One document matched: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-00.txt
Network Working Group F. Jounay (Ed.)
Internet Draft P. Niger
Category: Informational Track France Telecom
Expires: March 2009
Y. Kamite
L. Martini NTT Communications
Cisco
S. Delord
R. Aggarwal Uecomm
Juniper Networks
L. Wang
M. Bocci Telenor
M. Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent G. Heron
BT
L. Jin
Nokia Siemens September 4, 2008
Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-00.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 on March 2, 2009.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 1]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements for providing an
unidirectional Point-to-Multipoint PWE3 (Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge) emulation. The requirements identified in this document are
related to architecture, signaling and maintenance aspects of a
Point-to-Multipoint PW operation. They are proposed as guidelines for
the standardization of such mechanisms. Among other potential
applications Point-to-Multipoint PWs SHOULD be used to optimize the
support of multicast services as defined in the Layer 2 Virtual
Private Network working group.
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction....................................................3
1.1. Problem Statement.............................................3
1.2. Scope of the document.........................................4
2. Definition......................................................4
2.1. Acronyms......................................................4
2.2. Terminology...................................................4
3. P2MP SS-PW Requirements.........................................5
3.1. P2MP SS-PW Reference Model....................................5
3.2. P2MP SS-PW Underlying Layer...................................7
3.3. P2MP SS-PW Signaling Requirements.............................7
3.3.1. PW type mismatch............................................7
3.3.2. Interface Parameters sub-TLV................................7
3.3.3. Leaf Grafting/Pruning.......................................8
3.4. Failure Reporting and Processing..............................8
3.5. Protection and Restoration....................................9
3.6. Scalability...................................................9
3.7. Order of Magnitude............................................9
4. P2MP MS-PW Requirements........................................10
4.1. P2MP MS-PW Pseudowire Reference Model........................10
4.2. P2MP SS-PW Underlying Layer..................................11
4.3. P2MP MS-PW Signaling Requirements............................12
4.3.1. Dynamically Instantiated P2MP MS-PW........................12
4.3.2. P2MP MS-PW Setup Mechanisms................................12
4.3.3. PW type mismatch...........................................12
4.3.4. Interface Parameters sub-TLV...............................12
4.3.5. Leaf Grafting/Pruning......................................12
4.3.6. Explicit Routing...........................................13
4.4. Failure Reporting............................................13
4.5. Protection and Restoration...................................14
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 2]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
4.6. Scalability..................................................14
4.7. Order of Magnitude...........................................14
5. Manageability considerations...................................14
6. Backward Compatibility.........................................15
7. Security Considerations........................................15
8. IANA Considerations............................................15
9. Acknowledgments................................................15
10. References....................................................16
10.1. Normative References........................................16
10.2. Informative References......................................16
Authors' Addresses................................................17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements....................18
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem Statement
As defined in the PWE3 WG charter, a Pseudowire (PW) emulates a
point-to-point bidirectional link over an IP/MPLS network, and
provides a single service which is perceived by its user as an
unshared link or circuit of the chosen service. A Pseudowire is used
to transport non IP traffic (e.g. Ethernet, TDM, ATM, and FR) in an
IP/MPLS-based PSN (Packet Switched Network). PWE3 operates "edge to
edge" to provide the required connectivity between the two endpoints
of the PW.
The P2MP topology mentioned in [VPMS REQ] and required to provide
P2MP L2VPN services can be achieved via a P2MP PW. The use of PW
becomes necessary for some P2MP services requiring specific
encapsulation capabilities. This could be achieved using a set of
point to point PWs, with traffic replication on the PE, but faces
obvious bandwidth limitation issues, as traffic is carried multiple
time on shared links.
This document defines the use of a Point-to-Multipoint PW (P2MP PW).
A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowire (PW) is a mechanism that
emulates the essential attributes of a unidirectional P2MP
Telecommunications service such as P2MP ATM over PSN. One of the
applicabilities of a P2MP PW is to deliver a non-IP multicast service
that carries multicast frames from a multicast source to one or more
multicast receivers. The required functions of P2MP PWs include
encapsulating service-specific PDUs arriving at an ingress Attachment
Circuit (AC), and carrying them across a tunnel to one or more egress
ACs, managing their timing and order, and any other operations
required to emulate the behavior and characteristics of the service
as faithfully as possible.
P2MP PWs extend the PWE3 architecture [RFC3985] to offer a P2MP
Telecommunications service. They follow the PWE3 architecture as
described in [RFC3985] with modifications as outlined in this
document. One notable difference between point-to-point (P2P) PWs as
outlined in [RFC3985] and P2MP PWs is that the former emulate a
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 3]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
bidirectional service whereas the latter emulate a unidirectional
service.
This document aims at defining the associated requirements related to
the P2MP PW operation (e.g. setup and maintenance, protection,
scalability, etc).
It is intended that solutions that specify procedures and protocols
or extensions to existing protocols for the signaling of P2MP
Pseudowire satisfy these requirements.
1.2. Scope of the document
The document describes the P2MP PW Reference Model architectures and
outlines specific signaling requirements for the set up and
maintenance of a P2MP PW. The requirements are divided into two
parts, i.e. those applicable in a Single-Segment topology and those
applicable in a Multi-Segment topology. For other aspects of P2MP PW
implementation like packet processing, maintenance, etc, the document
refers to [RFC3916].
Some P2MP PW requirements are derived from the signaling requirements
for P2MP Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths [RFC4461].
2. Definition
2.1. Acronyms
P2P: Point-to-Point
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
PW: Pseudowire
SS-PW: Single-Segment Pseudowire
MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire
2.2. Terminology
This document uses terminology described in [MS-PW REQ], [MS-PW
ARCH], [SEG PW].
It also introduces additional terms needed in the context of
unidirectional P2MP PW.
P2MP PW, (also referred as PW Tree)
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire. A PW attached to a source used to
distribute L1/L2 format traffic to a set of one or more receivers (or
leaves). The P2MP PW is unidirectional.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 4]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
P2MP SS-PW
Point-to-Multipoint Single-Segment Pseudowire. A single segment P2MP
PW set up between the PE attached to the source and the PEs attached
to the receivers. The P2MP SS-PW relies on a P2MP LSP as PSN tunnel.
P2MP MS-PW
Point-to-Multipoint Multi-Segment Pseudowire. A multi-segment P2MP PW
represents an End-to-End PW segmented by means of S-PEs which are in
charge of switching the PW label. Each segment can rely on either
P2P LSP or a P2MP LSP as PSN tunnel.
Ingress PE
P2MP PW Ingress Provider Edge. Router attached to a Customer
Equipment (traffic source) via an Attachment Circuit (AC). In a MS-PW
architecture the term used is Ingress T-PE.
Egress PE
P2MP PW Egress Provider Edge. Router attached to a set of on or more
Customer Equipments (traffic receivers or leaves) via a set of one or
more Attachment Circuits (AC). In a MS-PW architecture the term used
is Egress T-PE.
Branch S-PE
The branch S-PE is only defined and required in the context of MS-PW.
The branch S-PE has one upstream PW segment and one or several
downstream PW segments.
3. P2MP SS-PW Requirements
3.1. P2MP SS-PW Reference Model
A unidirectional P2MP SS-PW provides a Point-to-Multipoint
connectivity from an Ingress PE connected to a traffic source to at
least two Egress PEs connected to traffic receivers. The PW endpoints
connect the PW to its attachment circuits (AC). As for a P2P PW, an
AC can be a Frame Relay DLC, an ATM VP/VC, an Ethernet port, a VLAN,
a HDLC link on a physical interface.
Figure 1 describes the P2MP SS-PW reference model which is derived
from [RFC3985] to support P2MP emulated services.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 5]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
|<-----------P2MP SS-PW------------>|
Native | | Native
Service | |<----P2MP PSN tunnel --->| | Service
(AC) V V V V (AC)
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ |
| |PE1 | | P |=========|PE2 |AC3 | +----+
| | | | ......PW1.......>|---------->|CE3 |
| | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+ |
+----+ | AC1 | | | . |=========|PE3 |AC4 | +----+
|CE1 |-------->|........PW1.............PW1.......>|---------->|CE4 |
+----+ | | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
+----+ |AC2 | |=========| . | |
| CE2|<--------| | | . | +----+AC5 | +----+
+----+ | | | | . |=========|PE4 |---------->|CE5 |
| | | | ......PW1.......>| | +----+
| | | | |=========| |AC6 | +----+
| | | | | | |---------->| CE6|
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ | +----+
Figure 1 P2MP SS-PW Reference Model
This architecture applies to the case where a P2MP PSN tunnel extends
between edge nodes of a single PSN domain to transport a
unidirectional P2MP PW with endpoints at these edge nodes.
In this model a single copy of each PW packet is sent over the P2MP
PSN tunnel and is received by all Egress PEs due to the P2MP nature
of the PSN tunnel. P Router is joining P2MP PSN tunnel operation but
is free from signaling of P2MP PW. P2MP PW operation is associated
with PE1, PE2, PE3 and PE4.
An AC attached to P2MP PW MUST be configured as "sender" or
"receiver" not both. Any AC is associated with the role of either
sending side (Tx) or receiving side (Rx) from the view of CE. Thus
every AC deals with unidirectional traffic. In Figure 1, AC1 is
configured as sending sides while AC2, AC3, AC4, AC5 and AC6 are as
receiving sides.
Referring to Figure 1, CE2, CE5 and CE6 MAY want to receive multicast
traffic from CE1. P2MP SS-PW (and P2MP MS-PW outlined in section 4)
solution MUST support such an operational case where one or more ACs
are connected to the same PE and local replication is needed. A PE
providing P2MP PW MUST support the following functions:
- Ingress PE MUST support traffic replication over its directly
connected ACs toward receiver CEs if necessary, in addition to PSN
transport.
- Egress PE MUST support traffic replication over its directly
connected ACs toward receiver CEs if necessary.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 6]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
3.2. P2MP SS-PW Underlying Layer
The P2MP SS-PW implies an underlying P2MP PSN tunnel. Figure 2 gives
an example of P2MP SS-PW topology relying on a P2MP LSP. The PW tree
is composed of one Ingress PE (i1) and several Egress PEs (e1, e2,
e3, e4).
The P2MP PSN MAY be signaled with P2MP RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or MLDP
[MLDP].
i1
/
/ \
/ \
/ \
/\ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ / \
e1 e2 e3 e4
Figure 2 Example of P2MP Underlying Layer for P2MP SS-PW
The P2MP PW MUST be supported over only one P2MP PSN tunnel. This
P2MP PSN tunnel MUST be able to serve more than one P2MP PW.
3.3. P2MP SS-PW Signaling Requirements
3.3.1. PW type mismatch
As for P2P PW, the ACs configured at Ingress PE and Egress PEs of a
P2MP PW MUST be of the same PW type [RFC4446]. In case of a different
type, the passive PE (Ingress or Egress PE, depending on the
signaling process) MUST support mechanisms to reject attempts to
establish the P2MP PW.
3.3.2. Interface Parameters sub-TLV
Some interface parameters [RFC4446] related to the AC capability have
been defined according to the PW type and are signaled during the PW
setup from the Egress PE to the Ingress PE.
This mechanism used for the P2P PW setup SHOULD be enhanced for P2MP
PW setup so as to ascertain that AC at the Egress PE is capable to
support traffic coming from AC at the Ingress PE.
Note that the signaling of such parameters is not mandatory and can
also be configured statically at PW endpoints.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 7]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
When the interface parameters are signaled, the Ingress PE SHOULD
take the decision to accept or not an Egress PE in the PW tree based
on the interface parameters advertised by the Egress PE. For that
purpose the Ingress PE MUST be configured with a threshold value of
the advertised interface parameters. E.g. for some interface
parameters (e.g. MTU size (Ethernet), number max of concatenated ATM
cells, etc), the parameters advertised by the Egress PE MUST be at
least superior or equal to those configured at the Ingress PE. For
other like CEP/TDM Payload bytes (TDM), the value MUST match exactly
at the Ingress and Egress PEs.
Note that when using an Ethernet P2MP PW with the Tag mode, the
interface parameter VLAN requested MUST be disabled, since a given
Egress PE requesting a VLAN marking at the Ingress PE will impose
this value to all Egress PEs belonging to the PW tree.
Note that a translation (VPI/VCI or VLAN service delimiter) SHOULD be
enabled only at the Egress PE.
3.3.3. Leaf Grafting/Pruning
Once the PW tree is setup, the solution MUST allow the addition or
removal of a leaf, or a subset of leaves to/from the existing tree,
without any impact on the PW tree (data and control planes) for the
remaining leaves.
The addition or removal of a leaf SHOULD also lead to the P2MP PSN
tunnel update accordingly. This MAY cause P2MP PSN tunnel to add or
remove the corresponding leaf.
3.4. Failure Reporting and Processing
Since the underlying layer has an End-to-End P2MP topology between
the Ingress PE and the Egress PEs, the failure reporting and
processing procedures are implemented only on the edge nodes.
Failure events MAY cause one or more Egress PEs and associated leaves
to become detached from the PW tree. These events MUST be reported to
the Ingress PE, using appropriate out-band OAM messages.
The solution SHOULD allow the Ingress PE to be informed of Egress PEs
and associated leaves failure for management purposes.
Based on these failure notifications the solution MUST allow the
Ingress PE to update the remaining leaves of the PW tree.
- A solution MUST support in-band OAM mechanism to detect failures:
unidirectional point-to-multipoint traffic failure. This SHOULD be
realized by enhancing existing unicast PW methods, such as VCCV for
seamless and familiar operation.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 8]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
- In case of failure, it SHOULD correctly report which leaf PEs are
affected. This SHOULD be realized by enhancing existing PW methods,
such as LDP Notification for seamless and familiar operation. The
notification message SHOULD include the type of fault (P2MP PW, AC or
PSN tunnel).
- A solution MAY support OAM message mapping at PE if failure happens
i.e., mapping between AC service OAM and P2MP PW OAM. (This needs
more discussion)
3.5. Protection and Restoration
It is assumed that if recovery procedures are required the P2MP PSN
tunnel will support standard MPLS-based recovery techniques
(typically based on RSVP-TE). In that case a mechanism SHOULD be
implemented to avoid race conditions between recovery at the PSN
level and recovery at the PW level.
3.6. Scalability
The solution SHOULD scale at least as well as linearly with an
increase in the number of Egress PEs.
3.7. Order of Magnitude
This section will be filled in a future version.
Number of Egress PE, TAII per Egress PE, dynamicity (Leaf
Grafting/Pruning) required, etc.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 9]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
4. P2MP MS-PW Requirements
4.1. P2MP MS-PW Pseudowire Reference Model
Figure 3 describes the P2MP MS-PW reference model which is derived
from [MS-PW ARCH] to support P2MP emulated services.
|<-----------P2MP MS-PW------------>|
Native | | Native
Service | |<-PSN1-->| |<--PSN2->| | Service
(AC) V V V V V V (AC)
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ |
| |T-PE| |S-PE |=========|T-PE| | +----+
| | 1 | | ......PW2.....>2 |---------->|CE2 |
| | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+ |
+----+ | | | | . |=========|T-PE| | +----+
|CE1 |-------->|........PW1......>......PW3.....>3.|---------->|CE3 |
+----+ | | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | | | . |=========|T-PE| | +----+
| | | | . | ......>4.|---------->|CE4 |
| | | | . | . | | | +----+
| | | | ....PW4.. +----+ |
| | | | | . +----+ |
| | | | | . |T-PE| | +----+
| | | | | ......>5.|---------->|CE5 |
| | | | |=========| | | +----+
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ |
Figure 3 P2MP MS-PW Reference Model
Figure 3 extends the P2MP SS-PW architecture of Figure 1 to a multi-
segment configuration. In a P2P MS-PW configuration as described in
[MS-PW REQ] the S-PE is responsible to switch a MS-PW from one input
segment to only one output segment, based on the PW identifier. Here
in a P2MP MS-PW configuration the S-PE is responsible to switch a MS-
PW from one input segment to one or several output segments.
Referring to Figure 3 T-PE1 is the Ingress T-PE and T-PE2, T-PE3, T-
PE4 and T-PE5 are the Egress T-PEs. In the reference model, the
Egress T-PEs are assumed to be located in the same PSN (PSN2), but it
could be envisioned that each output PW is located in a different PSN
(PSN2, PSN3, PSN4). The S-PE plays the role of branch S-PE since it
is in charge of switching simultaneously the input PW1 segment to the
output PW2, PW3, PW4 segments.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 10]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
Note that a P2MP MS-PW MAY obviously transit through more than one S-
PE along its path.
Note that if the P2MP SS-PW case mandatory implies the use of P2MP
PSN tunnel (underlying layer) between the edge nodes, the P2MP MS-PW
does not imply such a requirement since each PW segment can be
supported over a P2P PSN tunnel. However as we will see hereafter,
the coexistence of both kind of PSN tunnel (P2P and P2MP) MUST be
considered, as described in Figure 3 where the P2MP PW3 segment is
supported over P2MP LSP.
4.2. P2MP SS-PW Underlying Layer
Figure 4 describes an example of P2MP MS-PW topology relying on a
combination of both P2P and P2MP LSPs as PSN tunnels. The PW tree is
composed of one Ingress PE (i1) and several Egress PEs (e1, e2, e3,
e4). The branch S-PEs are represented as b1, b2, b3, b4, b5. In that
case the traffic replication along the path of the PW tree is
performed at the PW level. For instance the branch S-PE b5 MUST
replicate incoming packets or data received from b2 and send them to
Egress T-PEs e3 and e4.
However giving the fact that some PW segments MAY be supported over a
P2MP LSP, the traffic replication along the path of these PW segments
can be performed as well at the underlying LSP level.
Figure 4 describes the case where each segment is supported over a
P2P LSP except for the b1-b3 and b1-b4 segments which are conveyed
over a P2MP LSP on this section.
i1
/ \
b1 b2
/ \
/ \
/\ \
/ \ \
b3 b4 b5
/ \ / \
e1 e2 e3 e4
Figure 4 Example of P2P and P2MP underlying Layer for P2MP MS-PW
The P2MP PSN MAY be signaled with P2MP RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or MLDP
[MLDP].
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 11]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
4.3. P2MP MS-PW Signaling Requirements
4.3.1. Dynamically Instantiated P2MP MS-PW
The PW tree could be statically configured at the T-PEs and each S-PE
crossed. However it is RECOMMENDED that a solution provides the
ability to dynamically setup a MS-PW tree, by allowing the MS-PW
segments to be dynamically stitched.
During the PW tree setup, a branch S-PE SHOULD be capable to inform
the upstream PEs, including the Ingress T-PE that a set of Egress T-
PEs and associated leaves are not reachable.
4.3.2. P2MP MS-PW Setup Mechanisms
The requirements described in this section assume that dynamic setup
of MS-PW segments allows the T-PE and S-PEs to dynamically signal MS-
PW segments and stitch these segments in order to build the MS-PW
tree.
It is RECOMMENDED that the solution provides various optimization
options in the P2MP MS-PW construction (Traffic-Engineered P2MP MS-
PW).
4.3.3. PW type mismatch
As described for P2MP SS-PW, the P2MP MS-PW requires ACs of the same
PW type. Therefore the segments composing the P2MP MS-PW MUST be also
of the same PW type [RFC4446]. The S-PE MAY only support switching
PWs of the same PW type. In case of a different type, the passive PE
(S-PE or T-PE) MUST support mechanisms to reject attempts to
establish the P2MP MS-PW.
4.3.4. Interface Parameters sub-TLV
The section 3.3.2 is also relevant to P2MP MS-PW. The Egress T-PE MAY
signal its AC' interface parameters to the Ingress T-PE so as to make
sure that AC at the Egress T-PE is capable to support traffic coming
from AC at the Ingress T-PE. In the P2MP MS-PW case, S-PEs MUST
propagate correctly this information up to the Ingress T-PE.
4.3.5. Leaf Grafting/Pruning
Once the PW tree is setup, the solution MUST allow the addition or
removal of a leaf, or a subset of leaves to/from the existing tree,
without any impact on the PW tree (data and control planes) for the
remaining leaves.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 12]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
4.3.6. Explicit Routing
The P2MP MS-PW signaling solution MUST provide a means of
establishing arbitrary P2MP MS-PW, according to pre-computed and
configured S-PE paths as well as dynamically computed S-PE paths on
the Ingress PE.
To support setup of explicitly routed MS-PW tree, the signaling
solution SHOULD support some source-based control that can explicitly
define particular S-PE nodes as branch S-PEs for the PW tree.
The solution SHOULD let possible Explicit Path Loose Hops (to be
defined). Therefore the P2MP MS-PW MAY be partially specified with
only a subset of intermediate branch S-PEs.
4.4. Failure Reporting
The solution SHOULD rely on specific OAM mechanisms to detect a node
(T-PE and S-PE) or segment failure of a PW tree. The solution SHOULD
also support the ability to inform the Ingress T-PE of the failure as
well as to indicate the identity of affected Egress T-PEs and
associated leaves.
Based on these failure notifications the solution MUST allow the
Ingress T-PE to update the remaining Egress PEs and associated leaves
of the PW tree.
- A solution MUST support in-band OAM mechanism to detect failures:
unidirectional point-to-multipoint traffic failure. This SHOULD be
realized by enhancing existing unicast PW methods, such as VCCV for
seamless and familiar operation.
- In case of failure, it SHOULD correctly report which leaf T-PEs and
branch S-PEs are affected. This SHOULD be realized by enhancing
existing unicast PW methods, such as LDP Notification for seamless
and familiar operation. The notification message SHOULD include the
type of fault (P2MP PW, AC or PSN tunnel).
- A solution MAY support OAM message mapping at T-PE if failure
happens i.e., mapping between AC service OAM and P2MP PW OAM. (Need
more discussion: in particular, when upstream T-PE AC fails, it can
be mapped to all downstream connection. Meanwhile downstream T-PE AC
failure does not impose other T-PEs AC.)
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 13]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
4.5. Protection and Restoration
The solution SHOULD provide mechanisms to recover as fast as possible
following a failure event. The fast protection/recovery is typically
dedicated to P2MP applications sensitive to traffic disruption.
Considering (i) a source-initiated PW tree setup and (ii) that a
local repair (PSN-tunnel or PW segment-based) is not feasible after a
failure event and that (iii) the PE upstream to the failure receives
by means of OAM mechanisms a message indicating that a subset of
Egress T-PEs are detached from the PW tree, the solution SHOULD allow
the upstream PE to re-compute the path to those particular Egress T-
PEs. If the upstream PE failed to compute an alternative path, the
procedure SHOULD be propagated upstream until the Ingress-PE is
reached.
It is also assumed that recovery procedures can be implemented at the
underlying P2P or P2MP LSP layer, using standard MPLS-based recovery
techniques. These procedures could be used to provide faster recovery
time in case of link or node failure affecting this layer.
A mechanism SHOULD be implemented to avoid race conditions between
recovery at the PSN level and recovery at the PW level.
4.6. Scalability
In definition of solution for P2MP MS-PW a particular attention MUST
dedicated to scalability.
The solution MUST be designed to scale as well as linearly with an
increase in the number of leaves, Egress T-PEs, branch S-PEs. The
scalability issues MUST be addressed for the control plane (e.g.
addressing of PW endpoints, number of signaling sessions, etc) and
for data plane (e.g. duplication of PW segments, OAM mechanism, etc).
4.7. Order of Magnitude
This section will be filled in a future version.
Number of Egress T-PE per tree, TAII per Egress T-PE, S-PE crossed,
replication supported per S-PE, dynamicity (Leaf Grafting/Pruning)
required, etc.
5. Manageability considerations
The solution SHOULD provide a simple provisioning procedure to build
a P2MP SS-PW or a P2MP MS-PW.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 14]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
6. Backward Compatibility
The solution SHOULD be completely backward compatible with
the current PW standards. The solution SHOULD take into account the
capability advertisement and negotiation procedures for the PEs
implementing P2MP PW endpoints.
Implementation of OAM mechanisms also implies the advertisement of PE
capabilities to support specific OAM features. The solution MAY allow
advertising P2MP PW OAM capabilities.
A solution MUST NOT allow PW connection with non-compliant PEs. It
MUST have a mechanism to report an error for non-compliant PEs. In
this case, it SHOULD report which PE (S-PE and T-PEs) are not
compliant.
In some cases, upstream traffic is required from downstream CE to
upstream CE.
A solution SHOULD allow co-existing operation with point-to-point PW
that provides upstream connection.
In particular, it is expected to be allowed that the same ACs are
shared between downstream and upstream direction. For downstream, a
CE receives from its connected AC traffic originated by the ingress
PE transported over a P2MP PW. For upstream, the CE MAY also send
over the same AC traffic destinated to the same remote PE transported
over point-to-point PW.
7. Security Considerations
This section will be added in a future version.
8. IANA Considerations
This draft does not define any new protocol element, and hence does
not require any IANA action.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors thank the contributors of [RFC4461] since the structure
and content of this document were, for some sections, largely
inspired by [RFC4461].
Many thanks to JL Le Roux and A. Cauvin for the discussions, comments
and support.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 15]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC3916] McPherson, D.,Pate, P., Xiao, X., "Requirements for
Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", September 2004
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Pate, P. "PWE3 Architecture", March 2005
[RFC4461] Aggarwal, R., Farrel, A., Jork, M., Kamite, Y.,
Kullberg, A., Le Roux, JL., Malis, A., Papadimitriou,
D., Vasseur, JP., Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements
for P2MP TE MPLS LSPs",April 2006
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., Yasukawa, S.,
"Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE LSPs",
MAY 2007
[RFC4446] Martini, L. "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)", April 2006
10.2. Informative References
[MS-PW REQ] Bitar, N., Bocci, M., and Martini, L., "Requirements
for inter domain Pseudo-Wires", Internet Draft, draft-
ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-07.txt, June 2008
[MS-PW ARCH] Bocci, M., and Bryant, S.,T., " An Architecture for
Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge",
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-04.txt,
June 2008
[SEG PW] Martini et al, "Segmented Pseudo Wire", Internet
Draft, draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt, July 2008
[MLDP] Minei, I., Wijnands, I., Thomas, B., "Label
Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-05,
June 2008
[VPMS REQ] Kamite, Y., Jounay, F. "Framework and Requirements for
Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)", Internet
Draft, draft-kamite-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-01,
July 2008
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 16]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
Author's Addresses
Frederic Jounay
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com
Philippe Niger
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower
3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421
Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112
EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
Giles Heron
Tellabs
Abbey Place
24-28 Easton Street
High Wycombe
Bucks
HP11 1NT
UK
EMail: giles.heron@tellabs.com
Simon Delord
Uecomm
658 Church St
Richmond, VIC, 3121, Australia
E-mail: sdelord@uecomm.com.au
Lei Wang
Telenor
Snaroyveien 30
Fornebu 1331
Norway
Email: lei.wang@telenor.com
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 17]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent France
Route de Villejust
91620 Nozay
FRANCE
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent Telecom Ltd,
Voyager Place
Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead
Berks, UK
E-mail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
Lizhong JIN
Nokia Siemens Networks
Building 89, 1122 North QinZhou Road,
Shanghai, 200211, P.R.China
Email: lizhong.jin@nsn.com
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.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 18]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements September 2008
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Jounay et al. Expires March 2009 [Page 19]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-21 03:30:50 |