RFC 7209: Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The widespread adoption of Ethernet L2VPN services and the advent of new applications for the technology (e.g., data center interconnect) have culminated in a new set of requirements that are not readily addressable by the current Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution. In particular, multihoming with all-active forwarding is not supported, and there's no existing solution to leverage Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) for optimizing the delivery of multi-destination frames. Furthermore, the provisioning of VPLS, even in the context of BGP-based auto-discovery, requires network operators to specify various network parameters on top of the access configuration. This document specifies the requirements for an Ethernet VPN (EVPN) solution, which addresses the above issues.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7209
- Published
- May 2014
- Authors
- A. Sajassi; R. Aggarwal; J. Uttaro; N. Bitar; W. Henderickx; A. Isaac
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 15
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7210Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic KeysCurrent
April 2014
- RFC 7211Operations Model for Router KeyingCurrent
June 2014
- RFC 7212MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Advertisement ProtocolCurrent
June 2014
- RFC 7213MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Next-Hop Ethernet AddressingCurrent
June 2014
- RFC 7214Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New RegistryCurrent
May 2014
- RFC 7215Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment ConsiderationsCurrent
April 2014
- RFC 7196Making Route Flap Damping UsableCurrent
May 2014
- RFC 7226Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS NetworksCurrent
May 2014
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?