The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Interconnecting EVPN and IPVPN Domains' (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-17.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-ipvpn-interworking/ Technical Summary Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) provides a unified BGP control plane for both intra- and inter-subnet forwarding within tenant networks. When a tenant network spans multiple domains — including EVPN domains as well as domains that use BGP VPN-IP or IP address families for inter-subnet forwarding — it becomes necessary to define the interworking mechanisms among these BGP domains (EVPN, VPN-IP, and IP) to ensure seamless end-to-end tenant connectivity. In addition, this document defines a new BGP Path Attribute, referred to as D-PATH (Domain PATH), which provides loop prevention for gateway nodes by protecting against control plane loops. The introduction of D-PATH modifies the BGP best path selection process for Multiprotocol BGP routes of SAFI 128 (IPVPN) and EVPN IP Prefix routes. As a result, this specification updates the BGP best path selection procedure, but only in the context of IPVPN and EVPN route families. 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? This draft has been supported by an important number of people in the WG. It addresses an important use case and has already several implementations for a long time. Controversy happened lately with IDR WG on the D-PATH attribute. IDR chairs thought that it could break existing Internet routing. and required to modify the draft in a way that D-PATH will not apply to Internet families. This was done at a time where implementations where already shipping from multiple vendors. Discussion with Authors and WG occurred and agreement was found between parties (e.g.: DPATH should not be leaked to Internet AFIs). 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? Multiple public implementations exist for this draft. And it is widely deployed in the field. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephane Litkowski. The Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde. IANA Note IANA OK - Actions Needed _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
