| Internet-Draft | Defreezing Optimization post EVPN Mac Da | August 2023 |
| Dikshit, et al. | Expires 3 February 2024 | [Page] |
MAC move handling in EVPN deployments is discussed in detail in [RFC7432]. There are few optimizations which can be done in existing way of handling the mac duplication. This document describes few of the potential techniques to do so. This document is of informational type based on comments in the ietf meeting.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 February 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
MDAS: Mac Dampening Attribute Set:¶
Mac Dampening: Process of stalling the mobility of MAC as define in [RFC7432].¶
VTEP: Virtual Tunnel End Point or Vxlan Tunnel End Point¶
DT: Dampened Time: Actual time taken to dampen the contentious MAC¶
The host mobility solution described in [RFC7432] elaborates on few use-cases related to dual mac discovery which leads to dampening logic coming into play. The host move handling logic addresses the problem of frequent mac-moves and culminates by freezing the MACs against further moves. If there is no mellowing down of the issue, then it leads to unending cycle of mac dampening and freezing. Hence this problem needs organic measures for arriving at MAC freezing point, sooner than later.¶
The events that can lead to never ending duplication are as follows:¶
Consider the following figure wherein two hosts, Host-1 and Host-2, are misconfigured with same mac-address MAC-1. These hosts are placed behind two different Ethernet segments, ES12 and ES3 respectively and hooked to the same bridge-domain (BD-1). PE1, PE2 and PE3 will get into a never ending loop of learning the MAC-1 locally and also from the remote Vtep. Thus entering into a control-plane BGP-EVPN cycle of bumping up the sequence number in the MACMobility Extended Community till the maximum MAC move count is hit with the stipulated time. The MAC published to other Vteps like PE4 also changes accordingly based on the latest update with highest sequence number.¶
+------+
|Host-3|
+------+
|
PE4 |
+-----+-----+
+---------------| +-----+ |---------------+
| | | BD-1| | |
| +-----------+ |
| |
| EVPN |
| |
| PE1 PE2 PE3 |
| |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | BD-1| | | | BD-1| | | | BD-1| |
| +-----+ |-------| +-----+ |-------| +-----+ |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
\ ES12 / / ES3
\ / /
\ / /
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Host-1, MAC-1| |Host-2, MAC-1|
+-------------+ +-------------+
LEGEND:
PE1, PE2, PE3: Vxlan/overlay gateways
HOST-1, HOST-2: Hosts behind PEs
MAC_1 : MAC address which is duplicated across hosts HOST-1 and HOST-2
ES12: Ethernet segment between PE1 and PE2 for BD-1
ES3: Ethernet segment attached to PE3 for BD-1
BD-1: Bridge Domain 1
¶
Consider the following case of a loopy tenant network, leading to MAC duplicity in the network. Lets say, Host-1 generates a BUM traffic like GARP (Gratuitous ARP) and sends it over the VLAN which is part of BD-1 and mapped to a configured EVI on the PEs. PE1 sprays the BUM over the EVPN fabric tying it with the mapped EVI. The BUM packet arrives at PE1 (assuming it's the elected DF) over the EVPN fabric. PE1 sprays the traffic towards the directly attached tenant network attached, tagging it with Vlan that maps to to the bridge domain, BD-1, which inturn maps to the MAC-VRF pointed to by the EVI. If the layer-2 network on tenant side is loopy due to STP network not converging or STP not configured at all, or for some other unknown reasoni (not under the purview of this document); then the BUM traffic may loop back to PE1, thus creating a duplicate MAC learning for MAC-1. Till the tenant network is curtailed or put to order via admin intervention or otherwize, continuous MAC moves for MAC-1 can be observed between PEs attached to ethernet segment ES12 (PE1) and ES3 (PE2).¶
PE4 |
+-----+-----+
+---------------| +-----+ |---------------+
| | | BD-1| | |
| +-----------+ |
| |
| EVPN |
| |
| PE1 PE2 PE3 |
|
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | BD-1| | | | BD-1| | | | BD-1| |
| +-----+ |-------| +-----+ |-------| +-----+ |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| ES12 | /
\/ /\ /
| | / ES3
[Tenant-Network] /
| | /
I->-loop->-I +-------------+
|Host-1, MAC-1|
+-------------+
LEGEND:
PE1, PE2, PE3: Vxlan/overlay gateways
HOST-1: Hosts behind PE3
MAC_1 : MAC address of Host-1
ES12: Ethernet segment between PE1 and PE2 for BD-1
ES3: Ethernet segment attached to PE3 for BD-1
BD-1: Bridge Domain 1
¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶
When used in lowercase, these words convey their typical use in common language, and they are not to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶
The mac dampening procedure mentioned in [RFC7432], suggests that a Overlay Tunnel Endpoint that detects the mac mobility event upon local learning, should start a 'M' seconds timer and track the MAC for 'N' moves before the timer expires. Hence forth, concluding that it is a MAC Duplication issue and freezing the MAC while also raising the alarm, for the admin to take corrective action. It is observed in few vendor implementations, that involves defreezing the MAC in deterministic time (configurable or derived) after freezing it, with a positive assumption that admin shall take corrective action meanwhile. Else, the subsequent unfreeze shall end up in the same cycle of MAC Duplication detection and freezing of the MAC. In case of lazy, none or inaccurate intervention by the admin, this can potentially result in ia prolong state of network disarray:¶
Potential solutions are discussed subsequent sections.¶
The potential solutions are as follows:¶
The eventual solution is to FREEZE the MAC forever till admin does the clearing of the MAC. The unfreeze and clearing actions are not organic in nature and can be accompanied by unwarranted impact like clearing of other MACs in the bridge-domain. The way out may be resetting the layer-2 port and thus impacting all tenant bridge-domains hosted on the port. This solution, hence, does not always solves or mitigate the situation, or, it may create a situation from which the eventual bail-out is expensive and not restricted to the impacted Host.¶
The best-bet to organically mellow down the never ending MAC-mobility (indicating Duplicate MAC), is to freeze the MAC temporarily, for lets say, the same time as MAC Dampening Timer(MDT). Lets term this timer as MAC Freeze Timer(MFT). MFT is the time span for which the contentious MAC is frozen, i.e., no further control plane and data flow is allowed for this MAC. The duplicity/un-ending-mobility is expected to be addressed by the admin. In case the problem is not addressed within MAC Freeze Timer, the MAC duplicity is again identified based on the MAC mobility count within the MAC Dampening timer. The best way forward MAY be:¶
The MAC Dampening Attribute Set (MDAS), comprises of following three parameters:¶
For example, let the first iteration of MDAS_iter_1 {MDT=180 seconds, MDC=5, MFT=180 seconds}. The default values of MDT and MDC are picket from [RFC7432], while lets define the default value of MFT same as MDT. In case admin fails to intervene, the MAC is unfrozen after MFT expires.¶
For second iteration of the MDAS for the problem-MAC, i.e. MDAS_iter_2 = function (MDAS_iter_1). The MDT and MDC values in second iteration are derived by backing off the MDT and MCD values by a pre-defined delta, i.e.¶
Thus reducing the time and moves to conclude on duplicity of the MAC. The values of decrement_timer_delta and decrement_count_delta can be configured or derived on a case to case basis. [TBD: Elaborate on the case]. The next step is to freeze the MAC for some more time as compared to the previous iteration set of MDAS, thus increasing the probability of the admin, correcting the issue:¶
The following formulae generalizes the derivation of MDAS attributes in the Nth iteration of Duplicate MAC detection on a PE:¶
Where in, the following values for 1st iteration can be define as follows:¶
The derivation of MDAS perimeters can be exponential in nature. The delta values can be exponentially increased or decreased after certain iterations, thus triggering a exponential backing off the delta values.¶
The new MDT value SHOULD not be less than the time taken to Dampen the MAC movement in last set of MDAS iteration. On the same lines, the new MDC count SHOULD not go below '2', as count below 2, the MAC Dampening procedure does not gets triggered.¶
Following bullets give a overview of potential ways the delta values, i.e. decrement_mdt_delta, increment_mdc_delta and decrement_mft_delta:¶
As mentioned in the Section 5.2.1 , the derivation of new delta values can done by exponentially backing them off in subsequent MDAS set(s).¶
This section describes the example of MDAS calculation with respect to the use-case defined in Section 2.1. Though it's equally applicable to the case described in Section 2.2. This example explains the logic in perspective of PE1. Let's say PE1 learns the MAC-1 locally and publishes it over EVPN control plane before PE2 does the same. PE1 publishes it over control plane before PE2 learns it locally (ignoring the case where both learn in tandem and publish it over control plane). Subsequently, PE2 learns it and publishes it over control plane with sequence number 1. PE1 starts the dampening logic by incrementing the local count by 1 and starting the dampening timer. If this jiggle goes on for 5 counts at PE1, MAC Dampening logic described in [RFC7432]. shall freeze the MAC. PE1 SHOULD cache the time it took to dampen the MAC. Let's say it's 30 seconds.¶
Assuming admin does not takes any action, before MAC freeze timer expires and PE1 defreezes the MAC, it will start moving again. PE1 shall reduce the MDT value by decrement_mdt_delta = 30 seconds to 150 seconds. The MDC counts are reduced by decrement_mdc_count = 1 to 4 and the MFT is incremented by increment_mft_delta = 20 seconds to 170 seconds. Thus PE1 shall wait for 150 seconds for concluding the dampening logic and tracks the MAC for 4 moves. Once dampening is hit, MAC is rendered as frozen for 170 seconds for admin to take action thus giving some more time for admin to take action.¶
The whole intention is to gradually move towards a permanent freeze of the MAC if no admin does not do the needful in the stipulated time frame.¶
The backward comptability is a no-op for MDAS derivation and recalculation, as MAC Dampening logic is very local to the Vtep. Even if the remote Vtep does not conforms to the logic presented in this literature, it will still work towards the dampening the frequent mac-mobility with the same parameters of MDT and MDS. The instant freezing or temporary freezing of the dampened MAC is implementation dependent and should not impact or get impacted by the MDAS derivations presented in this document.¶
This document inherits all the security considerations discussed in [RFC7432].¶
TBD as of now.¶
The authors of this draft would like to thank Jorge Rabadan, Sergey Fomin and Luc Andre Burdet for their valuable comments.¶