<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-model href="rfc7991bis.rnc"?>  <!-- Required for schema
      validation and schema-aware editing --> 
<!-- <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> --> 
<!-- This third-party XSLT can be enabled for direct transformations
in XML processors, including most browsers --> 

<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY filename "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd-06">
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<!-- If further character entities are required then they should be
added to the DOCTYPE above. Use of an external entity file is not
recommended. --> 
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>

<rfc
  xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
  category="std"
  docName="&filename;"
  ipr="trust200902"
  updates=""
  submissionType="IETF"
  xml:lang="en"
  version="3">
<!-- 
    * docName should be the name of your draft * category should be
    one of std, bcp, info, exp, historic * ipr should be one of
    trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
    pre5378Trust200902 * updates can be an RFC number as NNNN *
    obsoletes can be an RFC number as NNNN
-->


<!-- ____________________FRONT_MATTER____________________ -->
<front>
  <title>EVPN Network Layer Fault Management</title>

   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
	       value="&filename;"/>
   
   <author fullname="Vengada Prasad Govindan" initials="V."
	   surname="Govindan">
     <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
     <address>
       <email>venggovi@cisco.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>
   
   <author fullname="Mudigonda Mallik" initials="M."
	   surname="Mudigonda">
     <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
     <address>
       <email>mmudigon@cisco.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>

   <author fullname="Ali Sajassi" initials="A."
	   surname="Sajassi">
     <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
     <address>
       <postal>
	 <street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
	 <city>San Jose</city>
	 <region>CA</region>
	 <code>95134</code>
	 <country>US</country>
       </postal>        
       <email>sajassi@cisco.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>
   
   <author fullname="Gregory Mirsky" initials="G."
	   surname="Mirsky">
     <organization>Ericsson</organization>
     <address>
       <email>gregmirsky@gmail.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>

   <author fullname="Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" initials="D."
	   surname="Eastlake">
     <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
     <address>
       <postal>
	 <street>2386 Panoramic Circle</street>
	 <city>Apopka</city>
	 <region>FL</region>
	 <code>32703</code>
	 <country>US</country>
       </postal>        
       <phone>+1-508-333-2270</phone>
       <email>d3e3e3@gmail.com</email>
       <email>donald.eastlake@futurewei.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>

   <date year="2024" month="March" day="1"/>

   <area>Routing</area>
   <workgroup>BESS Working Group</workgroup>
   <!-- "Internet Engineering Task Force" is fine for individual
	submissions.  If this element is not present, the default is
	"Network Working Group", which is used by the RFC Editor as a
	nod to the history of the RFC Series. --> 

   <keyword></keyword>
   <!-- Multiple keywords are allowed.  Keywords are incorporated
	into HTML output files for use by search engines. --> 

   <abstract>
    <t>This document specifies proactive, in-band network layer OAM
    mechanisms to detect loss of continuity faults that affect unicast
    and multi-destination paths (used by Broadcast, Unknown Unicast,
    and Multicast traffic) in an Ethernet VPN (RFC 7432bis) network.
    The mechanisms specified in the draft use the widely adopted
    Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (RFC 5880) protocol and other
    protocols as necessary.</t>
   </abstract>

</front>


<!-- ____________________MIDDLE_MATTER____________________ -->
<middle>
    
<section>
  <name>Introduction</name>

    <t><xref target="RFC9062"/> outlines the OAM requirements of
    Ethernet VPN networks (EVPN) <xref target="rfc7432bis"/>.  This
    document specifies mechanisms for proactive fault detection at the
    network (overlay) layer of EVPN, that is to say between PEs
    (Provider Edge nodes). The mechanisms proposed in this document
    use the widely adopted Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
    <xref target="RFC5880"/> protocol, which is a lightweight protocol
    using fixed length messages suitable for implementation in
    hardware, and other protocols as necessary.</t>

    <t>EVPN fault detection mechanisms need to consider unicast
    traffic separately from Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast
    (BUM) traffic since they map to different Forwarding Equivalency
    Classes (FECs) in EVPN. Hence this document proposes somewhat
    different continuity fault detection mechanisms depending on the
    type of traffic and the type of tunnel used as follows:</t>

    <ul>
      <li>Using BFD <xref target="RFC5880"/> for unicast traffic and
      BUM traffic via MP2P tunnels.</li>

      <li>Using BFD Multipoint <xref target="RFC8562"/> or BFD
      Multipoint Active Tails <xref target="RFC8563"/> <xref
      target="ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd"/> for BUM traffic via a P2MP
      tunnel.</li>
    </ul>

     <t>Packet loss and packet delay measurement are out of scope for
     this document. See <xref target="ietf-bmwg-evpntest"/> for EVPN
     benchmarking guidance.</t>

<section>
  <name>Terminology</name>

    <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
    target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
    capitals, as shown here.</t>

    <t>The following acronyms are used in this document.</t>

<dl newline="false">
<dt>BFD</dt><dd>-  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection <xref
target="RFC5880"/></dd> 
<dt>BUM</dt><dd>-  Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast</dd>
<dt>CC</dt><dd>-  Continuity Check</dd>
<dt>CE</dt><dd>-  Customer Edge</dd>
<dt>EVI</dt><dd>-  EVPN Instance</dd>
<dt>EVPN</dt><dd>-  Ethernet VPN <xref target="rfc7432bis"/></dd>
<dt>FEC</dt><dd>-  Forwarding Equivalency Class</dd>
<dt>GAL</dt><dd>-  Generic Associated Channel Label <xref
target="RFC5586"/></dd> 
<dt>LSM</dt><dd>-  Label Switched Multicast (P2MP)</dd>
<dt>LSP</dt><dd>-  Label Switched Path</dd>
<dt>MP2MP</dt><dd>-  Multi-Point-to-Multi-Point</dd>
<dt>MP2P</dt><dd>-  Multi-Point-to-Point</dd>
<dt>OAM</dt><dd>-  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance</dd>
<dt>P2MP</dt><dd>-  Point-to-Multi-Point (LSM)</dd>
<dt>P2P</dt><dd>-  Point to Point</dd>
<dt>PE</dt><dd>-  Provider Edge node</dd>
<dt>VXLAN</dt><dd>-  Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network <xref
target="RFC7348"/></dd> 
</dl>

</section>
</section>

<section>
  <name>Scope of this Document</name>

  <t>This document specifies BFD based mechanisms for proactive fault
  detection for EVPN as specified in <xref target="rfc7432bis"/> and also
  for EVPN using VXLAN encapsulation <xref target="RFC8365"/>. It
  covers the following:</t>

  <ul>
    <li>Unicast traffic using Point-to-Point (P2P) and
    Multi-Point-to-Point (MP2P) tunnels.</li>

    <li>BUM traffic using ingress replication via Point-to-Point (P2P)
    and Multi-Point-to-Point (MP2P) tunnels.</li>

    <li>BUM traffic using Point-to-Multi-Point (P2MP) tunnels (Label
    Switched Multicast (LSM)).</li>

    <li>MPLS and VXLAN encapsulation.</li>
  </ul>

  <t>This document does not discuss BFD mechanisms for:</t>

  <ul>
    <li>The PBB-EVPN <xref target="RFC7623"/> EVPN variant. It is
    intended to address this in future versions.</li>

    <li>Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) solution based on EVPN
    <xref target="RFC9135"/>.  It is intended to
    address this in future versions. </li>

    <li>EVPN using other encapsulations such as NVGRE or MPLS over GRE
    <xref target="RFC8365"/>. </li>

    <li>BUM traffic using MP2MP tunnels. </li>
  </ul>

  <t>This document specifies procedures for BFD asynchronous mode. BFD
  demand mode is outside the scope of this specification except as it
  is used in <xref target="RFC8563"/>. The use of the BFD Echo
  function is outside the scope of this specification.</t>

</section>

<section>  <!-- 3. -->
  <name>Motivation for Running BFD at the EVPN Network Layer</name>

    <t>The choice of running BFD at the network layer of the OAM model
    for EVPN <xref target="RFC9062"/> was made after considering the
    following:</t>

  <ul>
    <li>In addition to detecting link failures in the EVPN network,
    BFD sessions at the network layer can be used to monitor the
    successful setup, such as label programming, of MP2P and P2MP EVPN
    tunnels transporting Unicast and BUM traffic.  The scope of
    reachability detection covers the ingress and the egress EVPN PE
    (Provider Edge) nodes and the network connecting them. </li>

    <li>Monitoring a representative set of path(s) or a particular
    path among multiple paths available between two EVPN PE nodes
    could be done by exercising entropy mechanisms such as entropy
    labels, when they are used, or VXLAN source ports.  However, paths
    that cannot be realized by entropy variations cannot be monitored.
    The fault monitoring requirements outlined by <xref
    target="RFC9062"/> are addressed by the mechanisms proposed by
    this draft. </li>
  </ul>

    <t>BFD testing between EVPN PE nodes does not guarantee that the
    EVPN service is functioning. (This can be monitored at the service
    level, that is CE (Customer Edge) to CE.) For example, an egress
    EVPN-PE could understand EVPN labeling received but could switch
    data to an incorrect interface.  However, BFD testing in the EVPN
    Network Layer does provide additional confidence that data
    transported using those tunnels will reach the expected egress
    node.  When BFD testing in the EVPN overlay fails, that can be
    used as an indication of a Loss-of-Connectivity defect in the EVPN
    underlay that would cause EVPN service failure.</t>

</section>

<section>  <!-- 4. -->
  <name>Fault Detection for Unicast Traffic</name>

    <t>The mechanisms specified in BFD for MPLS LSPs <xref
    target="RFC5884"/> <xref target="RFC7726"/> and BFD for VXLAN
    <xref target="RFC8971"/> are, except as otherwise provided herein,
    applied to test loss of continuity for unicast EVPN traffic. The
    MPLS control plane can be verified against the data plane as
    specified in <xref target="RFC8029"/>. When the discriminators
    required for de-multiplexing the BFD sessions are not otherwise
    available, they can be advertised through BGP using the BFD
    Discriminator Attribute <xref target="RFC9026"/>.  Discriminators
    are needed for MPLS since the label stack does not contain enough
    information to identify the sender of the packet.</t>

    <t>The usage of MPLS entropy labels <xref target="RFC6790"/> or
    various VXLAN source ports takes care of the requirement to
    monitor various paths of the multi-path server layer network.
    Each unique realizable path between the participating PE routers
    MAY be monitored separately when such entropy is used.  At least
    one path of multi-path connectivity between two PE routers MUST be
    tracked with BFD, but in that case the granularity of
    fault-detection will be coarser.</t>

    <t>To support unicast fault management to a PE node, that PE MUST
    allocate or be configured with a BFD discriminator to be used as
    Your Discriminator in the BFD messages to it. By default, it
    advertises this discriminator with BGP using the BFD Discriminator
    Attribute <xref target="RFC9026"/> with BFD Mode TBD4 in an EVPN MAC/IP
    Advertisement Route <xref target="rfc7432bis"/> and extracts its peer's
    discriminator from such an attribute; however, these
    discriminators MAY be exchanged out-of-band or through some other
    mechanism outside the scope of this document. If it is desired to
    establish and maintain a BFD session to a PE when it has not
    learned a local MAC address and would not otherwise be advertising
    a MAC/IP route, the PE can advertise a MAC/IP route to the MAC
    address TBD3.</t>

    <t>Once a PE knows a unicast route and discriminator for another
    PE and if it is the higher priority of the two PEs to initiate BFD
    and is configured to do so, it endeavors to bring UP and maintain
    a BFD session to that other PE.</t>

    <t>Once the BFD session is UP, the ends of the BFD session MUST
    NOT change the local discriminator values of the BFD Control
    packets they generate, unless they first bring down the session as
    specified in <xref target="RFC5884"/>.  The BFD session is brought
    down if a PE is no longer configured to maintain it or if a route
    and discriminator are no longer available.</t>

</section>

<section>  <!-- 5. -->
  <name>Fault Detection for BUM Traffic</name>

    <t>Section 5.1 below discusses BUM traffic fault detection for P2P
    and MP2P tunnels using ingress replication and Section 5.2
    discusses such fault detection for P2MP tunnels.</t>

  <section anchor="IngressRep">
    <name>Ingress Replication</name>

      <t>Ingress replication uses separate P2P or MP2P tunnels for
      transporting BUM traffic from the ingress PE (head) to a set of
      one or more egress PEs (tails).  The fault detection mechanism
      specified by this document takes advantage of the fact that the
      head makes a unique copy for each tail.</t>

      <t>Another key aspect to be considered in EVPN is the
      advertisement of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route
      <xref target="rfc7432bis"/>.  The BUM traffic flows from a head
      node to a particular tail only after the head receives such an
      inclusive multicast route from the tail. This route contains the
      BUM EVPN MPLS label (downstream allocated) corresponding to the
      MP2P tunnel for MPLS encapsulation and contains the IP address
      of the PE originating the inclusive multicast route for use in
      VXLAN encapsulation. It also contains a BFD Discriminator
      Attribute <xref target="RFC9026"/> with BFD Mode TDB4 giving the
      BFD discriminator that will be used by the tail. This is the P2P
      mode since a P2P BFD session is used in both the P2P and MP2P
      cases with ingress replication.</t>

      <t>There MAY exist multiple BFD sessions between a head PE and
      an individual tail due to (1) the usage of MPLS entropy labels
      <xref target="RFC6790"/> or VXLAN source ports for an inclusive
      multicast FEC and (2) due to multiple MP2P tunnels indicated by
      different tail labels for MPLS or different IP addresses for
      VXLAN. If configured to do so, once a PE knows a multicast route
      and discriminator for another PE it endeavors to bring UP and
      maintain a BFD session to that other PE. Once a BFD session for
      a path is UP, the ends of the BFD session MUST NOT change the
      local discriminator values of the BFD Control packets they
      generate, unless they first bring down the session as specified
      in <xref target="RFC5884"/>. The BFD session is brought down if
      a PE is no longer configured to maintain it or if a route and
      discriminator are no longer available.</t>

  </section>
  <section anchor="P2MPtunnels">
    <name>P2MP Tunnels (Label Switched Multicast)</name>

      <t>Fault detection for BUM traffic distributed using a P2MP
      tunnel uses BFD Multipoint Active Tails <xref target="RFC8563"/>
      in one of the three methods providing head notification. Which
      method is used depends on the configuration. Sections 5.2.2 and
      5.2.3 of <xref target="RFC8563"/> describe two of these methods
      ("Head Notification and Tail Solicitation with Multipoint
      Polling" and "Head Notification with Composite Polling").  The
      third method ("Head Notification without Polling") is touched on
      in Section 5.2.1 of <xref target="RFC8563"/> and fully specified
      in [ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd].  All three of these modes assume the
      existence of a unicast path from each tail to the head. In
      addition, Head Notification with Composite Polling assumes a
      head to tail unicast path disjoint from the path used by the
      P2MP tunnel.</t>

      <t>The BUM traffic flows from a head node to the tails after the
      head transmits an Inclusive Multicast Tag Route <xref
      target="rfc7432bis"/>. It contains the BUM EVPN MPLS label
      (upstream allocated) corresponding to the P2MP tunnel for MPLS
      encapsulation. It also includes a BFD Discriminator Attribute
      <xref target="RFC9026"/> with the BFD Mode set to 1 and a Source
      IP Address TLV, which gives the address associated with the
      MultiPoint Head of the P2MP session.  This BFD discriminator
      advertised by the head in the inclusive multicast route or
      otherwise configured at or communicated to a tail MUST be used
      in any reverse BFD control message as Your Discriminator so the
      head can determine the tail of which P2MP BFD session is
      responding. If configured to do so, once a PE knows a P2MP
      multicast route and the needed discriminators, it brings UP and
      maintains a P2MP BFD active tails session to the tails.  The BFD
      session is brought down if a PE is no longer configured to
      maintain it or the multicast route and discriminators are no
      longer available.</t>

      <t>For MPLS encapsulation of the head to tails BFD, Label
      Switched Multicast is used. For VXLAN encapsulation, BFD is
      delivered to the tails through underlay multicast using an outer
      multicast IP address.</t>

  </section>

</section>

<section>
  <name>BFD Packet Encapsulation</name>

    <t>The sections below discuss the MPLS and VXLAN encapsulations of
    BFD for EVPN network layer fault management.</t>

    <section>
      <name>MPLS Encapsulation</name>

    <t>This section describes use of the Generic Associated Channel
    Label (GAL) for BFD encapsulation in MPLS based EVPN network layer
    fault management.</t>

    <section>
      <name>Unicast MPLS Encapsulation</name>

    <t>As shown in Figure 1, the packet initially contains the
    following labels: LSP label (transport), the optional entropy
    label, the EVPN Unicast label, and then the Generic Associated
    Channel label with the G-ACh type set to TBD1.  The G-ACh payload
    of the packet MUST contain the destination L2 header (in overlay
    space) followed by the IP header that encapsulates the BFD packet.
    The MAC address of the inner packet is used to validate the
    &lt;EVI, MAC&gt; in the receiving node.</t>

  <ul>
    <li>The destination MAC MUST be the dedicated unicast MAC TBD3
    (see Section 8) or the MAC address of the destination PE.</li>
    <li>The destination IP address MUST be 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 <xref
    target="RFC1812"/> or ::1/128 for IPv6 <xref
    target="RFC4291"/>.</li>
    <li>The destination UDP port MUST be 3784 <xref
    target="RFC5881"/>. </li>
    <li>The source UDP port MUST be in the range 49152 through
    65535. </li>
    <li>The discriminator values for BFD are obtained as discussed in
    Section 4. </li>
    <li>IP TTL or Hop Limit MUST be set to 255 according to
    <xref target="RFC5082"/>.</li>
  </ul>

    <figure>
      <name>MPLS Unicast Encapsulation</name>
        <artwork type="ascii-art">
          <![CDATA[
 <---------- 4 bytes ---------->
+-------------------------------+  -----
|          LSP Label            |      |
+-------------------------------+      |
:      entropy label indicator  :      |
+ (optional)                    +  MPLS Label Stack
:      entropy label            :      |
+-------------------------------+      |
|      EVPN Unicast label       |
+-------------------------------+      |
| Generic Assoc. Channel Label  |      |
+-------------------------------+  -----
|  ACH word, Type TBD1 no TLVs  |
+-------------------------------+  ---     -------
|    Destination MAC Address    |    |           |
+               +---------------+    |           |
|   TBD2        |               |    |           |
+---------------+               +  L2 Header     |
|       Source MAC Address      |    |           |
+---------------+---------------+    |           |
| VLAN Ethertype|     VLAN-ID   |    |           |
+---------------+---------------+    |           |
|IP4/6 Ethertype|                    |           |
+---------------+---------------+  ---           |
/                               /           G-ACh Payload
/...      IPv4/6 Header      .../                |
/                               /                |
+-------------------------------+                |
|                               |                |
+           UDP Header          +                |
|                               |                |
+-------------------------------+                |
|                               |                |
+       BFD Control Packet      +                |
/                               /                |
/...                         .../  ---------------
          ]]>
        </artwork>
    </figure>

      </section>
      <section>
	<name>MPLS Ingress Replication</name>

    <t>The packet initially contains the following labels: LSP label
    (transport), optionally the entropy label, the BUM label, and the
    split horizon label <xref target="rfc7432bis"/> (where applicable).
    The G-ACh type is set to TBD1.  The G-ACh payload of the packet is
    as described in Section 6.1.1 except that the destination MAC
    address is the dedicated multicast MAC TBD2.</t>

      </section>
      <section>
	<name>MPLS LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP)</name>

    <t>The encapsulation is the same as in Section 6.1.2 for ingress
    replication except that the transport label identifies the P2MP
    tunnel, in effect the set of tail PEs, rather than identifying a
    single destination PE at the end of an MP2P tunnel.</t>

      </section>
      
  </section>
  
  <section>
    <name>VXLAN Encapsulation</name>

    <t>This section describes the use of the VXLAN <xref
    target="RFC7348"/> <xref target="RFC8365"/> for BFD encapsulation
    in VXLAN based EVPN fault management.</t>

    <section>
      <name>Unicast VXLAN Encapsulation</name>

    <t>Figure 2 below shows the unicast VXLAN encapsulation on the
    wire on an Ethernet link.  The outer and inner IP headers have a
    unicast source and destination IP address that are the addresses
    of the PEs that are the BFD message source and destination. If
    the BFD source has multiple IP addresses, entropy MAY be further
    obtained by using any of those addresses assuming the source is
    prepared for responses directed to the IP address used.</t>

    <ul>
    <li>The outer destination UDP port MUST be 4789 <xref
    target="RFC7348"/>.</li>
    <li>The inner destination UDP port MUST be 3784 <xref
    target="RFC5881"/>. </li>
    <li>The outer and inner source UDP ports MUST each be in the range
    49152 through 65535. </li>
    <li>The inner destination MAC MUST be the MAC address of the
    destination PE or the dedicated unicast MAC TBD3 (see Section
    8). </li>
    </ul>

    <figure>
      <name>VXLAN Unicast Encapsulation</name>
        <artwork type="ascii-art">
          <![CDATA[
 <---------- 4 bytes ---------->
+-------------------------------+  ---
|    Destination MAC Address    |    |
+               +---------------+    |
|               |               |  Outer
+---------------+               +  L2 Header
|       Source MAC Address      |    |
+-------------------------------+    |
| VLAN Ethertype|     VLAN-ID   |    |
+---------------+---------------+    |
|IP4/6 Ethertype|                    |
+---------------+---------------+  ---
/                               /
/...      IP4/6 Header       .../    
/                               /     
+-------------------------------+     
|                               |     
+           UDP Header          +     
|                               |     
+-------------------------------+     
|                               |     
+          VXLAN Header         +     
|                               |     
+-------------------------------+  ---
|    Destination MAC Address    |    |
+               +---------------+    |
|               |               |  Inner
+---------------+               +  L2 Header
|       Source MAC Address      |    |
+---------------+---------------+    |
| IP4 Ethertype |                    |
+---------------+---------------+  ---
/                               /
/...       IP4 Header        .../
/                               /
+-------------------------------+
|                               |
+           UDP Header          +
|                               |
+---------------+---------------+
|                               |
+       BFD Control Packet      +
|                               |
/...                         .../
          ]]>
        </artwork>
    </figure>
    
    </section>
    <section>
      <name>VXLAN Ingress Replication</name>

    <t>The BFD packet construction is as given in Section 6.2.1 except
    as follows:</t>

<ol>
<li>The destination IP address used by the BFD message source is that
advertised by the destination PE in its Inclusive Multicast EVPN route
for the MP2P tunnel in question; and</li>

<li>The Your BFD discriminator used is the one advertised by the BFD
destination using BGP as discussed in Section 5.1 for the MP2P
tunnel.</li>
</ol>

    </section>
    <section>
      <name>VXLAN P2MP</name>

    <t>The VXLAN encapsulation for the head-to-tails BFD packets uses
    the multicast destination IP corresponding to the VXLAN VNI.</t>

    <t>The destination UDP port MUST be 3784. For entropy purposes,
    the source UDP port can vary but MUST be in the range 49152
    through 65535 <xref target="RFC5881"/>.  If the head PE has
    multiple IP addresses, entropy MAY be further obtained by using
    any of those addresses.</t>

    <t>The Your BFD discriminator is the value distributed for this
    multicast fault management purpose as discussed in Section
    5.2.</t>

    </section>
  </section>
  
</section>

<section>
  <name>Scalability Considerations</name>

    <t>The mechanisms proposed by this draft could affect the packet
    load on the network and its elements especially when supporting
    configurations involving a large number of EVIs.  The option of
    slowing down or speeding up BFD timer values can be used by an
    administrator or a network management entity to maintain the
    overhead incurred due to fault monitoring at an acceptable
    level.</t>

</section>

<section>
  <name>IANA Considerations</name>

<t>The following IANA Actions are requested.</t>

  <section>
    <name>Pseudowire Associated Channel Type</name>

    <t>IANA is requested to assign a channel type from the "Pseudowire
    Associated Channel Types" registry in <xref target="RFC4385"/> as
    follows.</t>

        <artwork type="ascii-art">
          <![CDATA[
Value   Description    Reference
-----   ------------   ------------
TBD1    BFD-EVPN OAM   [this document]
          ]]>
        </artwork>

  </section>
  <section>
    <name>MAC Addresses</name>

    <t>IANA is requested to assign parallel multicast and unicast MAC
    addresses under the IANA OUI [0x01005E900101 and 0x00005E900101
    suggested] as follows:</t>

        <artwork type="ascii-art">
          <![CDATA[
 IANA Multicast 48-bit MAC Addresses
Address   Usage                  Reference
-------  ---------------------   ---------------
TBD2    EVPN Network Layer OAM   [this document]
          ]]>
        </artwork>

        <artwork type="ascii-art">
          <![CDATA[
 IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Addresses
Address   Usage                  Reference
-------  ---------------------   ---------------
TBD3    EVPN Network Layer OAM   [this document]
          ]]>
        </artwork>

  </section>
  <section>
    <name>BFD Discriminator Attribute Mode</name>

    <t>IANA is requested to assign a value from the IETF Review range
    in the BFD Mode sub-registry on the Border Gateway Protocol
    Parameters Registry web page as follows:</t>

        <artwork type="ascii-art">
          <![CDATA[
 Value    Description      Reference
-----   ---------------   ---------------
TBD4    P2P BFD Session   [this document]
          ]]>
        </artwork>

  </section>
  
</section>

<section>
  <name>Security Considerations</name>

    <t>Security considerations discussed in <xref target="RFC5880"/>,
    <xref target="RFC5883"/>, and <xref target="RFC8029"/> apply.</t>

    <t>MPLS security considerations <xref target="RFC5920"/> apply to
    BFD Control packets encapsulated in a MPLS label stack. When BPD
    Control packets are routed, the authentication considerations
    discussed in <xref target="RFC5883"/> should be followed.</t>

    <t>VXLAN BFD security considerations in <xref target="RFC8971"/>
    apply to BFD packets encapsulate in VXLAN.</t>

</section>

</middle>


<!-- ____________________BACK_MATTER____________________ -->
<back>

<references>
  <name>Normative References</name>

  <reference anchor="ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd"
	   target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd/">
    <front>
      <title>BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point
      MPLS LSP</title>
      <author fullname="Greg Mirsky" initials="G." surname="Mirsky">
	<organization>Ericsson</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Gyan Mishra" initials="G." surname="Mishra">
	<organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" initials="D." surname="Eastlake">
	<organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="December" year="2022"/>
    </front>
  </reference>
  <reference anchor="rfc7432bis"
	     target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis/">
    <front>
      <title>BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN</title>
      <author fullname="Ali Sajassi" initials="A." surname="Sajassi">
	<organization>Cisco</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Luc Andre Burdet" initials="LA." surname="Burdet">
	<organization>Cisco</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="John Drake" initials="J." surname="Drake">
	<organization>Juniper</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Jorge Rabadan" initials="J." surname="Rabadan">
	<organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <date day="13" month="March" year="2023"/>
    </front>
  </reference>

<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.1812.xml"/>	
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.4385.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5586.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5881.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5883.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5884.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.7348.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.7726.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8029.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8365.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8562.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8563.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.9026.xml"/>

</references>

<references>
  <name>Informative References</name>

  <reference anchor="ietf-bmwg-evpntest"
	   target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/">
    <front>
      <title>Benchmarking Methodology for EVPN and PBB-EVPN</title>
      <author fullname="Sudhin Jacob" initials="S." surname="Jacob">
	<organization>Independent</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Kishore Tiruveedhula" initials="K."
	      surname="Tiruveedhula"> 
	<organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="June" year="2021"/>
    </front>
  </reference>

<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5082.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5920.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.7623.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8971.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.9062.xml"/>
<xi:include
    href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.9135.xml"/>

</references>

<section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="false">
  <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The authors wish to thank the following for their comments
      and suggestions:</t>

      <t indent="3">Mach Chen, Jorge Rabadan</t>
</section>
        
</back>

</rfc>
