One document matched: draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt
Differences from draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-00.txt
Internet Draft Document Marc Lasserre
Layer 2 VPN Working Group Xipeng Xiao
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Riverstone Networks
Yetik Serbest Cesar Garrido
SBC Telefonica
Marc Rapoport
Completel
Expires: Jan. 2005 Jul. 2004
VPLS Applicability
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Abstract
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a layer 2 VPN service that
provides multipoint connectivity in the form of an Ethernet emulated
LAN, while usual L2 VPN services are typically point-to-point. Such
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 2]
emulated LANs can span across metropolitan area networks as well as
wide area networks.
[VPLS-LDP] defines a method for signaling MPLS connections between
member PEs of a VPN and a method for forwarding Ethernet frames over
such connections. This document describes the applicability of such
procedures to provide VPLS services.
This document also compares the characteristics of this solution
against the requirements specified in [L2VPN-REQ]. In summary, there
are no architectural limitations to prevent the requirements from
being met. But meeting certain requirements (e.g. QoS) is beyond the
specification of [VPLS-LDP], and requires careful planning and precise
implementation of the SPs. This document attempts to capture such
issues, present the potential solutions to these issues, and discuss
the pros and cons of each alternative.
This document does not cover the applicability of [VPLS-BGP].
Conventions
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 RFC 2119
RELATED DOCUMENTS
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-03.txt
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-applicability-
guidelines-00.txt
Table of Contents
1. VPLS Overview..........................................4
2. Operation of Control And Data Planes.......................4
2.1. Control Plane.......................................4
2.1.1. Signaling.......................................5
2.2. Data Plane..........................................5
2.2.1. Ingress Processing................................5
2.2.2. Egress Processing................................5
2.2.3. Intermediate Node Processing.......................6
3. VPLS vs. Alternative Approaches...........................6
3.1. Ethernet Switching...................................6
3.2. BGP VPN............................................6
4. Provisioning...........................................6
4.1. PE Auto-Discovery....................................7
4.2. Other Related Provisioning............................7
5. Migration Impacts.......................................8
5.1. Interconnecting Existing L2 Ethernet Islands with a VPLS Core8
5.2. Migrating an Existing L2 Ethernet Core to a VPLS Core......9
5.3. Interconnecting a new VPLS Network with Existing ATM/FR
Networks...............................................10
5.4. Adding VPLS Support to an IP Routed Network.............10
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 3]
6. Multi-homing..........................................10
7. Loop Prevention........................................12
8. Packet Ordering........................................13
9. Multi-Domain VPLS Service...............................13
10. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) Issues...................13
11. Interoperability and Interworking.......................14
11.1. Interworking with BGP VPN..........................14
11.2. Interworking With Frame Relay & ATM Attachment Circuits.14
12. Quality of Service....................................14
13. Security............................................15
13.1. Customer Access Control and Authentication............15
13.2. Traffic Separation between VPLS Instances.............15
13.3. Protection of SP Networks..........................16
13.4. Protection of User Data............................16
14. Scalability.........................................17
14.1. Mesh topology....................................17
14.2. Signaling........................................17
14.3. MAC addresses and MAC learning......................17
14.4. Packet replication................................17
14.5. Broadcast limiting................................18
14.6. Multicast........................................18
15. Management..........................................18
15.1. VPLS OAM.........................................18
16. Acknowledgments......................................19
17. References..........................................19
18. Authors' Addresses....................................20
Intellectual Property Considerations
This document is being submitted for use in IETF standards
discussions.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 4]
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
1. VPLS Overview
The primary motivation behind Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLS) is
to provide connectivity between geographically dispersed customer
sites across MAN/WAN network(s), as if they were connected using a
LAN. The intended applications for the end-user can be divided into
the following two categories:
- Connectivity between customer routers
- Connectivity between customer Ethernet switches
In addition, VPLS can also be used by the service provider to
deliver services (e.g. triple play) to connected end-users.
Unlike L3 VPNs such as BGP VPNs where traffic exchanged
between customers and service providers must be IP, VPLS only
requires traffic to be Ethernet over which any protocol can be used,
e.g. Netbios or IPX.
The Service Provider Network is a packet switched network (PSN).
The PEs are assumed to be fully meshed with transport tunnels over
which customer frames that belong to a specific VPLS instance are
encapsulated and forwarded. IP-in-IP, L2TPv3, GRE, and MPLS are
examples of transport tunnels.
Specific labels used to identify end-to-end paths over such tunnel
LSPs are established via targeted LDP [VPLS-LDP]. These LSPs are
known as pseudo-wires (PWs).
VPLS defines the bridging rules required for PEs to provide an
emulated Ethernet LAN service. In particular it defines how a loop-
free topology must be built and the forwarding rules between PEs,
along with the signaling method to set up PWs between PEs.
The resulting service provides a unique broadcast domain per VPN,
with the ability to send unicast, multicast and broadcast traffic
(as well as flooding of unknown unicast traffic).
2. Operation of Control And Data Planes
2.1. Control Plane
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 5]
2.1.1. Signaling
As with [PWE3-ETHERNET], [VPLS-LDP] specifies the use of targeted
LDP for the signaling of PWs. PWs are established between PEs that
are part of the same VPLS instance.
2.2. Data Plane
2.2.1. Ingress Processing
VPLS provides an Ethernet emulated LAN service and hence customer
frames are encapsulated as Ethernet frames (Ethernet DIX or 802.1).
Note that such Ethernet frames can be carried over various access
transport technologies (Frame Relay, ATM, etc). Ingress PEs will
determine which Forwarding Information Base (FIB) to look up based
on the port, VLAN or port/VLAN combination where frames come from.
This port to FIB mapping is performed at provisioning time. The
destination MAC address is then looked up to determine on which PW
this address has been learned from. If the lookup fails, i.e. if
this MAC address has not been learned yet, the frame needs to be
sent on all the PWs that are part of the corresponding VPLS
instance. If the address is known, the frame is sent only over the
associated PW. Before actually transmitting the customer frame, it
needs to be encapsulated as defined in [PWE3-ETHERNET], and is
further encapsulated with the appropriate transport header (e.g. MPLS
or GRE).
2.2.2. Egress Processing
Once the tunnel header has been removed, the egress PE determines
from the PW label which FIB to look up to determine the egress port,
VLAN or port/VLAN combination. The original Ethernet frame is then
encapsulated with the proper transmission header if necessary (e.g.
Frame Relay header) and sent over the corresponding port.
MAC addresses are learned dynamically as traffic is exchanged. New
source MAC addresses are learned on a per PW label per VPLS service
instance basis. An aging timer is used to remove such bindings after
a period of time. When user topology changes occur, MAC withdrawal
messages in the signaling plane may be used to unlearn MAC addresses
to improve convergence time.
Egress PEs might also be configured to perform specific egress
encapsulation functions (e.g. VLAN translation).
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 6]
2.2.3. Intermediate Node Processing
Intermediate nodes (P routers) only act as pure forwarders based on
the outer tunnel header. Hence, they do not participate in any VPLS-
related processing. Only PE routers maintain VPN specific
information. This improves the scalability of VPLS service.
3. VPLS vs. Alternative Approaches
3.1. Ethernet Switching
Ethernet can be used to provide multipoint connectivity within small
geographical areas such as small metropolitan networks. Pure
Ethernet based solutions have scalability issues (e.g. STP
limitations, 4095 VLAN limitations). Some enhancements such as QinQ,
STP extensions (RSTP, MSTP) provide additional scalability.
VPLS overcomes several of Ethernet based solutions by supporting
large numbers of VPNs, better traffic engineering, and better
quality of service.
It is not uncommon for VPLS networks to be complemented with
Ethernet switched networks as an aggregation layer.
3.2. BGP VPN
In metropolitan area networks (MANs), BGP is usually not enabled.
MANs provide a transport service to end-users. When multiple sites
need to be connected within a metro, VPLS offers the appropriate
multipoint transport solution. When multipoint connectivity is
required across wide area networks such as national backbones, BGP
VPNs can be more appropriate.
Section 11.1 describes how VPLS and BGP VPNs can be complementary.
The following sections compare the characteristics of LDP-based VPLS
solution against the requirements specified in [L2VPN-REQ]. Key
deployment issues that require careful planning and precise
implementation of SPs are highlighted.
4. Provisioning
To provision a VPLS service for a customer, the first step is to
create a VSI, and assign the customer access links (e.g. port,
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 7]
port/VLAN, ATM VC with 1483b encapsulation, etc.) and PWs (including
H-VPLS spokes) to it. The PWs interconnect VSIs at different PEs and
MTUs together to form an emulated LAN for the customer.
One challenge in doing this is, when a VPLS site needs to be added or
removed at a PE, in addition to configuring that particular PE, the
network operator needs to find out which other PEs participate in that
VPLS instance, and re-configure those PEs. PE auto-discovery can
automate this process. The pros and cons of several auto-discovery
approaches are discussed in 4.1.
4.1. PE Auto-Discovery
Currently there are several proposals for PE auto-discovery: the BGP-
based approach [VPLS-BGP], the RADIUS-based approach [RADIUS-DIS], and
the Provisioning System-based approach.
The BGP and RADIUS-based approaches mandate the use of BGP or
RADIUS in every PE, and rely on it to propagate the information of
which PEs participate in a VPLS instance (Signaling can automatically
happen after the other PEs belonging to the same VPLS instance are
discovered). The pros of both approaches are reduced provisioning work
and no need for a provisioning system. The con is BGP/RADIUS has to be
in every PE, which may not be the case in reality.
With the Provisioning System-based approach, network operators do
not configure the PEs. Instead, they specify which PEs participate
in which VPLS instances at the Provisioning System. The
Provisioning System then translates such service information into PE
configuration commands and telnet/ssh to the PEs to execute such
commands. Because all information related to every VPLS instance is
centralized at the Provisioning System, PE auto-discovery is
automatically achieved. To add or remove a PE for a VPLS instance,
a network operator simply specifies it at the Provisioning System
which will then configure the PEs accordingly.
For VPLS deployments that span across multiple domains, because the
ASBRs (autonomous system border routers) of other domains can be
treated as CEs of the current domain, these auto-discovery
approaches can all work in the multi-domain case. However, the built-
in scalability mechanism in BGP makes the BGP-based auto-discovery
more scalable in this scenario [VPLS-BGP].
4.2. Other Related Provisioning
To meet the service level agreement (SLA) with their customers, SPs
also need to provision the following:
- Traffic management throughout the network and on customer facing
ports in particular
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 8]
- Traffic Engineering
- Traffic protection (e.g. Fast reroute)
- Service management (e.g. SLA measurement, OAM, accounting,
billing, etc)
Manual provisioning for these tasks can be tedious. A provisioning
system is highly desirable. If a provisioning system is used, PE
auto-discovery may be integrated into it.
5. Migration Impacts
Migration in this document means replacing, or more often,
supplementing, an existing metro Ethernet or ATM/Frame Relay network
with a VPLS network. There are four likely scenarios:
- Interconnecting existing L2 Ethernet islands with a VPLS core
- Migrating an existing L2 Ethernet core to a VPLS core;
- Interconnecting a new VPLS network with existing ATM/FR networks
- Adding VPLS support to an IP routed network
Migration impacts may be mitigated through the use of careful
planning when building and migrating the network. Also,
consideration must be taken when integrating with protocols such as
STP/MSTP and how control packets (BPDUs) are handled. In addition,
one must also consider ongoing standards efforts within various
standards bodies such as the IEEE [802.1ad] and the Metro Ethernet
Forum to assess future impact of any changes within the provider
network.
5.1. Interconnecting Existing L2 Ethernet Islands with a VPLS
Core
Today, many existing metro Ethernet networks are relatively small and
cover only specific districts in a metro area. Such networks may
simply backhaul traffic to a routing backbone and not interconnected
at L2. When metro Ethernet service grows and these networks need to
be interconnected at L2, one approach that may be used for a migration
strategy is to effectively utilize existing L2 (possibly .1Q based or
QinQ) networks as ôislandsö attached to an MPLS based VPLS core
network. In this particular case, the L2 network uses predetermined
Provider .1Q tags (P-tags) to transport a given customers traffic.
This P-tag is then utilized as a service delimiter that is then
stripped prior to being transported across the MPLS cloud. The
service delimiting P-tag is used to identify the VPLS instance to
which the traffic should be mapped.
----CE1
------- ------- / --------
CE2- / \ / PE1 / \
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 9]
\ / \ / \ / \
---| QinQ \ / MPLS/ \ / QinQ |
| Domain PE VPLS PE Domain |
\ / \ Domain / \ /\
\ / \ / \ / \
------- ---------- -------- --CE3
In this scenario, one issue that SPs needs to address is that
different sites of a customer may have a mismatch of.1Q tags. For
example, customer connectivity at one site will be tied to a port on a
VPLS PE/MTU that will utilize a PW for tunneling this packet through
the network. Customer connectivity at another site will be
interconnected to a port on a QinQ switch that will utilize QinQ
techniques (see the figure below). By mandating that ôthe Ethernet
packet that traverses a VPLS is always a customer Ethernet packetö,
the [VPLS-LDP] solution naturally accommodates this need.
-----
/ A1 \
---- ----CE1 |
/ \ ------- ------- / | |
| A2 CE2- / \ / PE1 \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ -----
---- ---| QinQ \ / MPLS/ |
| Domain PE2 VPLS |
\ / \ Domain /
----- \ / \ /
|QinQ|_/ ------- -------
-| |
---- / ------ ----
/ \/ \ / \ CE = Customer Edge Router
| A3 CE3 --C4 A4 | PE = Provider Edge Router
\ / \ /
---- ----
5.2. Migrating an Existing L2 Ethernet Core to a VPLS Core
Providers that have already deployed VLAN based core may
choose to overlay an MPLS edge on top of this existing L2 domain.
In this method, provider .1q tags maybe assigned to MPLS backbone
links that are then used for carrying VPLS traffic. While this
approach may allow for a simple transition to solve some immediate
deficiencies of a pure L2 network, it still does not solve some of
the underlying problems associated with protocols such as spanning
tree. In this case, although MPLS may provide some scaling
advantages, the limitations associated with spanning tree can still
pose potential problems to the overall infrastructure.
CE1
------------------- ------ /
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 10]
/ \ -|VPLS| /
/ \ / | PE |-
/ \ ------
/ \
| 802.1Q/ |
| QinQ |
\ /
----- \ /\ ------
|VPLS|_/ \ / \ |VPLS|
-| PE | \ / -| PE |-
/ ------ ------------------- ------ \
/ \ \
CE3 --CE4 CE2
Alternatively, a parallel VPLS core is built and connected to the
existing 802.1Q/Q-in-Q core. The 802.1Q/Q-in-Q core is effectively
treated as a super-island. Then one by one, each individual Ethernet
access island is disconnected from the existing core (i.e. super-
island) and connected to the VPLS core. The migration issues then
become similar to those described in 5.1.
5.3. Interconnecting a new VPLS Network with Existing ATM/FR
Networks
If interworking at L2 is needed, the existing ATM/FR networks would
need to carry bridge-encapsulated traffic. VPLS can support ATM and
Frame Relay (FR) attachment circuits with Ethernet bridge
encapsulation. Once the FR/ATM encapsulation has been stripped off,
the resulting Ethernet frames can be processed as if they came from an
Ethernet link. Therefore, interworking can be naturally achieved.
If the existing ATM/FR networks do not carry bridge-encapsulated
traffic, then interworking can only happen at L3. For example, if
both VPLS and ATM/FR carry IP traffic, then an IP router can be used
to interconnect the two networks.
5.4. Adding VPLS Support to an IP Routed Network
In such a scenario, if existing PEs can support VPLS, then they can
continue to serve as PEs. Otherwise, new VPLS PEs need to be added
and existing IP routers will serve as Ps. Depending on whether the
existing IP routers support MPLS or not, MPLS or some other tunneling
mechanism such as GRE can be used.
6. Multi-homing
Multihoming is necessary in order to remove a VPLS PE as a single
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 11]
point of failure for all devices attached to it. There are two
instances of multihoming that apply to VPLS:
1. When a CE device is connected to more than one PE,
2. In the case of hierarchical VPLS - when an MTU-s device is
connected to more than one PE-rs.
In both of these cases, the concern is that a particular MAC address
will appear as a source on more than one PE device, causing other PE
devices to continuously change their FIBs with regard to the true
location of the MAC. This will cause constant table thrashing on
the remote PEs, a behavior akin to a Layer 2 switch which
participates in a loop.
It is therefore required that any Layer 2 loops, created by
multihoming of a CE or an MTU-s, be resolved within the group of
devices participating in that loop. This group includes the
multihomed CE or MTU-s, and all PEs to which it is attached. The PEs
involved in such a loop are connected with a full mesh of
pseudowires per VPLS instance.
There are two approaches to resolving the loops created by the
multihomed devices:
1. Running an MSTP instance between all devices in the group. In
this case, the PEs within the group will need to utilize a P-VLAN
for the purposes of running MSTP in the group. This P-VLAN can be
re-used on non-overlapping groups of multihomed CE (or MTU-s) and
its PEs. It must be clear that the MSTP process discussed here is
a completely different and independent instance of STP than any STP
the customer may be running. Such customer STP is always tunneled
through the VPLS network, and is never acted upon by the PE or MTU-s
devices.
2. The MTU-s or the CE can designate its link to one of the PEs it
connects to as primary, and only send packets for this particular
VPLS instance over that link. In this case the MTU-s (CE) is
responsible for monitoring the state of that link and for switching
to an alternate link if the primary fails. No action is required
from the PEs participating in the group, though there should be an
indication given from the MTU-s to its connected PEs as to whether
the PE is connected to the primary or backup link. This is a very
lightweight approach, which is quite useful given the simple and
known topology between the CE (MTU-s) and its PEs. With this
approach the operator must ensure that pseudowires in the core
remain up, as long as the ingress PE they start from is up. This
can typically be ensured with MPLS TE tools, such as fast re-route
or back-up LSPs. If pseudowires in the core go down while their
ingress PE is up and accepting customer traffic, blackholes can
occur.
In each case, the PE nodes are most likely in two different physical
locations in the provider network providing network element
protection, last mile protection, fiber diversity and provider
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 12]
facility backup. Customer STP traffic is always tunneled through
the provider network, and is never acted upon by the PE or MTU-s
devices.
Lastly, it should be observed that, since VPLS services provide
Ethernet switch-like transport level services, the customer is free
to connect any device they desire as a CE. This could be anything
from a simple host, hub, L2 switch, or a router. The operator has
to be cognizant of the different capabilities of each of those
devices to ensure loop-free environment when multi-homed.
7. Loop Prevention
Loops in the core VPLS network are prevented by creating a full mesh
of transport circuits between PEs and by applying a split-horizon
rule. The split-horizon approach prevents a frame received from the
backbone network from being sent out anything other than the
customer facing ports belonging to that VPLS instance on the
receiving PE. The frame MUST not be forwarded out other PW
connecting the receiving PE to other PEs participating in the VPLS
instance. This provides the necessary protection, network bandwidth
optimization and scalability in the carriers network as it does not
rely on link blocking technologies, like spanning tree type
protocols. This forwarding mechanism allows PEs to effectively
protect the core network from data loops.
Customer networks need to be able to transparently transport the
protocol information that allows their network to properly converge.
However, the provider should consider loop protection schemes
between the CE and PE that do not affect the customer functions.
This would be in addition to spanning tree when the PE connects to a
VLAN based L2 metro or when the customer is directly connected to
multiple PE nodes.
Methodologies providers can use to avoid loops when multi-homing CE
devices have been discussed in the previous section. Some of these
mechanisms involved running STP (or MSTP) between groups of PEs.
The provider should look at deploying a loop protection scheme that
would intervene automatically when it detects a loop condition. This
loop protection scheme serves as an additional line of defence
against protocol failures or misconfigurations, which can result in
data loops. The concern is that a particular MAC address will appear
as a source on more than one PE device, causing other PE devices to
continuously update there tables. An external loop protection scheme
adds a level of insurance above the customer link protection
schemes. Its function is to reduce unnecessary core bandwidth usage
when a loop condition occurs in an adjacent network and provide an
extra level of protection to multihomed networks. It is a compliment
but not a replacement for traditional loop protection mechanisms,
like spanning tree.
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 13]
With directly connected customers, careful consideration needs to be
given to backdoor connections. Backdoor connections provide an
alternate path around a single provider. If a loop detection scheme
is invoked here the customer may be forced to traverse a link that
is not desired.
8. Packet Ordering
Normally there is only one transmission path towards a destination
with VPLS. So there is no packet re-ordering issue. But if some load
sharing mechanism is enabled for traffic inside an LSP, or LSPs
carrying VPLS traffic are rerouted, packets may be re-ordered inside
the PSN.
VPLS data packets use the encapsulation mechanism defined in [PWE3-
ETHERNET]. An optional control word which contains a sequence number
field can be used to assist in-order delivery. If the userÆs
applications are sensitive to packet re-ordering, this option may be
used. However, enabling sequencing usually cause forwarding
performance degradation. Another alternative is to avoid load sharing
for traffic inside a LSP and pin down LSPs to avoid rerouting.
9. Multi-Domain VPLS Service
As the use of VPLS grows, it is expected that customers will require
a single VPLS service delivered by different providers (e.g. either
for redundancy or because none of the SPs has the presence to support
all the sites of a customer). Different providers would then need to
interconnect their VPLS domains for these customers. [VPLS-LDP] has
provision for such a requirement, utilizing a full mesh of LSPs among
the VPLS gateways of these domains. However, experience of such
interconnection is not yet available.
10. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) Issues
Because of the encapsulation and transport headers, the MTU for user
applications will be smaller than the smallest MTU of all the physical
links. In responding to path MTU discovery message, each network
device must deduct the total header size from a physical linkÆs MTU.
Since path MTU discovery is not always used, SPs must clearly
communicate the potential MTU issue to their customers and ask for
their cooperation. In reality, most applications will work fine but a
small number of them may be affected. This is by no means specific to
VPLS. Any networks that put additional header(s) on customerÆs packets
will have the same issue.
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 14]
11. Interoperability and Interworking
Interoperability should be ensured by proper implementation of the
published standards.
11.1. Interworking with BGP VPN
When interworking VPLS with BGP VPN, a BGP VPN (in the backbone) is
typically used to interconnect VPLS domains in multiple metros. In
this type of scenario, the BGP VPN will carry inter-metro traffic
whereas VPLS will handle intra-metro traffic.
A useful method for interconnecting a VPLS with a BGP VPN is to use a
ôlinkö to interconnect the VSI and the VRF. Such a ôlinkö can be a
physical port, a VLAN spanning across one or multiple physical hops,
or 2 LSPs with one in each direction, etc. Analogously, this is like
interconnecting a L2 switch with a router, with the VSI as the switch
and the VRF as the router.
Access/transport networks such as VPLS can also be interconnected with
BGP VPNs using various mechanisms such as CarrierÆs Carrier as
defined in [RFC-2547].
11.2. Interworking With Frame Relay & ATM Attachment
Circuits
Frame Relay (FR) and ATM attachment circuits with Ethernet bridged
encapsulation can be terminated within VPLS PEs. The resulting
Ethernet frames (i.e. once the FR/ATM encapsulation has been
stripped off) are processed as standard Ethernet frames.
In order to support a complete interworking model between FR and
Ethernet or between ATM and Ethernet, mapping service profiles and
OAM traffic from one to the other are necessary. Additionally,
circuit management (e.g. LMI to PW state mapping) between the
various technologies are required. Such standards are being defined by
other standard organizations such as the MPLS-FR-ATM Alliance.
12. Quality of Service
The provision of appropriate QoS capabilities may require any
combination of the following:
- QoS in the access network.
- Admission control by the PE router on the ingress access links.
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 15]
- Classification by the PE, for traffic arriving from the CE.
Once the PE classifies the user packets, this classification
needs to be preserved in the encapsulation (MPLS EXP or IP DSCP)
used to send the packet across the backbone.
- Traffic conditioning (policing or shaping) by the PE router on
the ingress access links.
- DSCP/EXP-based queueing and WRED in the VPLS network
- Traffic engineering in the VPLS network.
- Fast reroute in the VPLS network
None of these features are VPLS specific. The ability to support them
depends on whether the features are available on the edge and core
devices. It is up to the SPs to decide how to use such mechanisms to
provide QoS. Such mechanisms can be used to support either the "hose
model" or the "pipe model", although the hose model is a more natural
fit and is usually the support model by default.
13. Security
13.1. Customer Access Control and Authentication
Control of the customer access can be achieved by controlling physical
access to the CEs, the PEs and the links between them. If multiple
customers use service delimiting tags in the same trunk link to access
VPLS service, and the tags are put on by the customers themselves,
ACLs should be used to ensure that each customer only puts on the tag
that it is supposed to put on - Packets with other tag(s) must be
dropped.
If the CE device is a router, then 802.1x may be used for CE device
authentication.
13.2. Traffic Separation between VPLS Instances
VPLS instances maintain separation of broadcast domains between
themselves. Traffic entering a given VPLS instance at a given PE
device does not, under any circumstances, cross the boundaries of
the VPLS into another instance. VPLS devices (PEs and MTU-s) ensure
that by maintaining a FIB table on a per-VPLS instance basis.
The above statement is correct regardless of the learning mode
employed by a particular VPLS instance (qualified or unqualified),
or whether or not VLANs are treated as broadcast domain identifiers,
or simply as circuit IDs which have no significance in determining
the broadcast domain. In either of these cases, the VPLS instance
is the outer-most "envelope" which ensures that traffic within it
does not "leak" into another VPLS instance.
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 16]
13.3. Protection of SP Networks
Two types of DoS attacks are of concern with VPLS:
1. Attacks against VPLS devices
2. Attacks against other devices, for which the VPLS network is a
transport.
Attacks of the first type are naturally of greater concern for a
VPLS operator, because they can destabilize the VPLS network as a
whole, and affect multiple customers. The tunneling nature of VPLS
by itself limits the possibilities for attacks via the data plane,
simply because such attacks will be tunneled through the VPLS
network, and will create the same load on the VPLS equipment as
legitimate traffic will.
Operators must watch for exception packet handling in VPLS
equipment. In many cases, exception packets are sent to the control
plane for handling. If that is the case, the operator must ensure
that such exception packets can be rate-limited in a fashion that
guarantees that the control plane will not be significantly burdened
by them. A SP should limit the amount of traffic that a customer can
flood.
The second type of DoS attacks, the ones that use the VPLS network
as a transport, are not really a threat to the VPLS devices
themselves, but are to devices behind them. VPLS PEs may be
configured with rate-limiting and rate-shaping capabilities which
permit them to limit the amount of traffic allowed into a particular
VPLS instance. This prevents a VPLS customer from consuming excessive
amount of network resources and starve other customers. Optionally,
they can also be tasked with advanced processing of the traffic they
tunnel. For example, they may impose access lists which deny traffic
from particular sources or protocols.
Such approaches however are highly vendor-specific and outside the
scope of [VPLS-LDP]. In addition, they may have significant design
and operational repercussions. Alternative approaches which hand-
off DoS protection activities to non-VPLS devices (such as customer
equipment) are preferred.
13.4. Protection of User Data
VPLS does not have special provisioning for ensuring user data
security. If a customerÆs traffic is IP traffic, that customer may
provide its own user data security by using IPsec. In fact, VPLS is
compatible with any use of security by the customer, as long as a
clear text Ethernet header is passed from CE to PE.
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 17]
14. Scalability
As per [L2VPN-REQ], a large SP may eventually require support of up to
O(10^4) VPLS instances. In addition, some of these VPLS instances may
need to support O(10^2) sites and O(10^3) users/MACs. This section
describes the key scalability challenges and how VPLS-LDP addresses
them.
14.1. Mesh topology
A full mesh of tunnel LSPs, over which PWs are established û
resulting in a full mesh of PWs, is created between participating
PEs. When using hierarchical VPLS constructs, the size of this full
mesh can be reduced to hub PEs aggregating point-to-point spokes as
described in section 10 of [VPLS-LDP].
This reduces the number of tunnels and PWs from O(N*N) to O(N).
14.2. Signaling
Using HVPLS constructs also allows the total number of targeted LDP
sessions to be reduced from O(N*N) to O(N).
14.3. MAC addresses and MAC learning
Depending on the type of CE devices used, i.e. switches or routers,
the total number of MAC addresses to be learned by VPLS PEs can vary
from one address per site to a large number of MAC addresses.
When Ethernet networks exceed a large number of MAC addresses (e.g.
hundreds), routers are introduced to limit the size of such
broadcast domains. This reduces the total number of MAC addresses to
learn to such routers only.
In the case of large flat Ethernet networks, ingress PEs must be
able to limit the number of MAC addresses that can be learned on a
per VPLS basis.
14.4. Packet replication
With VPLS, broadcast, multicast and unknown destination frames get
replicated by the ingress PEs, i.e. close to the source of the
frame. Ideally such frames should be replicated as close to the
destination as possible to minimize bandwidth consumption. With
hierarchical VPLS, the replication process is distributed between
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 18]
several ingress and egress MTUs and PEs. This helps not only
minimizing bandwidth resources but also improving multicast
performance and reducing latency.
14.5. Broadcast limiting
Ingress MTUs or PEs may be able to rate limit the amount of
broadcast traffic generated by end users in order to protect core
resources and to prevent a few users from using all the bandwidth
available.
14.6. Multicast
In order to optimize the replication of multicast traffic, it is
highly desirable for PEs to support multicast snooping techniques in
order to only forward traffic where needed. In the case where the CE
device is an L2 switch, IGMP snooping would be required, however, if
the CE device is a router PIM snooping would be more applicable.
15. Management
Five major areas in management are: Fault, Configuration, Accounting,
Provisioning, and Security. They are discussed below.
VPLS introduces new configurations related to creation and removal of
VSIs, etc. VPLS also introduces new provisioning challenges because
the service needs to be delivered end-to-end and therefore many things
such as access control, QoS, etc need to be provisioned accordingly.
Achieving these via manual CLI configuration can be tideous and error
prone. Therefore, it is advisable to use a provisioning system for
configuration and provisioning.
Although VPLS-specific MIBs are still under development, accounting
information can usually be achieved via [IF-MIB] and [LSR-MIB]. Such
information can then be processed by an accounting application to
produce the accounting records. Security can be achieved by the
measures described in Section 13.
Managing fault with VPLS involves multi-point connectivity
verification and locating the fault if there is one. Such mechanism
is sometimes referred to as ôVPLS OAMö and is discussed below.
15.1. VPLS OAM
Although VPLS OAM is still being defined, one of the approaches has
gained more momentum than others. This approach proposes applying
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 19]
Ethernet OAM mechanism that is being standardized by ITU, IEEE and the
Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) to an VPLS environment for L2 connectivity
verification and fault locating, and applying MPLS OAM mechanism such
as [LSP-PING] or [BFD] or [VCCV] to MPLS connectivity verification and
fault locating. Of course, if IP tunnels (e.g. GRE) are used, IP ping
and traceroute can be used in the place of MPLS OAM. VPLS OAM is
therefore divided into 2 parts which are dealt with separately. A
procedure can then be constructed, e.g. by writing a CLI script, to
combine both Ethernet OAM and MPLS/IP OAM to achieve the VPLS OAM
goal. The pro of this approach is, the L2 connectivity verification
and fault locating part is agnostic to spoke type (Q-in-Q or MPLS PW)
and the PSN tunnel type (MPLS or GRE). The con is that a combined
procedure needs to be devised.
With VPLS OAM, ideally the OAM packets should always follow the same
path as the VPLS data packets. However, because the Ethernet MAC
layer has no TTL support, something needs to be added to
the OAM packets to achieve the traceroute capability unless
existing network equipment can be enhanced with new OAM processing
capability (which is unlikely). As such, traceroute packets may not
always follow the same path as the VPLS data packets. Nevertheless,
VPLS OAM achieves the practical purpose of verifying VPLS connectivity
and locating fault to a good extent.
In summary of this section: management of VPLS services involves many
things and can be tideous. A complete suite of management software
including EMS, NMS and a provisioning system can therefore be highly
desirable.
16. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the following people for their constructive
contributions to the text in this document:
Javier Antich
Ian Cowburn
Richard Foote
Rob Nath
Nick Slabakov
Some text was adapted from the Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP
VPNs [AS2547] document.
17. References
[AS2547] ôApplicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNsö, draft-ietf-
l3vpn-as2547-05.txt, Work in progress, May 2004.
[BFD] D. Katz and D. Ward, ôBidirectional Forwarding Detectionö,
draft-ietf-bfd-base-00.txt, Work in progress, Jul. 2004.
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 20]
[IF-MIB] "The Interfaces Group MIB using SMIv2", McCloghrie,
Kastenholtz, RFC 2233, November 1997
[LSP-PING]K. Kompella, P. Pan, et al, "Detecting Data Plane Liveliness
in MPLS", <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-05.txt>, work in progress, Feb.
2004.
[LSR-MIB] "MPLS Label Switch Router Management Information Base",
Srinivasan, Viswanathan, Nadeau, draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-14.txt>,
November 2003
[L2FRAME] "L2VPN Framework", draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2-framework-05, Work
in progress, Jun. 2003.
[L2VPN-REQ] "Service Requirements for Layer 2 Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Networks", draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-requirements-
01.txt, Work in progress, Feb. 2004.
[PWE3-CTRL] " Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using LDP", draft-ietf-
pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt, Work in progress, February 2003.
[PWE3-ETHERNET] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet
Frames Over IP/MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-
02.txt, Work in progress, Jul. 2004.
[RADIUS-DIS] "Using Radius for PE-Based VPN Discovery", Work in
progress, Feb. 2004
[VCCV] T. Nadeau et al ôPseudo Wire Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification (VCCV)ö, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-03.txt, Work in progress,
Jun. 2004
[VPLS-LDP] "Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS", draft-ietf-
ppvpn-vpls-ldp-03.txt, Work in progress, Apr. 2004
[VPLS-BGP] "Virtual Private LAN Service", draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-bgp-
02.txt, Work in progress, May 2004
[Y.17ethoam] "OAM mechanisms for Ethernet based networks", ITU-T,
SG13, Jul. 2003
[802.1ad] "IEEE standard for Provider Bridges", Work in progress,
December 2002.
[802.1ag] "IEEE Connectivity Fault Management", Work in progress.
18. Authors' Addresses
Marc Lasserre
Riverstone Networks
Email: marc@riverstonenet.com
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
Lasserre et al [Page 21]
Xipeng Xiao
Riverstone Networks
Email: xxiao@riverstonenet.com
Yetik Serbest
SBC Communications
serbest@tri.sbc.com
Cesar Garrido,
Telefonica
cesar.garridosanahuja@telefonica.es
Marc Rapoport
Completel
m.rapoport@completel.fr
draft-lasserre-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-applic-01.txt Jul 2004
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-21 14:55:28 |