datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.6.2.p2, 2014-07-24
Report a bug

Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-04

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (pwe3 WG)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2014-06-11 (latest revision 2014-05-09)
Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard
Other versions: plain text, xml, pdf, html

IETF State: Submitted to IESG for Publication
Waiting for Referenced Document
Document shepherd: Andy Malis
Shepherd Write-Up: Last changed 2014-06-05

IESG State: AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel
Send notices to: pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er@tools.ietf.org

Network Working Group                                           P. Dutta
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Bocci
Intended status: Standards Track                          Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: November 10, 2014                                    L. Martini
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                             May 9, 2014

      Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires
                       draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-04

Abstract

   Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) setup through an explicit
   path may be required to provide a simple solution for 1:1 protection
   with diverse primary and backup MS-PWs for a service, or to enable
   controlled signaling (strict or loose) for special MS-PWs.  This
   document specifies the extensions and procedures required to enable
   dynamic MS-PWs to be established along explicit paths.

Requirements Language

   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].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Dutta, et al.           Expires November 10, 2014               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           MS-PW Explicit Routing                 May 2014

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Explicit Path in MS-PW Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  S-PE Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Explicit Route TLV (ER-TLV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.3.  Explicit Route Hop TLV (ER-Hop TLV) . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  ER-Hop Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.4.1.  ER-Hop 1: IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.4.2.  ER-Hop 2: IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.4.3.  ER-Hop 3: L2 PW Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Explicit Route TLV Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Next-Hop Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Adding ER Hops to the Explicit Route TLV  . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Procedures for dynamically establishing multi-segment pseudowires
   (MS-PWs), where their paths are automatically determined using a
   dynamic routing protocol, are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw].  For 1:1 protection of MS-PWs with
   primary and backup paths, MS-PWs SHOULD be established through a
   diverse set of S-PEs (Switching Provider-Edge) nodes to avoid any
   single points of failure at PW level.  [I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw]
   allows this through BGP based mechanisms.  This draft proposes an
   additional mechanism that allows the ST-PE (Source Terminating PEs)

[include full document text]