One document matched: draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt
Differences from draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt
Network Working Group Don Fedyk, David Allan, Nortel
Internet Draft Greg Sunderwood, Bell Canada
Category: Standards Track Himanshu Shah, Ciena
Nabil Bitar, Verizon
Attila Takacs, Diego Caviglia, Ericsson
Alan McGuire, BT
Nurit Sprecher, Nokia Siemens Networks
Lou Berger, LabN
May 2007
GMPLS control of Ethernet
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt
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 August 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
Carrier Grade Ethernet transport solutions require the capability of
flexible service provisioning and fast protection switching.
Currently, Ethernet is being extended in IEEE to meet the scalability
needs of transport networks.
Fedyk et.al Expires November 2007 Page 1
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
The IETF specified GMPLS to control transport networks. To enable
integration of Ethernet based transport solutions the extension of
GMPLS control plane for Ethernet is of value.
This memo describes how a GMPLS control plane may be applied to the
Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE 802.1Qay)
amendment to 802.1Q and how GMPLS can be used to configure VLAN-aware
Ethernet switches in order to establish Ethernet P2P and P2MP MAC
switched paths and P2P/P2MP VID based trees. This document assumes
any standard changes to IEEE data planes will be undertaken only in
the IEEE.
Conventions used in this document
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].
Document History
This document has under gone name changes to follow the
standardization of Provider Backbone Bridges and the Traffic
engineering capability.
The original draft was:
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-ivl-00.txt.
This draft was renamed to reflect the Provider Backbone Transport
(PBT) nomenclature to:
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-00.txt
This draft was then edited to:
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-01.txt
The standardization of PBT is called Provider Backbone Bridges
Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) and we have once again aligned the
documents naming to this present draft.
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt
This is the second revision of this draft with editing to clarify
the document and the addition of co-authors.
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 2
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................5
2. Terminology....................................................5
3. GMPLS Control of PBB-TE Path creation and maintenance..........6
3.1 Using a GMPLS Control Plane for Ethernet.....................7
3.2 Control Plane Network........................................8
3.3 P2P Signaling................................................8
3.4 Ethernet Service.............................................9
3.5 GMPLS Link Management........................................9
3.6 GMPLS Routing...............................................10
3.7 Path Selection..............................................10
3.7.1 Combinations of GMPLS Features.............................11
3.8 Addresses, Interfaces, and Labels...........................11
4. Specific Procedures...........................................13
4.1 P2P connections.............................................13
4.1.1 Shared Forwarding..........................................14
4.1.2 P2P connections with shared forwarding.....................15
4.1.3 Dynamic P2P symmetry with shared forwarding................15
4.1.4 Planned P2P symmetry.......................................15
4.1.5 P2P Path Maintenance.......................................16
4.2 P2MP Signaling..............................................16
4.3 P2MP VID/DMAC Connections...................................16
4.3.1 Setup procedures...........................................16
4.3.2 Maintenance Procedures.....................................17
4.4 Ethernet Label..............................................17
4.5 OAM MEP ID and MA ID synchronization........................18
4.6 Protection Paths............................................18
5. Error conditions..............................................19
5.1 Invalid VID value for configured VID/DMAC range.............19
5.2 Invalid VID value for configured VID range..................19
5.3 Invalid MAC Address.........................................19
5.4 Invalid ERO for UPSTREAM_LABEL Object.......................19
5.5 Invalid ERO for LABEL_SET Object............................19
5.6 Switch is not SVL capable...................................19
5.7 Invalid VID in UPSTREAM_LABEL object........................19
6. Deployment Scenarios..........................................19
7. Security Considerations.......................................20
8. IANA Considerations...........................................20
9. References....................................................20
9.1 Normative References........................................20
9.2 Informative References......................................20
10. Author's Address............................................22
11. Intellectual Property Statement.............................23
12. Disclaimer of Validity......................................23
13. Copyright Statement.........................................23
14. Acknowledgments.............................................24
Appendix A.......................................................25
A 1. Aspects of configuring Ethernet Forwarding.................25
A 2. Overview of configuration of VID/DMAC tuples...............27
A 3. Overview of configuration of VID port membership...........30
A 4. OAM Aspects................................................30
A 5. QOS Aspects................................................31
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 3
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
A 6. Resiliency Aspects.........................................31
A 6.1. E2E Path protection......................................31
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 4
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
1. Introduction
Ethernet switches are increasing in capability. As a consequence the
role of Ethernet is rapidly expanding in networks that were the
domain of other technologies such as SONET/SDH TDM and ATM. The
question of how Ethernet will evolve and what capabilities it can
offer in these areas is still under development.
The various standards bodies are responding to the strong demands by
the operators for making the Ethernet a carrier-class transport
solution. Following is a short list of major activities in different
standards organization,
- IEEE 802.1Q is amending VLAN-aware bridges to handle scalability
and service provisioning needs of the operators
- IEEE 802.1ad, Provider Bridges and 802.1ah Provider Backbone
Bridges are developed to provide hierarchical solution to handle
scalability
- IEEE 802.1ag, Connectivity Fault Management is improving bridge
functionalities to provide fault management and performance
monitoring for Ethernet networks
- ITU-T Y.1731 is specifying extensive OAM capabilities for
Ethernet
- G.8031 is defining protection switching in Ethernet based on
CFM's continuity check protocol. This standard provides p2p
VLAN-based Ethernet paths configurations at head and tail end
for working and protection traffic.
- IEEE 802.1 is embarking on Traffic Engineered Ethernet paths in
the Provider Backbone Bridged network (PBB-TE 802.1Qay) based on
managed objects that can be statically configured and no changes
to Ethernet data plane.
The main purpose of this document is to specify a GMPLS based
control plane for PBB-TE.
It should be noted that the behavior of Ethernet for the specified
VLAN range is a new behavior and does not default to conventional
Ethernet forwarding at any time.
2. Terminology
In addition to well understood GMPLS terms, this memo uses
terminology from IEEE 802.1 and introduces a few new terms:
B-MAC Backbone MAC
B-VID Backbone VLAN ID
B-VLAN Backbone VLAN
CCM Continuity Check Message
COS Class of Service
CLI Command Line Interface
C-MAC Customer MAC
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 5
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
C-VID Customer VLAN ID
C-VLAN Customer VLAN
DMAC Destination MAC Address
LBM Loopback Message
LBR Loopback Reply
LLDP Link Layer Discovery Protocol
LMM Loss Measurement Message
LMR Loss Measurement Reply
MAC Media Access Control
MP2MP Multipoint to multipoint
PBB Provider Backbone Bridges
PBB-TE Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic Engineering
P2P Point to Point
P2MP Point to Multipoint
QOS Quality of Service
SMAC Source MAC Address
S-VID Service VLAN ID
SVL Shared VLAN Learning
VID VLAN ID
VLAN Virtual LAN
3. GMPLS Control of PBB-TE Path creation and maintenance
PBB-TE is an Ethernet connection oriented technology, being
specified in the IEEE, which can be controlled by configuration of
static filtering entries [see Appendix A]. PBB-TE paths are created
switch by switch by simple configuration of Ethernet logical ports
and assignment of PBB-TE labels. We term a PBB-TE path as a form of
Ethernet LSP (Eth-LSP). PBB-TE paths may be configured by command
line interface (CLI) on the switches or coordinated from a
management system. This memo proposes GMPLS as a mechanism to
automate set-up tear down, protection and recovery of PBB-TE paths.
The advantages of using GMPLS or Network management system over
simple manual provisioning are:
- Reduction in number of configuration commands
- Improvement in the coordination of commands that are required to
establish and maintain an ETH-LSP
- Capability to automate the dynamic modification of parameters
- On-net/off-net path computations
- Automatic reaction to network changes without manual
intervention
- Protection coordination
The advantages of using GMPLS control plane over any provisioning
are:
- Single ended provisioning
- Interoperable signaling between multi-vendor networks
- Fast restoration of for some types of network failures
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 6
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
PBB-TE uses the Ethernet data plane in its native form. When
configuring a PBB-TE path with GMPLS, the DMAC and VID are carried
in a generalized label object and are assigned hop by hop but are
invariant within a domain. This is similar to GMPLS operation in
transparent optical networks. PBB-TE paths are composed of
unidirectional label paths that are paired together in a single
setup forming a symmetrically routed bi-directional Eth-LSP. The
DMAC is domain wide unique in the two LSPs. The VID value may be the
same or different in each direction as it is only used, from a data
plane perspective, to identify the path co-jointly with the DMAC. As
with other technologies controlled by GMPLS, PBB-TE paths are
created first as an explicit route object (ERO) and data plane
labels are assigned from the available label pool at the destination
switch. As a result, each PBB-TE label is a domain wide unique
label, with a unique VID + DMAC, for each direction.
Several attributes may be associated with an Eth-LSP, including:
- bandwidth requirements of the path.
- priority level;
- preemption characteristics;
- protection/resiliency requirements;
- routing policy, such as a pinned route or explicit route;
- policing requirements
On a node, the bandwidth can be used, to set committed information
rate and peak information, and policies based on either under-
subscription or over subscription.
Note GMPLS currently does not support asymmetrical attributes in
each direction for a bidirectional LSP. It has been proposed to
modify GMPLS to allow asymmetric bandwidth in a single setup. [ASYM]
3.1 Using a GMPLS Control Plane for Ethernet
GMPLS [RFC3945] has been defined to control SDH/SONET and optical
switches for the purpose of managing SONET/SDH and optical paths.
GMPLS signaling is well suited to setup paths with labels but it
does require an IP control plane and an IP management plane but does
not require the presence of any IP data plane.
In many Ethernet deployment situations, the addition of a complete
GMPLS control plane may be excessive for the switch technology or
the network application. For this reason we consider partial
application of GMPLS whereby either complete functionality is
applied to a subset of the switches and/or partial functionality is
applied to some or all switches. For discussion purposes, we
decompose the problem of applying GMPLS into the functions of
Signaling, Routing, Link Management and Path Selection where Path
Selection is subordinated to the presence of Topology information.
It is possible to use some functions of GMPLS alone or in partial
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 7
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
combinations. In most cases using all functions of GMPLS incurs less
operational overhead than any partial combinations.
3.2 Control Plane Network
In order to have a GMPLS control plane, an IP control plane is
required. The control plane must include signaling; a link
management function and typically also includes an IGP with TE
extension and a path computation function. One way to implement this
is with an IGP that views each switch as a terminated IP adjacency.
This IGP is not required to be a distinct routed subnet for the
purpose of carrying IP bearer traffic. In other words IP traffic and
a simple routing table are available for the control plane but there
is no requirement for a high performance IP data plane.
This IP control plane can be provided as a separate independent
network (out of band) or integrated with the Ethernet switches.
For example, when the IP control plane is a separate network, it may
be provided as a Layer 2 connected LAN where the Ethernet switches
are connected via a bridged network or HUB. It may also be provided
by an external network that provides IP connectivity but in this
case, the control topology of the GMPLS/Ethernet switches is
independent of the topology of the physical data plane network.
Another option is to have the IP control plane integrated with the
switches by a bridged VLAN that uses the Data bearing channels of
the network between adjacent nodes. In this case a hop by hop
Ethernet header is required with special processing for the IP
control packets at each switch. This ties the fate of the controlled
paths and the IP control plane links, which is not unlike the
situation with MPLS networks or even some GMPLS optical networks.
3.3 P2P Signaling
GMPLS signaling is well suited to the application of PBB-TE on
Ethernet switches. GMPLS signaling [RFC3471] uses either numbered or
unnumbered links where the link is either explicitly IP addressed or
associated with a node's router ID. If LMP [RFC4204] is used, the
creation of these unnumbered interfaces can be automated. If LMP is
not used there is an additional provisioning requirement to add
GMPLS link identifiers. For large-scale implementations LMP would be
beneficial. As mentioned earlier, the primary benefit of signaling
is the control of a path from an endpoint. GMPLS can be used to
create bidirectional or unidirectional paths, bidirectional paths
being the preferred mode of operation for numerous reasons (OAM
consistency etc.). In this document we only consider paths that
share the same route/resources/fate both for bidirectional P2P and
bidirectional P2MP services.
Signaling enables the ability to dynamically establish a path from
one end of the connection. The signaled path may be completely
static and not change for the duration of the service. However,
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 8
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
Signaling also has the capability to dynamically adjust the path in
a coordinated fashion after the path has been established. The range
of signaling options from static to dynamic are under operator
control. Signaling also improves multi-vendor interoperability over
simple management since the signaling is standard for either the
static or the dynamic case.
3.4 Ethernet Service
Ethernet Switched Paths that are setup either by configuration or
signaling can be used to provide an Ethernet service to customers of
the Ethernet network. The Metro Ethernet Forum has defined some
services in MEF.6 (e.g., Ethernet Private Line), and these are also
aligned with ITU-T G.8011-x Recommendations. Of particular interest
are the bandwidth profile parameters in MEF.10 and whose associated
bandwidth profile algorithm are based on [RFC4115] [RFC3270].
Consideration should be given to supporting these in any signaling
extensions for Ethernet LSPs. This will be addressed in a future
version of this specification.
3.5 GMPLS Link Management
Link discovery is one of the building blocks of GMPLS. It is also a
capability that has been specified for Ethernet in IEEE 802.1AB.
However the 802.1AB capability is an optional feature and is not
necessarily operated before the Link is operational it primarily
supports the management plane. The benefits of running link
discovery in large systems are significant. Link discovery may
reduce configuration and reduce the possibility of undetected errors
in configuration as well as exposing misconnections. LMP and 802.1AB
are relatively independent. The LMP capability should be sufficient
to remove the need for 802.1AB but 802.1 AB can be run in parallel
or independently if desired.
LMP also has Fault Management capabilities that overlap with [IEEE
802.1ag] and [Y.1731]. It is recommended that LMP not be used for
Fault management and instead the native Ethernet methods be used.
See Figure 3.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 9
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
+-------------+ +-------------+
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | | | | | |GMPLS
| | LMP |-|<------>|-| LMP | |Link Property Correlation
| | (opt) | |IP | | (opt) | |Bundling
| | | | | | | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | 802.1AB |-|<------>|-| 802.1AB | |P2P
| | (opt) | |Ethernet| | (opt) | |link identifiers
| | | | | | | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | | | | | |End to End
-----|-| 802.1ag |-|<------>|-| 802.1ag |-|-------
| | Y.1731 | |Ethernet| | Y.1731 | |Fault Management
| | | | | | | |Performance Management
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Switch 1 link Switch 2
Figure 3 Logical Link Management Options
3.6 GMPLS Routing
GMPLS routing [RFC4202] is IP routing with the opaque TLV extensions
for the purpose of carrying around GMPLS TE information. The TE
information is populated with TE resources from coordinated with LMP
or from configuration if LMP is not available. The bandwidth
resources of the links are tracked as Eth-LSPs are set up.
Interfaces supporting the switching of Eth-LSPs are identified using
the 802_1 (IANA) Interface Switching Capabilities. GMPLS Routing is
an optional piece but it is highly valuable in maintaining topology
and distributing the TE database for path management and dynamic
path computation.
3.7 Path Selection
There has been a lot of recent activity in the area of path
computation [PATH-COMP] and selection. Originally MPLS and GMPLS
path computation was performed locally in a TE database of a router.
While this is non-optimal for situations where bandwidth is highly
managed, it was acceptable when a few paths were required in a
primarily connectionless environment; if a large number of
coordinated paths are required, it is advantageous to have a more
sophisticated path computation engine capable of optimizing the path
routing of a sub network. The path computation could take the form
of paths being computed either on a management station with local
computation for rerouting or more sophisticated path computation
servers.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 10
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
Eth-LSPs may be supported using any path selection or computation
mechanism. As is the case with any GMPLS path selection function,
and common to all path selection mechanisms, the path selection
process should take into consideration Switching Capabilities and
Encoding advertised for a particular interface.
3.7.1 Combinations of GMPLS Features
The combinations of LMP, Routing, Signaling and Path computation can
be all supported on a switch or a subset of GMPLS features can be
supported.
Signaling is the minimal function that might be supported on a small
switch. The ability to process Signaling messages with an ERO may be
all that is desired on an end point. In this case the path
computation would be performed off network.
Routing for GMPLS is the next important function since it provides
the forwarding of signaling functions and transport of TE
information. There is no requirement to provide full IP routing for
data traffic, only hop by hop routing for the control plane. However
it is possible to design switches without routing that could proxy
their routing to other larger switches. In the proxied case, there
would be little difference in the routing database but the small
switches would not have to perform routing operations. The
information for the proxied routing might be configured or it might
be data filled by an automated procedure. No new protocols are
envisioned for the case where routing is proxied.
LMP is optional. The primary benefit of LMP in addition to 802.1AB
is LMP's capability to optimize routing information for the purpose
of link bundling on large switches. LMP has the capability to
compress the information required to represent a large number of
parallel resources automatically and reduce the amount of
configuration.
3.8 Addresses, Interfaces, and Labels
This specification uses an addressing scheme and a label space for
the ingress/egress connection; the hierarchical TE Router
ID/Interface ID and the Ethernet VID/DMAC tuple or VID/Multicast MAC
as a label space. This draft is intended to be consistent with GMPLS
addressing [ADDRESS].
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 11
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
TE Router ID TE Router ID
| (TE Link) |
V | V N=named port
+----+ | +-----+ <port index>
| | | label=VID/DMAC | | <MAC>
| PB | V label=VID/MMAC | | <string>
-----N N----------------------------N PBB N----------
| | |(MAC)| \
| | / | Customer
+----+ /+-----+ Facing
PBB-TE Transit Provider MAC PBB-TE edge Ports
Switch Switch
Figure 4 Ethernet/GMPLS Addressing & Label Space
Depending on how the service is defined and set up one or more of
these identifiers may be used for actual setup. An Ethernet port name
is common to configured VID/DMAC, configured VID and bridging modes
of operation.
For a GMPLS based system, the TE Router ID/logical port is the
logical signaling identifier for the control plane via which Ethernet
layer label bindings are solicited. In order to create a P2P path an
association must be made between the ingress and egress node. The
actual label distributed via signaling and instantiated in the switch
forwarding tables identifies the upstream and downstream egress
VID/DMAC of the PBB-TE path (see Figure 4).
GMPLS uses un-numbered identifiers in the form of 32 bit numbers
which are in the IP address notation but are not IP addresses. The
provider MAC port addresses are exchanged by the LLDP and by LMP if
supported. However these identifiers are merely for link control and
legacy Ethernet support and have local link scope. Actual label
assignment is performed by the signaling initiator and terminator.
A particular port on a provider network switch would have:
- A VID/DMAC
- A 32 bit IPv4 Switch address plus a 32 bit interface Identifier
- One (or more) Mnemonic String Identifiers
This multiple naming convention leaves the issue of resolving the set
given one of the port identifiers. On a particular node, mapping is
relatively straightforward. The preferred solution to this is to use
the TE Router ID for signaling resolution. In so doing, the problem
of setting up a path is reduced to figuring out what switch supports
an egress MAC address and then finding the corresponding TE Router ID
and performing all signaling and routing with respect to the TE
Router ID.
There are several options to achieve this:
- Provisioning
- Auto discovery protocols that carry MAC address
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 12
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
- Augmenting Routing TE with MAC Addresses
- Name Servers with identifier/address registration
The specific procedures will be clarified in a subsequent version of
this document.
4. Specific Procedures
4.1 P2P connections
The Data Plane for Ethernet MUST have three key fields: VID, DMAC and
SMAC. A connection instance is uniquely identified, in the data
plane, by the DMAC, the VID and the SMAC for the purpose of the
provider network terminations. From a GMPLS control plane point of
view an Ethernet LSP MAY also be identified as any other LSP using
the 5-tuple [Ip_Source_Sddr, Ip_Dest_Addr, LSP_Id, Tunnel_ID,
Extended_Tunnel_ID]. The VID and DMAC tuple identifies the forwarding
multiplex at transit switches and a simple degenerate form of the
multiplex is a single P2P connection.
This results in unique labels end to end. The data streams MAY merge,
the forwarding entries MAY be shared but the headers are still unique
allowing the connection to be de-multiplexed downstream.
On the initiating and terminating nodes, a function administers the
VIDs associated with the SMAC and DMAC respectively. PBB-TE is
designed to be bidirectional and symmetrically routed just like
Ethernet. Therefore in PBB-TE, the packet SMAC and DMAC pair is same
in the forwarding path and the associated reverse path except they
are flipped in the reverse direction.
To initiate a bidirectional VID/DMAC P2P or P2MP path, the initiator
of the PATH message uses procedures outlined in [RFC3473] possibly
augmented with [RFC4875], it:
1) Sets the LSP encoding type to Ethernet.
2) Sets the LSP switching type to 802_1 [IANA to define].
3) Sets the GPID to service type [IANA to define].
4) Sets the UPSTREAM_LABEL to the VID/SMAC tuple where the VID is
administered from the configured VID/DMAC range.
5) Optionally sets the LABEL_SET or SUGGESTED_LABEL if it chooses to
influence the choice of VID/DMAC.
Intermediate and egress node processing is not modified by this
document, i.e., is per [RFC3473] and, in the case of P2MP, as
extended in [RFC4875]. Note, as previously stated intermediate nodes
supporting the 802_1 switching type may not modify LABEL values.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 13
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
The VID/SMAC tuple contained in the UPSTREAM_LABEL is used to create
a static forwarding entry in the Filtering Database of bridges at
each hop for the upstream direction. This behavior is inferred from
the switching type which is 802_1 [IANA to define].The port derived
from the RSVP_HOP object and the VID and DMAC included in the label
constitute the static entry.
At the destination, a VID is allocated in the local MAC range for
the DMAC and the VID/DMAC tuple is passed in a LABEL object in the
RESV message. As with the Path message, intermediate node
processing is per [RFC3473] and [RFC4875], and the LABEL object is
passed on unchanged, upstream. The VID/DMAC tuple contained in the
LABEL Object is installed in the forwarding table as a static
forwarding entry at each hop. This creates a bidirectional path as
the PATH and RESV messages follow the same path.
4.1.1 Shared Forwarding
One capability of a connectionless Ethernet data plane is to reuse
destination forwarding entries for packets from any source within a
VLAN to a destination. When setting up P2P PBB-TE connections for
multiple sources sharing a common destination this capability MAY be
preserved provided certain requirements are met. We refer to this
capability as Shared Forwarding. Shared forwarding is invoked based
on policy when conditions are met. It is a local decision by label
allocation at each end. Shared forwarding has no impact on the
actual paths setup, but it allows the reduction of forwarding
entries. Shared forwarding paths are identical to independently
routed paths with the exception that they share the same labels.
To achieve shared forwarding, a Path computation engine should
ensure the ERO is consistent with an existing path for the shared
segments. If a path satisfies the consistency check, the upstream
end of the signaling may chose to share an existing VID/DMAC for the
upstream traffic with an existing Eth-LSP. The criteria for shared
forwarding is the Eth-LSPs must share the same destination port and
the paths of the Eth-LSP share one or more hops consecutively. Once
the paths converge they must remain converged. If no existing path
has this behavior when a new path is being created the new path will
be created without sharing either by using another VID or another
DMAC or both.
In other words, shared forwarding is possible when paths share
segments either from the source or the destination. There is no
requirement that the paths share reservations or other attributes.
For the source, the UPSTREAM_LABEL is chosen to be the same as an
existing path that shares the ERO for some number of hops.
Similarly for the destination, shared forwarding is possible when an
existing path that shares segments with the new paths ERO, viewed
from the destination switch. The downstream label in this case is
chosen to be the same as the existing path. In this manner shared
forwarding is a function that is controlled primarily by policy and
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 14
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
in combination with the local label allocation at the end points of
the path.
4.1.2 P2P connections with shared forwarding
The VID/DMAC MAY be considered to be a shared forwarding identifier
or label for a multiplex consisting of some number of P2P connections
distinctly identified by the MAC VID/DMAC/SMAC tuple. In some ways
this is analogous to an LDP label merge but in the shared forwarding
case only the forwarding entry is reused. Resources can continue to
be allocated per LSP.
VLAN tagged Ethernet packets include priority marking. Priority bits
MAY be used to indicate class of Service (COS) and drop priority.
Thus, traffic from multiple COSs could be multiplexed on the same
Eth-LSP (i.e., similar to E-LSPs) and queuing and drop decisions are
made based on the p-bits. This means that the queue selection can be
done based on a per flow (i.e., Eth-LSP + priority) basis and is
decoupled from the actual steering of the packet at any given node.
A switch terminating an Eth-LSP will frequently have more than one
suitable candidate path and it may choose to share a forwarding entry
(common VID/DMAC, unique SMAC). It is a local decision of how this is
performed but the best choice is a path that maximizes the shared
forwarding.
The concept of bandwidth management still applies equally well with
shared forwarding. As an example consider a PBB-TE edge switch that
terminates an Ethernet LSP with the following attributes: bandwidth
B1, DMAC D, SMAC S1, VID V. A request to establish an additional
Ethernet LSP with attributes (bandwidth B2, DMAC D, SMAC S2, VID V)
can be accepted provided there is sufficient link capacity remaining.
4.1.3 Dynamic P2P symmetry with shared forwarding
Similar to how a destination switch MAY select a VID/DMAC from the
set of existing shared forwarding multiplexes rooted at the
destination node, the originating switch MAY also do so for the
reverse path. Once the initial ERO has been computed and the set of
existing Ethernet LSPs that include the target DMAC have been pruned,
the originating switch may select the optimal (by whatever criteria)
existing shared forwarding multiplex for the new destination to merge
with and offer its own VID/DMAC tuple for itself as a destination.
4.1.4 Planned P2P symmetry
Normally the originating switch will not have knowledge of the set of
shared forwarding paths rooted on the destination node.
Use of a Path Computation Server or other planning style of tool with
more complete knowledge of the network configuration may wish to
impose pre-selection of shared forwarding multiplexes to use for both
directions. In this scenario the originating switch uses the
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 15
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
LABEL_SET and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects to indicate complete selection
of the shared forwarding multiplexes at both ends. This may also
result in the establishment of a new VID/DMAC path as the LABEL_SET
object may legitimately refer to a path that does not yet exist.
4.1.5 P2P Path Maintenance
Make before break procedures can be employed to modify the
characteristics of a P2P Ethernet LSP. As described in [RFC3209],
the LSP ID in the sender template is updated as the new path is
signaled. The procedures (including those for shared forwarding) are
identical to those employed in establishing a new LSP, with the
extended tunnel ID in the signaling exchange ensuring that double
booking of the associated resources does not occur.
Where individual paths in a protection group are modified, signaling
procedures may be combined with Protection Switching (PS)
coordination to administratively force PS switching operations such
that modifications are only ever performed on the protection path.
4.2 P2MP Signaling
To initiate a P2MP VID path the initiator of the PATH message uses
procedures outlined in [RFC3473] and [RFC4875]. A P2MP tree consists
of a VID or Multicast tree in the forward direction (from root to
leaves) and a set of P2P paths running on identical paths from Tree
to root in the reverse direction. The result is a composite path
with VID/DMAC labels with a single Multicast DMAC in the forward
direction and a symmetric unidirectional VID/DMAC label in the
reverse direction:
1-4) Same points as P2P paths previously specified.
5) Sets the downstream label as the multicast VID/DMAC.
6) VID translation may optionally be permitted on a local basis
between two switches by a downstream switch replying with a VID/DMAC
other than the LABEL_SET. The upstream switch then sets a VID
translation on the port associated with the label to allow VID
translation. This flexibility allows the tree to be constructed with
out having to worry about colliding with another tree using the same
VID.
4.3 P2MP VID/DMAC Connections
4.3.1 Setup procedures
The group DMAC is administered from a central pool of multicast
addresses and the VLAN selected from the configured VID/DMAC range.
The P2MP tree is constructed via incremental addition of leaves to
the tree in signaling exchange where the root is the originating
switch (as per (RFC4875). The multicast VID/DMAC is encoded in the
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 16
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
LABEL_SET (as a member of one) object using the Ethernet label
encoding.
Where a return path is required the unicast MAC corresponding to the
originating interface and a VID selected from the configured VID/DMAC
range is encoded as an Ethernet label in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object.
4.3.2 Maintenance Procedures
Maintenance and modification to a P2MP tree can be achieved by a
number of means. The preferred technique is to modify existing VLAN
configuration vs. assignment of a new label and completely
constructing a new tree.
Make before break on a live tree reusing existing label assignments
requires a 1:1 or 1+1 construct. The protection switch state of the
traffic is forced on the working tree and locked (PS not allowed)
while the backup tree is modified. Explicit path tear of leaves to
be modified is required to ensure no loops are left behind as
artifacts of tree modification. Once modifications are complete, a
forced switch to the backup tree occurs and the original tree may be
similarly modified. This also suggests that 1+1 or 1:1 resilience
can be achieved for P2MP trees for any single failure (switch on any
failure and use restoration techniques to repair the failed tree).
4.4 Ethernet Label
The Ethernet label is a new generalized label with a suggested
format of:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| VLAN ID | MAC (highest 2 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The semantics of the new label type for a non-zero MAC address is
that that the label is passed unchanged. This label is a domain wide
label. This has similarity to the way in which a wavelength label
is handled at an intermediate switch that cannot perform wavelength
conversion, and is described in [RFC3473]. The option to allow just
a VLAN to be signaled without a MAC (A zero MAC) is for cases where
a single VLAN is desired to be signaled for P2MP trees in cases
where a multicast MAC is not desired.
These domain wide labels are allocated to switches that control the
assignment of labels. There are two options for Ethernet MAC based
domain wide unique labels. One option is to allocate the DMACs from
globally unique addresses assigned to the either the switch
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 17
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
manufacturer or the owner. The other option is to use DMACs out of
the local admin space and ensue these labels are unique within the
domain. This local DMAC space does not have to be globally unique
because the labels are only valid within a single provider domain.
In the case of local label allocation there is less administrative
overhead to allocate labels. However when using configuration, a
tool would have to perform a consistency check to make sure that
label terminations were unique. When using GMPLS signaling it is
assumed a unique pool of labels would be assigned to each switch.
The DMAC addresses are domain wide unique and so is the combination
of VID/DMAC. It is intended that the VID/DMAC be only used by one
destination. However, should an error occur and a somehow a
duplicate label be assigned to one or more destination switches
GMPLS signaling procedures would allow the first assignment of the
label and prevent any duplicate label from colliding. If a collision
occurs an alarm would be generated. In fact some of these procedures
have been defined in GMPLS control of photonic networks where a
lambda may exist as a form of domain wide label.
4.5 OAM MEP ID and MA ID synchronization
The Maintenance end point IDs (MEP IDs) and maintenance association
IDs for the switched path endpoints can be synchronized using the
ETH-MCC (maintenance communication channel) transaction set once the
switched path has been established.
MEPs are located at the endpoints of the Ethernet LSP. Typical
configuration associated with a MEP is Maintenance Domain Name,
Short Maintenance Association Name, and MA Level, MEP ID, and CCM
transmission rate (when ETH-CC functionality is desired). As part of
the synchronization, it is verified that the Maintenance Domain
Name, Short Maintenance Association Name, MA Level, and CCM
transmission rate are the same. It is also determined that MEP IDs
are unique for each MEP.
Besides the unicast CCM functionality, the PBB-TE MEPs can also
offer the LBM/LBR and LMM/LMR functionalities for on-demand
connectivity verification and loss measurement purposes.
4.6 Protection Paths
When protection is used for path recovery it is required to
associate the working and protection paths into a protection group.
This is achieved as defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] using the
ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION objects. Protection may be used for P2P
VID/DMAC, P2MP VID/DMAC and P2P/P2MP VID configured modes of
operation. The 'P' bit in the protection object indicates the role
(working or protection) of the LSP currently being signaled.
If the initiating switch wishes to use G.8031 [G-8031] data plane
protection switching coordination (vs. control plane notifications),
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 18
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
it sets the N bit to 1 in the protection object. This must be
consistently applied for all paths associated as a protection group.
If the terminating switch does not support G.8031, the error
"Admission Control Failure/Unsupported Notification Type" is used.
5. Error conditions
The following errors have been identified as being unique to these
procedures and in addition to those already defined. This will be
addressed in a proper IANA considerations section in a future
version of the document:
5.1 Invalid VID value for configured VID/DMAC range
The originator of the error is not configured to use the VID value
in conjunction with GMPLS signaling of VID/DMAC tuples. This may be
any switch along the path.
5.2 Invalid VID value for configured VID range
5.3 Invalid MAC Address
The MAC address is out of a reserved range that cannot be used by
then node which is processing the address. While almost all MAC
addresses are valid there are a small number of reserved MAC
addresses.
5.4 Invalid ERO for UPSTREAM_LABEL Object
The ERO offered has discontinuities with the identified VID/DMAC
path in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object.
5.5 Invalid ERO for LABEL_SET Object
The ERO offered has discontinuities with the identified VID/DMAC
path in the LABEL_SET object.
5.6 Switch is not SVL capable
This error may arise only in P2MP VID Tree allocation.
5.7 Invalid VID in UPSTREAM_LABEL object
The VID in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object for the "asymmetrical VID"
P2MP tree did not correspond to the VID used in previous
transactions.
6. Deployment Scenarios
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 19
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
This technique of GMPLS controlled Ethernet switching is applicable
to all deployment scenarios considered by the design team [CCAMP-
ETHERNET].
7. Security Considerations
The architecture assumes that the GMPLS controlled Ethernet subnet
consists of trusted devices and that the UNI ports to the domain are
untrusted. Care is required to ensure untrusted access to the trusted
domain does not occur. Where GMPLS is applied to the control of VLAN
only, the commonly known techniques for mitigation of Ethernet DOS
attacks may be required on UNI ports.
8. IANA Considerations
New values are required for signaling and error codes as indicated.
This section will be completed in a later version.
9. References
9.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[CCAMP-ETHERNET] Papadimitriou, D. et.al, "A Framework for
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Ethernet", internet draft, draft-
papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-framework-00.txt, June 2005
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (editor), "Generalized MPLS Signaling
Functional Description", January 2003, RFC3471.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized MPLS", RFC 4202, October 2005
[RFC3473] Berger, L. et.al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", IETF RFC 3473, January 2003.
9.2 Informative References
[RFC4115] Aboul-Magd, O. et.al. "A Differentiated Service Two-Rate,
Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic",
IETF RFC 4115, July 2005
[G-8031] ITU-T Draft Recommendation G.8031, Ethernet Protection
Switching.
[RFC3945] E. Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3495.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 20
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
[IEEE 802.1AB] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks, Station and Media Access Control Connectivity
Discovery".
[IEEE 802.1ag] "IEEE Draft Standard for Connectivity Fault
Management", work in progress.
[IEEE 802.1ah] "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in
progress.
[RFC4204] Lang. J. Editor, "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" RFC4204,
October 2005
[MEF.6] The Metro Ethernet Forum MEF 6 (2004), "Ethernet Services
Definitions - Phase I".
[MEF.10] The Metro Ethernet Forum MEF 10 (2004), "Ethernet Services
Attributes Phase 1".
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F. et.al., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services" IETF RFC 3270, May
2002.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R. Ed., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to
Multipoint TE LSPs", IETF RFC 4875, May 2007
[MYERS] Myers et.al. "Rethinking the service model, scaling Ethernet
to a million nodes", http://100x100network.org/papers/myers-
hotnets2004.pdf.
[PATH-COMP] Farrel, A. et.al., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Architecture", work in progress.
[PWoPBT] Allan et.al., "Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone
Transport", work in progress.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Pate, P. et al., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-
to Edge (PWE3) Architecture", IETF RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4872] Lang et.al., "RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
", RFC 4872, May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L. et.al.,"MPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May
2007.
[RFC3209] Awduche et.al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels, IETF RFC 3209, December 2001.
[Y.1731] ITU-T Draft Recommendation Y.1731(ethoam), " OAM Functions
and Mechanisms for Ethernet based Networks ", work in progress.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 21
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
[ADDRESS] Shimoto, K., Papneja, R., Rabbat, R., "Use of Addresses in
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks",
work in progress.
[ASYM] Berger, L. et al., "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional
LSPs", work in progress.
10. Author's Address
Don Fedyk Phone: +1-978-288-3041
Nortel Networks Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA, 01821
David Allan Phone: +1-613-763-6362
Nortel Networks Email: dallan@nortel.com
3500 Carling Ave.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Greg Sunderwood Phone: +1-604-648-7770
Bell Canada Email: greg.sunderwood@gt.ca
Suite 1500,
1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC, CANADA
V6E 2X1
Himanshu Shah Phone: 978-489-2196
Ciena Email: hshah@ciena.com
35 Nagog Park,
Acton, MA 01720
Nabil Bitar Phone: (781) 466-2161
Verizon, Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
40 Sylvan Rd.,
Waltham, MA 02451
Attila Takacs Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Ericsson
1. Laborc u.
Budapest, HUNGARY 1037
Diego Caviglia Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Ericsson
Via Negrone 1/A
Genoa, Italy 16153
Alan McGuire Phone: +44 1473 645010
BT Group PLC Email: alan.mcguire@bt.com
OP6 Polaris House,
Adastral Park,
Martlesham Heath,
Ipswich, Suffolk,
IP5 3RE, UK
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 22
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
Nurit Sprecher Phone: +972 9 7751229
Nokia Siemens Networks, Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
GmbH & Co. KG
COO RTP IE Fixed
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B,
45241 Hod Hasharon, Israel
Lou Berger Phone: +1-301-468-9228
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net
11. 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.
12. 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, THE
IETF TRUST 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.
13. Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 23
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
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.
14. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dinesh Mohan, Nigel Bragg, Stephen
Shew and Sandra Ballarte for their extensive contributions to this
document.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 24
Appendix A
A 1. Aspects of configuring Ethernet Forwarding
Ethernet as specified today is a complete system consisting of a
data plane and a number of control plane functions. Spanning tree,
data plane flooding and MAC learning combine to populate forwarding
tables and produce resilient any-to-any behavior in a bridged
network.
Ethernet consists of a very simple and reliable data plane that has
been optimized and mass produced. By simply disabling some Ethernet
control plane functionality, it is possible to employ alternative
control planes and obtain different forwarding behaviors.
Customer Provider Provider
Bridge/ Bridge Backbone
Bridge
C-MAC/C-VID------------------802.1Q -------------------C-MAC-CVID
S-VID-----------802.1ad------------S-VID
B-MAC---802.1ah---B-MAC
B-VID---802.1ah---B-VID
Figure 1 802.1 MAC/VLAN Hierarchy
Recent works in IETF Pseudo Wire Emulation [RFC3985] and IEEE 802
are defining a separation of Ethernet functions permitting an
increasing degree of provider control. The result is that the
Ethernet service to the customer appears the same, yet the provider
components and behaviors have become decoupled from the customer
presentation and the provider has gained control of all VID/DMAC
endpoints.
One example of this is the 802.1ah work in hierarchical bridging
whereby customer Ethernet frames are fully encapsulated into a
provider Ethernet frame, isolating the customer VID/DMAC space from
the provider VID/DMAC space. Another example would be the direct
transport of pseudo wires PWs ["Dry Martini" or PW over layer 2]
where the Ethernet network fulfills the role of the PSN in the PWE
architecture [PWoPBT]. In both cases the behavior of the provider's
network is as per 802.1Q.
The Ethernet data plane provides protocol multiplexing via the ether
type field which allows encapsulation of different protocols
supporting various applications. More recently, the Carrier Ethernet
effort has created provider and customer separation that enables
another level of multiplexing. This in effect creates provider MAC
endpoints in the Ethernet sub-network controlled by the provider. In
this document we concentrate on the provider solutions and therefore
subsequent references to VLAN, VID and MAC refer to those under
provider control, be it in the backbone layer of 802.1ah or the PSN
Fedyk et.al Expires November 2007 Page 25
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
layer of "Dry Martini". Also in the case where the Customer service
is Ethernet, the Customer Ethernet service is the same native
Ethernet service with functions such as bridging, learning and
spanning trees all functioning over the provider infrastructure.
With the provider in exclusive control of their Ethernet sub-network
and all customer specific state pushed to the edges of that sub-
network, the ability of the provider to exploit latent Ethernet
behavior is facilitated. One key capability sought is to overcome
limitations, such as single spanning tree path for all traffic
within a VLAN, imposed by bridging (see [MYERS] for a discussion).
Bridging offers a simple solution for any-to-any connectivity within
a VLAN partition via the Spanning tree, flooding and MAC learning.
Spanning tree provides some unnecessary capabilities for P2P
services and since the Spanning tree must interconnect all MACs with
the same VLAN IDs (VIDs) it consumes a scarce resource (VIDs). In
this document we present that it is easier to modify Ethernet to
scale engineered P2P services and this is the approach we take with
PBB-TE and PW over Ethernet. (The number of usable VLANs IDs in
conventional Ethernet bridging is constrained to 4094, therefore the
use of VLAN only configuration for all forwarding could be limited
for some applications where large number of P2P connections are
required.) This is because in Ethernet, each Spanning tree is
associated with one or more VLAN IDs. Also Port membership in a VLAN
is configured which controls the connectivity of all MAC interfaces
participating in the VLAN.
The roots for PBB-TE capability exist in the Ethernet management
plane. The management of Ethernet switches provides for static
configuration of Ethernet forwarding. The Ethernet Control plane
allows for forwarding entries that are statically provisioned or
configured. In this document we are expanding the meaning of
"configured" from an Ethernet Control plane sense to mean either
provisioned, or controlled by GMPLS. The connectivity aspects of
Ethernet forwarding is based upon VLANs and MAC addresses. In other
words the VLAN + DMAC are an Ethernet Label that can be looked up at
each switch to determine the egress link (or links in the case of
link aggregation).
In this document, we discuss, Point to Point(P2P) and point to
multipoint (P2MP) connections via static configuration of VLAN/DMAC
tuples. (MAC-only configuration is considered a degenerate case
corresponding to VLAN zero).
This is a finer granularity than traditional VLAN networks since
each P2P connection is independent. By provisioning MAC addresses
independently of Spanning tree in a domain, both the VLAN and the
VLAN/DMAC configured forwarding can be exploited. This greatly
extends the scalability of what can be achieved in a pure Ethernet
bridged sub network.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 26
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
For compatibility and flexibility with existing Ethernet hardware,
we preserve the global/domain wide uniqueness and semantics of MAC
addresses as interface names or multicast group addresses. (In
Ethernet overlap of MAC addresses across VLANs is allowed. However
for PBB-TE MAC addresses should be unique for all VLANs assigned to
PBB-TE. With PBB-TE it is an operational choice if the operator uses
PBT-TE labels out of the global MAC address space or the local admin
space.) We then redefine the semantics associated with
administration and uses of VLAN values for the case of explicit
forwarding such as you get with statically configured Ethernet.
The result is a new architecture where configured VID + DMAC provide
a forwarding table that is consistent with existing Ethernet
switching. At the same time it provides domain wide labels that can
be controlled by a common GMPLS control plane. This makes GMPLS
control and resource management procedures ideal to create paths.
The outcome is that the GMPLS control plane can be utilized to set
up the following atomic modes of connectivity:
1) P2P connectivity and MP2P multiplexed connectivity based
on configuration of unicast MAC addresses in conjunction
with a VID from a set of pre-configured VIDs.
2) P2MP connectivity based on configuration of multicast MAC
address in conjunction with a VID from a set of pre-
configured VIDs. This corresponds to (Source, Group) or
(S,G) multicast.
3) P2MP connectivity based on configuration of VID port
membership. This corresponds to (S,*) or (*,*) multicast
(where * represents the extent of the VLAN Tree).
4) MP2MP connectivity based on configuration of VID port
membership (P2MP trees in which leaves are permitted to
communicate). Although, we caution that this approach
poses resilience issues (discussed in section 5) and hence
is not recommended.
The modes above are not completely distinct. Some modes involve
combinations of P2P connections in one direction and MP connectivity
in the other direction. Also, more than one mode may be combined in
a single GMPLS transaction. One example is the incremental addition
of a leaf to a P2MP tree with a corresponding MP2P return path
(analogous to a root initiated join).
In order to realize the above connectivity modes, a partition of the
VLAN IDs from traditional Ethernet needs to be established. The
partition allows for a pool of Ethernet labels for manual
configuration and/or for GMPLS control plane usage. The VID
partition actually consists of a "configured VID/DMAC range" and
"configured VID range" since in some instances the label is a
VID/DMAC and sometimes the label is a VID/Mulitcast DMAC.
A 2. Overview of configuration of VID/DMAC tuples
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 27
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
Statically configured MAC and VID entries are a complete 60 bit
lookup The basic operation of an Ethernet switch is filtering on VID
and forwarding on DMAC. The resulting operation is the same as
performing a full 60 bit lookup (VID (12) + DMAC(48)) for P2P
operations, only requiring uniqueness of the full 60 bits for
forwarding to resolve correctly. We can call this an Ethernet domain
wide label.
We have complete route freedom for each domain wide label (60 bit
VLAN/DMAC tuple) and the ability to define multiple connectivity
instances or paths per DMAC for each of the VIDs in the "configured
VID/DMAC range".
We have preserved the semantics of MAC addresses, and simply broaden
the potential interpretations of VLAN ID from spanning tree
identifier to topology instance identifier. Therefore, we can
concurrently operate both standard bridging and configured
unicast/multicast operation side by side. We partition the VID space
and allocate a range of VIDs (say 'n' VIDs) as only significant when
combined with a configured DMAC address (the aforementioned
"configured VID/DMAC range" of VIDs). We can then consider a VID in
that range as an individual connectivity instance identifier for a
configured P2P path terminating at the associated DMAC address. Or
in the case of P2MP, a P2MP multicast tree corresponding to the
destination multicast group address. Note that this is destination
based forwarding consistent with how Ethernet works today. The only
thing changed is the mechanism of populating the forwarding tables.
Ethernet MAC addresses are typically globally unique since the 48
bits consists of 24 bit Organizational Unique Identifier and a 24
bit serial number. There is also a bit set aside for Multicast and
for local addresses out of the OUI field. We define domain wide as
within a single organization, or more strictly within a single
network within an organization. For provider MAC addresses that will
only be used in a domain wide sense we can define MAC addresses out
of a either the local space or the global space since they both have
the domain wide unique property. When used in the context of GMPLS,
it is useful to think of a domain wide pool of labels where switches
are assigned a set of MAC addresses. These labels are assigned
traffic that terminates on the respective switches.
It is also worth noting that unique identification of source in the
form of the SMAC is carried e2e in the MAC header. So although we
have a 60 bit domain wide unique label, it may be shared by multiple
sources and the full connection identifier for an individual P2P
instance is 108 bits (SMAC, VID and DMAC). The SMAC is not
referenced in forwarding operations but it would allow additional
context for tracing or other operations at the end of the path.
GMPLS signaling procedures can be designed to create the
bidirectional path delegating label allocation of the combined
VID/DMAC Label to the destination/source associated with the MACs
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 28
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
for each direction of unicast forwarding. Creating P2P path is a
well understood control plane requirement.
For multicast group addresses, the VID/DMAC concatenated label can
be distributed by the source but label assignment (as it encodes
global multicast group information) requires coordination within the
GMPLS controlled domain.
As mentioned earlier, this technique results in a single unique and
invariant identifier, in our case a VID/DMAC label associated with
the path termination or the multicast group. There can be up to
4094 labels to any one MAC address. However, practically, from
Ethernet network wide aspect; there would be only a handful of VLANs
allocated for PBB-TE. In addition, all 48 bits are not completely
available for the MAC addresses. One way to maximize the space is
to use the locally administered space. This is a large number for
P2P applications and even larger when shared or multiplexed
forwarding is leveraged. In practice, most network scaling
requirements may be met via allocation of only a small portion of
the VID space, to the configured VID/DMAC range. The result is
minimal impact on the number of remaining bridging VLANs that can be
concurrently supported.
In order to use this unique 60 bit label, we disable the normal
mechanisms by which Ethernet populates the forwarding table for the
allocated range of VIDs. When a path is setup, for a specific label
across a contiguous sequence of Ethernet switches, a unidirectional
connection is the functional building block for an Ethernet Label
Switched path (Eth-LSP).
In P2P mode a bidirectional path is composed of two unidirectional
paths that are created with a single RSVP-TE session. The technique
does not require the VID to be common in both directions. However,
keeping in line with regular Ethernet these paths are symmetrical
such that a single bidirectional connection is composed of two
unidirectional paths that have common routing (i.e. traverse the
same switches and links) in the network and hence share the same
fate.
In P2MP mode a bidirectional path is composed of a unidirectional
tree and a number of P2P paths from the leaves of the tree to the
root. Similarly these paths may have bandwidth and must have common
routing as in the P2P case.
There are a few modifications required to standard Ethernet to make
this approach robust:
1. In Standard Ethernet, discontinuities in forwarding table
configuration in the path of a connection will normally result in
packets being flooded as "unknown". For configured operation (e.g.
PBB-TE), unknown addresses are indicative of a fault or
configuration error and the flooding of these is undesirable in
meshed topologies. Therefore flooding of "unknown" unicast/multicast
MAC addresses must be disabled for the "configured VID/DMAC range".
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 29
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
2. MAC learning is not required, and although it will not interfere
with management/control population of the forwarding tables, since
static entries are not overridden, it appears prudent to explicitly
disable MAC learning for the configured VID/DMAC and VID range.
3. Spanning tree is disabled for the allocated VID/DMAC and VID
range and port blocking must be disabled to achieve complete
configured route freedom. As noted earlier, it is a control plane
requirement to ensure configured paths are loop free.
All three modifications described above are within the scope of
acceptable configuration options defined in IEEE802.1Q
specification.
A 3. Overview of configuration of VID port membership
Procedures almost identical to that for configuration of P2P
VID/DMAC tuples can also be used for the incremental configuration
of P2MP VID trees. For the replication of forwarding in this case
the label is common for the multipoint destinations. The MAC field
is set to multicast address and is common to the multicast
community. The VID is a distinguisher common to the multicast
community. The signaling procedures are as per that for [RFC4875].
Since VID translation is relatively new and is not a ubiquitously
deployed capability, we consider a VID to be a domain global value.
Therefore, the VID value to be used by the originating switch may be
assigned by management and nominally is required to be invariant
across the network. The ability to indicate permissibility of
translation will be addressed in a future version of the document.
A procedure known as "asymmetrical VID" may be employed to constrain
connectivity (root to leaves, and leaves to root only) when switches
also support shared VLAN learning (or SVL). This would be consistent
with the root as a point of failure.
A 4. OAM Aspects
Robustness is enhanced with the addition of data plane OAM to
provide both fault and performance management.
For the configured VID/DMAC unicast mode of behavior, the hardware
performs unicast packet forwarding of known MAC addresses exactly as
Ethernet currently operates. The OAM currently defined, [802.1ag and
Y.1731] can also be reused without modification of the protocols.
However currently if the VID for PBB-TE is different in each
direction some modification of the OAM may be required.
An additional benefit of domain wide path identifiers, for data
plane forwarding, is the tight coupling of the 60 bit unique
connection ID (VID/DMAC) and the associated OAM packets. It is a
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 30
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
simple matter to determine a broken path or misdirected packet since
the unique connection ID cannot be altered on the Eth-LSP. This is
in fact one of the most powerful and unique aspects of the domain
wide label for any type of rapid diagnosis of the data plane faults.
It is also independent of the control plane so it works equally well
for provisioned or GMPLS controlled paths.
Bidirectional transactions (e.g. ETH-LB) and reverse direction
transactions MAY have a different VID for each direction. Currently
Y.1731 & 802.1ag makes no representations with respect to this.
For configured multicast VID/DMAC mode, the current versions of
802.1ag and Y.1731] make no representation as to how PDUs which are
not using unicast addresses or which use OAM reserved multicast
addresses are handled. Therefore this specification makes no
representation as to whether such trees can be instrumented.
When configured VID mode of operation is used PBB-TE can be forced
to use the same VID in both directions, emulating the current
Ethernet data plane and the OAM functions as defined in the current
versions of 802.1ag and Y.1731 can be used with no restriction.
A 5. QOS Aspects
Ethernet VLAN tags include priority tagging in the form of the
802.1p priority bits. When combined with configuration of the paths
via management or control plane, priority tagging produces the
Ethernet equivalent of an MPLS-TE E-LSPs [RFC3270]. Priority tagged
Ethernet PDUs self-identify the required queuing discipline
independent of the configured connectivity.
It should be noted that the consequence of this is that there is a
common COS model across the different modes of configured operation
specified in this document.
The actual QOS objects required for signaling will be in a future
version of this memo.
A 6. Resiliency Aspects
A 6.1. E2E Path protection
One plus One(1+1) protection is a primary LSP with a disjoint
dedicated back up LSP. One for one (1:1) protection is a primary LSP
with a disjoint backup LSP that may share resources with other LSPs.
One plus One and One for One Automatic Protection Switching
strategies are supported. Such schemes offer:
1) Engineered disjoint protection paths that can protect both
directions of traffic.
2) Fast switchover due to tunable OAM mechanisms.
3) Revertive path capability when primary paths are restored.
4) Option for redialing paths under failure.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 31
Internet Draft draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-te-01.txt
Specific procedures for establishment of protection paths and
associating paths into "protection groups" are TBD.
Note that E2E path protection is able to respond to failures with a
number of configurable intervals. The loss of CCM OAM frames in the
data plane can trigger paths to switch. In the case of CCM OAM
frames, the detection time is typically 3.5 times the CCM interval
plus the propagation delay from the fault.
Fedyk et al. Expires November 2007 Page 32
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 01:36:15 |