draft had multiple stages of discussions, especially as the "draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth" in IDR resurrected at some point and interactions between the two drafts had to be clarified. But there was no objection/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 multiple implementations of this specification by various vendors. It is widely deployed in field. There could be interaction with draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth. Cross WG review has been done and interactions have been taken care. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephane Litkowski. The Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde. IANA Note last version update was to resolve a question from IANA _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
