One document matched: draft-allan-pw-o-pbt-00.txt



Internet Draft                                              David Allan
Document: draft-allan-pw-o-pbt-00.txt         Florin Balus, Nigel Bragg
Category: Standards Track                                        Nortel
                                                          February 2006

             Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire in June 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This memo describes architecture and procedures for the operation of
   pseudo wires over provider backbone transport (PBT).

1. Introduction

   Provider backbone transport offers a mechanism to permit scalable p2p
   trunks to be configured or signaled in an Ethernet subnetwork. Such
   trunks are suitable to function in the role of PSN in the PWE3
   architecture.

2. Terminology

   In addition to well understood GMPLS terms, this memo uses
   terminology from IEEE 802.1 and introduces a few new terms:


   Allan et.al           Expires August 2006                   Page 1 



             Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport

   B-MAC        Backbone MAC
   B-VID        Backbone VLAN ID
   B-VLAN       Backbone Virtual LAN
   C-MAC        Customer MAC
   C-VID        Customer VLAN ID
   C-VLAN       Customer Virtual LAN
   DA           Destination Address
   LLC          Logical Link Control
   MAC          Media Access Control
   PBB          Provider Backbone Bridge
   PBT          Provider Backbone Transport
   RTP          Real time protocol
   SA           Source Address
   VID          VLAN ID
   VLAN         Virtual LAN

3. PWoPBT architecture

   PBT permits Ethernet bi-directional p2p trunks to be configured
   across an Ethernet subnetwork. These trunks can be either configured
   by management or signaled as described in [FEDYK]. Frequently more
   than one diversely routed trunk is set up to form a protection
   group, the most common instantiation being 1:1 protection switching.

   +---------------------+              +-------------------------+
   |      Payload        |------------->| Raw payload if possible |
   /=====================\              +-------------------------+
   H Payload Convergence H-----------+->|     Flags, seq #, etc.  |
   H---------------------H          /   +-------------------------+
   H       Timing        H---------/--->|            RTP          |
   H---------------------H        /     +-------------+           |
   H     Sequencing      H----one of    |             |
   \=====================/        \     |             +-----------+
   |  PW Demultiplexer   |---------+--->|      PW service label   |
   +---------------------+              +-------------------------+
   |  PSN Convergence    |------------->|       Not needed        |
   +---------------------+              +-------------------------+
   |        PSN          |------------->|           PBT           |
   +---------------------+              +-------------------------+
   |      Data-Link      |------------->|         Data-link       |
   +---------------------+              +-------------------------+
   |       Physical      |------------->|          Physical       |
   +---------------------+              +-------------------------+

        Figure 1.  PWE3 architecture illustrating role of PBT

   Figure 1 illustrates the role of PBT in the PWE3 architecture [PW-
   ARCH}. Where PBT Ethernet PDUs are carried directly over an Ethernet
   PHY, the PBT, data-link and physical layers are effectively a single
   layer from the point of view of control and management.


   Allan et.al.              Expires August 2006                 Page 2


            Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport

   The PWoPBT architecture takes advantage of the fact that the
   Ethernet LLC permits multiple protocols to be simultaneously
   multiplexed over a PBT protection group. This permits both MPLS/PW
   payload/PDUs and IP control and OAM PDUs to be multiplexed together.

       +----------+ +--------+
       |PW payload| | PW OAM |
       +----------+ +--------+
             |           |
            0000       0001     +--------------+
              \         /       |     LDP      |
         +-------------------+  +--------------+
         |       PW CW       |  |     TCP      |
         +-------------------+  +--------------+  +--------------+
         |      PW label     |  |      IP      |  |802.1ag/Y.1731|
         +-------------------+  +--------------+  +--------------+
                  |                    |                |
             =0x8847                =0x0800            =TBD
                   \                   |               /
          /+-------------------------------------------------+
         / |                         etype                   |
        /  +-------------------------------------------------+
       /   |                         VLAN                    |
     802.1Q+-------------------------------------------------+
     header|                        SA-MAC                   |
        \  +-------------------------------------------------+
         \ |                        DA-MAC                   |
          \+-------------------------------------------------+

      Figure 2: Multiplexing of PW bearer, PW OAM, PW control & trunk
                             OAM over PBT trunk

   Further, control, bearer and OAM PDUs inherently share fate with the
   PBT trunk or (where used) protection group simplifying the job of
   proactive monitoring of connectivity. Where a protection group is
   used control, OAM and bearer traffic is forwarded on the current
   working path of the protection group. Further the PW service may
   directly inherit availability status from the trunk or protection
   group.

   In addition to the regular IP Infrastructure that may be established
   to support PSN Control Plane (routing, GMPLS signaling) exchanges, a
   PBT trunk may appear as a single IP hop. The IP control channel
   allows the mode of operation to be directly analogous to channel
   associated signaling. PW labels offered over the signaling channel
   are directly bound to the PBT trunk and inherit the QoS
   characteristics of the trunk directly.

   PBT trunks/protection groups may interconnect two U-PEs, a U-PE to
   an S-PE, an S-PE to an S-PE. Connecting a U-PE to diverse S-PEs is
   for further study.


   Allan et.al.              Expires August 2006                 Page 3 


             Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport


4. Signaling Procedures

4.1 Adjacency Establishment and Session Initialization

   PW control assumes an a-priori existence of one or more PBT
   protection groups between a given pair of PEs.

   One hello adjacency will be established between any two PEs per PBT
   protection group. The preferred method of indicating the transport
   address of the PE is implicit (source address in the Hello
   exchange). A PE implements only one transport IP address. It is
   common to all PBT trunk terminations. This is typically the PE
   loopback address.

   LDP extended discovery is used over the working path of the PBT
   protection group.

   The label space indicated in the LDP Link Hello message MUST be the
   per-platform label space.

4.2 Signaling Procedures

   Once the Hello adjacency has been established, LDP session
   initialization proceeds as per [RFC 3036].

   Label exchange procedures are as per [PWE-CONTROL] for single
   segment pseudo wires and as per [MS-PW] for multi-segment pseudo
   wires.

4.3 Fault scenarios

   Failure of a single PBT trunk in the protection group will not
   disrupt either the bearer path or the control adjacency. Failure of
   all trunks in a protection group or the failure of a PE at a
   terminating end to a protection group will disrupt the service. If
   the network has not been completely severed by link failures, PBT
   may be able to recover connectivity prior to expiration of the LDP
   hold timer.

4.4 Interworking MS-PWs
   PBT introduces no new procedures into the interworking of MS-PWs. It
   simply takes the role of a PSN Tunnel in one or more segments. Bi-
   directional PBT trunks are consistent with the requirement for both
   directions of an MS-PW to transit common S-PE devices.

5. OAM Procedures

5.1 Capability Indication
   OAM capability indication procedures as per [VCCV] is used
   unmodified.


   Allan et.al.              Expires August 2006                 Page 4 


             Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport

5.2 Control Channel
   In-band VCCV may be used for both SS and MS PWs without
   modifications to procedures described in [VCCV] and [MS-PW].

5.3 VCCV BFD
   For a single segment PW, use of VCCV BFD is not required as the PW
   is 1:1 congruent with the transporting PBT protection group (which
   does not implement load spreading such as ECMP) so the PBT OAM
   effectively instruments connectivity for the set of PWs carried.

   For MS-PWs where a least one segment transits a non PBT network such
   as ECMP/LDP, VCCV BFD may be used as PSN OAM congruency with the PW
   layer cannot be guaranteed.

5.4 VCCV-PING
   Normally the return path for a VCCV-PING reply is the PW in the
   reverse direction. This is indicated by LSP-PING reply mode 2. It is
   also possible to indicate that the reply traverse each segment of a
   MS-PW by indicating a reply mode of 3 (use of router alert in the
   reply message) although this only slightly modifies the return path
   congruency for pure PBT architectures, and is of primary use in
   decoupling the return path from the PW in other PSN types.


6. Security Considerations
   The use of PBT as a PSN introduces no new security vulnerabilities to
   the PWE architecture.

7. References

   [FEDYK]      GMPLS Control of Ethernet IVL Switches, IETF Internet
                Draft, draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-ivl-01.txt, March 2006

   [RFC 3036]   LDP Specification, IETF RFC 2026, January 2001

   [PW-ARCH]    Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture,
                IETF RFC 3985, March 2005

   [PW-CONTROL] Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
                Distribution Protocol, IETF Internet Draft,  Pseudowire
                Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution
                Protocol, June 2005

   [MS-PW]      Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires, IETF
                Internet Draft, draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt,
                December 2005

   [VCCV]       Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
                (VCCV), IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-
                07.txt, August 2005

8. Author's Address

   Allan et.al.              Expires August 2006                 Page 5 


             Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport

   Dave Allan
   Nortel Networks              Phone: 1-613-763-6362
   3500 Carling Ave.            Email: dallan@nortel.com
   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA

   Florin Balus
   Nortel Networks              Phone: 1-613-768-4997
   3500 Carling Ave.            Email: balus@nortel.com
   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA

   Nigel Bragg
   Nortel Networks UK Limited   Phone   +44 (0) 1279 40 2052
   London Road, Harlow, Essex,  Email   nbragg@nortel.com
   CM17 9NA, UK


9. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

10.Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

11.Copyright Statement


   Allan et.al.              Expires August 2006                 Page 6 


             Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone Transport

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.


12.Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Dinesh Mohan for his contributions to
   this document.















































PAFTECH AB 2003-20262026-04-23 07:01:21