Extensions to BGP Signaled Pseudowires to support Flow-Aware Transport Labels
draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bess WG)
Last updated 2017-08-24 (latest revision 2017-08-23)
Replaces draft-keyupate-bess-fat-pw-bgp
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Martin Vigoureux
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-08-24)
IESG IESG state Publication Requested
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to (None)
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                  K. Patel
Intended Status: Standard Track                                   Arrcus
Updates: 4761                                                 S. Boutros
                                                                  VMware
                                                                J. Liste
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                  B. Wen
                                                                 Comcast
                                                              J. Rabadan
                                                                   Nokia

Expires: February 24, 2018                               August 23, 2017

 Extensions to BGP Signaled Pseudowires to support Flow-Aware Transport
                                 Labels
                   draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

Abstract

   This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow
   label states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures.
   These protocol extensions are equally applicable to point-to-point
   Layer2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs). This draft updates RFC 4761
   by defining new flags in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info
   Extended Community.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html

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

Patel & Boutros, et al.Expires February 24, 2018                [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT         BGP Signaled FAT PW Labels        August 23, 2017

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Modifications to Layer2 Info Extended Community . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

 

Patel & Boutros, et al.Expires February 24, 2018                [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT         BGP Signaled FAT PW Labels        August 23, 2017

1  Introduction

   The mechanism described in [RFC6391] uses an additional label (Flow
   Label) in the MPLS label stack to allow Label Switch Routers to
   balance flows within Pseudowires at a finer granularity than the
   individual Pseudowires across the Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
   that exists within the Packet Switched Network (PSN).

   Furthermore, [RFC6391] defines the LDP protocol extensions required
   to synchronize the flow label states between the ingress and egress
   PEs when using the signaling procedures defined in the [RFC8077].

   A pseudowire (PW) [RFC3985] is transported over one single network
   path, even if Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs) exist between the
Show full document text