Layer 1 VPN Basic Mode
draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC
Document Type RFC Internet-Draft (l1vpn WG)
Authors Dimitri Papadimitriou  , Richard Rabbat  , Yakov Rekhter  , Don Fedyk  , Lou Berger 
Last updated 2020-01-21 (latest revision 2008-05-27)
Replaces draft-fedyk-l1vpn-basic-mode
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 5251 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD David Ward
Send notices to (None)
Internet Working Group                           D. Fedyk(ed.) 
   Internet Draft                                          Nortel 
   Date Created: May 23, 2008                      Y Rekhter(ed.) 
   Expiration Date: November 23, 2008            Juniper Networks 
   Intended Status: Standards Track              D. Papadimitriou 
                                                   Alcatel-Lucent 
                                                        R. Rabbat 
                                                           Google 
                                                        L. Berger 
                                                             LabN 
 
    
                         Layer 1 VPN Basic Mode 
                    draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.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. 
 
Copyright Notice 
    
   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 
    
Abstract 
    
   This document describes the Basic Mode of Layer 1 VPNs (L1VPN BM). 
   L1VPN Basic mode is a port-based VPN. In L1VPN Basic Mode (BM), the 
   basic unit of service is a Label Switched Path (LSP) between a pair 
   of customer ports within a given VPN port-topology. This document 
   defines the operational model using either provisioning or a VPN 
   auto-discovery mechanism, and the signaling extensions for the L1VPN 
   BM. 

  
Fedyk, Rekhter                                             [Page 1] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
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]. 
 
   This document expects that the reader is familiar with the 
   terminology defined and used in [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC3473], 
   [RFC3477], [RFC4201], [RFC4202], [RFC4204], [RFC4208] and referenced 
   therein. 

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 2] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
   1. Introduction...............................................4 
   2. Layer 1 VPN Service........................................5 
   3. Addressing, Ports, Links and Control Channels..............7 
   3.1 Service Provider Realm....................................7 
   3.2 Layer 1 Ports and Index...................................8 
   3.3 Port and Index Mapping....................................8 
   4. Port Based L1VPN Basic Mode...............................10 
   4.1 L1VPN Port Information Tables............................11 
   4.1.1. Local Auto-Discovery Information......................12 
   4.1.2. PE Remote Auto-Discovery Information..................12 
   4.2 CE to CE LSP Establishment...............................14 
   4.3 Signaling................................................14 
   4.3.1 Signaling Procedures...................................15 
   4.3.1.1 Shuffling Sessions...................................16 
   4.3.1.2 Stitched or Nested Sessions..........................17 
   4.3.1.3 Other Signaling......................................17 
   4.4 Recovery Procedures......................................18 
   5. Security Considerations...................................19 
   6. IANA Considerations.......................................20 
   7. Intellectual Property Considerations......................20 
   8. References................................................21 
   8.1 Normative References.....................................21 
   8.2 Informative References...................................21 
   9. Acknowledgments...........................................23 
   10. Authors' Addresses.......................................23 
   11. Disclaimer of Validity...................................23 
   12. Copyright Statement......................................24 

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 3] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
1. Introduction 
    
    
   This document describes the basic mode of Layer 1 VPNs (L1VPN BM) 
   that is outlined in [RFC4847].  The applicability of Layer 1 VPNS is 
   covered in [L1VPN-APPLIC]. In this document, we consider a layer 1 
   service provider network that consists of devices that support GMPLS 
   (e.g., Lambda Switch Capable devices, Optical Cross Connects, 
   SONET/SDH Cross Connects, etc.). We partition these devices into P 
   (provider) and PE (provider edge) devices. In the context of this 
   document we will refer to the former devices as just "P", and to the 
   latter devices as just "PE". The Ps are connected only to the 
   devices within the provider's network. The PEs are connected to the 
   other devices within the network (either Ps or PEs), as well as to 
   the devices outside of the service provider network. We'll refer to 
   such other devices as Customer Edge (CE) devices. An example of a CE 
   would be a GMPLS-enabled device that is either a router, an SDH 
   cross-connect, or an Ethernet switch. 
    
   [RFC4208] defines signaling from the CE to the PE. In the [RFC4208], 
   the term Core Node (CN) corresponds to P and PE Nodes, edge Core 
   Node corresponds to PE, and Edge Node (EN) corresponds to CE.  
    
   Figure 1 illustrates the components in an L1VPN network.  
    
                         +---+    +---+        
                         | P |....| P | 
                         +---+    +---+ 
                        /              \   
                  +-----+               +-----+    +--+ 
          +--+    |  PE |               |     |----|  | 
          |CE|----|     |               |     |    |CE| 
          +--+\   +-----+               |     |----|  | 
               \     |                  | PE  |    +--+ 
                \ +-----+               |     | 
                 \| PE  |               |     |    +--+ 
                  |     |               |     |----|CE| 
                  +-----+               +-----+    +--+ 
                         \              / 
                         +---+    +---+    
                         | P |....| P | 
                         +---+    +---+     
    
   Figure 1: Generalized Layer 1 VPN Reference Model 
    
   This document specifies how the L1VPN Basic Mode (BM) service can be 
   realized using off-line provisioning or VPN auto-discovery, 
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling  
   [RFC3471], [RFC3473], Routing [RFC4202], and LMP [RFC4204] 
   mechanisms.  
    

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 4] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   L1VPN auto-discovery has similar requirements [RFC4847] to L3VPN 
   auto-discovery. As with L3VPNs, there are protocol choices to be 
   made with auto-discovery. Section 4.1.1 deals with the information 
   that needs to be discovered.  
    
   GMPLS routing and signaling are used without extensions within the 
   service provider network to establish and maintain Lambda Switch 
   Capable (LSC) or SONET/SDH (TDM) connections between service 
   provider nodes. This follows the model in [RFC4208].  
    
   In L1VPN Basic Mode (BM), the use of LMP facilitates the population 
   of the service provider port information tables. Indeed, LMP MAY be 
   used as an option to automate local CE-PE link discovery. LMP also 
   MAY augment routing in extended mode as well as failure handling 
   capabilities.  
    
   Consideration of inter-AS and inter-provider L1VPNs requires further 
   analysis beyond the scope of this document. 
 
2. Layer 1 VPN Service 
    
   Layer 1 VPN (L1VPN) services on the interfaces of customer and 
   service provider ports MAY be any of the Layer 1 interfaces 
   supported by GMPLS. Since the mechanisms specified in this document 
   use GMPLS as the signaling mechanism, and since GMPLS applies to 
   both SONET/SDH (TDM) and Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces, it 
   follows that L1VPN services include (but are not restricted) to 
   Lambda Switch Capable or TDM-based equipment. Note that this 
   document describes Basic Mode L1VPNs and as such requires that:  
   (1) GMPLS RSVP-TE is used for signaling both within the service 
   provider (between PEs), as well as between the customer and the 
   service provider (between CE and PE);  
   (2) GMPLS Routing on the CE-PE link is outside the scope of the 
   basic mode of operation of L1VPN see [RFC4847].  
    
   A CE is connected to a PE via one or more links. In the context of 
   this document a link is a GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) link 
   construct, as defined in [RFC4202]. In the context of this document, 
   a TE link is a logical construct that is a member of a VPN hence 
   introducing the notion of membership to a set of CEs forming the 
   VPN. Interfaces at the end of each link are limited to type LSC or 
   TDM that are supported by GMPLS. More specifically a <CE, PE> link 
   MUST be of the type <X, LSC> or <Y, TDM> where X = PSC, L2SC or TDM 
   and Y = PSC or L2SC. In case the LSP is not terminated by the CE, X 
   MAY also = LSC and Y = TDM. One of the applications of a L1VPN 
   connection is to provide a "virtual private lambda" or similar. In 
   this case, the CE is truly the end point in GMPLS terms and its 
   switching capability on the TE link is not relevant (although its 
   GPID MUST be signaled and identical at both CEs i.e. head-end and 
   tail-end CE). )  
    

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 5] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   Likewise, PEs could be any Layer 1 devices that are supported by 
   GMPLS (e.g., optical cross connects, SDH cross-connects), while CEs 
   MAY be devices at layers 1, 2 and 3 such as an SDH cross-connect, an 
   Ethernet switch, and a router respectively). 
    
   Each TE link MAY consist of one or more channels or sub-channels 
   (e.g., wavelength or wavelength and timeslot respectively). For the 
   purpose of this discussion all the channels within a given link MUST 
   have similar shared characteristics (e.g., switching capability, 
   encoding, type, etc.), and MAY be selected independently from the 
   CE's point of view. Channels on different links of a CE need not 
   have the same characteristics. 
 
   There MAY be more than one TE link between a given CE-PE pair. A CE 
   MAY be connected to more than one PE (with at least one port per 
   PE). And, conversely, a PE MAY have more than one CE from different 
   VPNs connected to it.  
    
   If a CE is connected to a PE via multiple TE links and all the links 
   belong to the same VPN, these links (referred to as component links) 
   MAY be treated as a single TE link using the link bundling 
   constructs [RFC4201]. 
 
   In order to satisfy the requirements of the L1VPN Basic Mode it is 
   REQUIRED that for a given CE-PE pair at least one of the links 
   between them has at least one data bearing channel, and at least one 
   control bearing channel, or there is IP reachability between the CE 
   and the PE that could be used to exchange control information.  
 
   A point-to-point link has two end-points - one on the CE and one on 
   the PE. This document refers to the former as "CE port", and to the 
   latter as "PE port". From the above it follows that a CE is 
   connected to a PE via one or more ports, where each port MAY consist 
   of one or more channels or sub-channels (e.g., wavelength or 
   wavelength and timeslot respectively), and all the channels within a 
   given port have shared similar characteristics and can be 
   interchanged from the CE's point of view. Similar to the definition 
   of a TE link, in the context of this document, ports are logical 
   constructs that are used to represent a grouping of physical 
   resources that are used to connect a CE to a PE on a per L1VPN 
   basis.  
    
   At any point in time, a given port on a PE is associated with at 
   most one L1VPN, or to be more precise with at most one Port 
   Information Table maintained by the PE (although different ports on 
   a given PE could be associated with different L1VPNs, or to be more 
   precise with different Port Information Tables). The association of 
   a port with a VPN MAY be defined by provisioning the relationship on 
   the service provider devices. In other words the context of a VPN 
   membership in Basic mode is enforced through service provider 
   control.  

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 6] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
    
   It is REQUIRED that the interface between the CE and PE used for the 
   purpose of signaling be capable of initiating/processing GMPLS 
   protocol messages [RFC3473] and follow the procedures described in 
   [RFC4208]. 
    
   An important goal of L1VPN service is the ability to support what is 
   known as "single-ended provisioning", where the addition of a new 
   port to a given L1VPN  involves configuration changes only on the PE 
   that has this port.  The extension of this model to the CE is 
   outside the scope of the L1VPN BM.   
    
   Another important goal in the L1VPN service is the ability to 
   establish/terminate an LSP between a pair of (existing) ports within 
   an L1VPN from the CE devices without involving configuration changes 
   in any of the service provider's devices. In other words, the VPN 
   topology is under the CE device control (provided that the 
   underlying PE-PE connectivity be provided and allowed by the 
   network).  
    
   The mechanisms outlined in this document aim to achieve these above 
   goals. Specifically, as part of the L1VPN service offering, these 
   mechanisms (1) enable the service provider to restrict the set of 
   ports to which a given port could be connected, (2) enable a CE to 
   establish the actual LSP to a subset of ports. Finally, the 
   mechanisms allow arbitrary L1VPN topologies to be supported ranging 
   from hub-and-spoke to full mesh point-to-point connections. Only 
   point-to-point links are supported.  
 
   The exchange of CE routing or topology information to the service 
   provider is out of scope for L1VPN BM mode. 
    
3. Addressing, Ports, Links and Control Channels 
    
   GMPLS-established conventions for addressing and link numbering are 
   discussed in [RFC3945].  This section builds on those definitions 
   for the L1VPN case where we now have customer and service provider 
   addresses in a Layer 1 context.  
    
3.1 Service Provider Realm 
    
   It is REQUIRED that a service provider, or a group of service 
   providers that collectively offer L1VPN service, have a single 
   addressing realm that spans all PE devices involved in providing the 
   L1VPN service. This is necessary to enable GMPLS mechanisms for path 
   establishment and maintenance. We will refer to this realm as the 
   service provider addressing realm. It is further REQUIRED that each 
   L1VPN customer have its own addressing realm with complete freedom 
   to use private or public addresses. We will refer to such realms as 
   the customer addressing realms. Customer addressing realms MAY 
   overlap addresses (i.e. non unique address) with each other, and MAY 
   also overlap addresses with the service provider realm. 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 7] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
    
3.2 Layer 1 Ports and Index 
 
   Within a given L1VPN, each port on a CE that connects the CE to a PE 
   has an identifier that is unique within that L1VPN (but need not be 
   unique across several L1VPNs). One way to construct such an 
   identifier is to assign each port an address that is unique within a 
   given L1VPN, and use this address as a port identifier. Another way 
   to construct such an identifier is to assign each port on a CE an 
   index that is unique within that CE, assign each CE an address that 
   is unique within a given L1VPN, and then use a tuple <port index, CE 
   address> as a port identifier. Note that both the port and the CE 
   address MAY be an address in several formats.  This includes, but is 
   not limited to IPv4, and IPv6. This identifier is part of the 
   Customer addressing Realm and is used by the CE device to identify 
   the CE port and the CE remote port for signaling.  CEs do not know 
   or understand the service provider Realm addresses.   
 
   Within a service provider network, each port on a PE that connects 
   that PE to a CE has an identifier that is unique within that 
   network. One way to construct such an identifier is to assign each 
   port on a PE an index that is unique within that PE, assign each PE 
   an IP address that is unique within the service provider addressing 
   realm, and then use a tuple <port index, PE IPv4 address> or <port 
   index, PE IPv6 address> as a port identifier within the service 
   provider network. Another way to construct such an identifier is to 
   assign an IPv4 or IPv6 address that is unique within the service 
   provider addressing realm to each such port. Either way, this IPv4 
   or IPv6 address is internal to the service provider network and is 
   used for GMPLS signaling within the service provider network. 
 
   As a result, each link connecting the CE to the PE is associated 
   with a CE port that has a unique identifier within a given L1VPN, 
   and with a PE port that has a unique identifier within the service 
   provider network. We'll refer to the former as the customer Port 
   Identifier (CPI), and to the latter as the Provider Port Identifier 
   (PPI). 
    
3.3 Port and Index Mapping 
 
   This document requires that each PE port that has a PPI also has an 
   identifier that is unique within the L1VPN customer addressing realm 
   of the L1VPN associated with that port.  One way to construct such 
   an identifier is to assign each port an address that is unique 
   within a given L1VPN customer addressing realm, and use this address 
   as a port identifier. Another way to construct such an identifier is 
   to assign each port an index that is unique within a given PE, 
   assign each PE an IP address that is unique within a given L1VPN 
   customer addressing realm (but need not be unique within the service 
   provider network), and then use a tuple <port index, PE IP address> 
   that acts as a port identifier.  We'll refer to such port identifier 
   as the VPN-PPI. See Figure 2.  
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 8] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
    
   For L1VPNs it is a requirement that service provider operations are 
   independent of the VPN customer's addressing realm and the service 
   provider addressing realm is hidden from the customer. To achieve 
   this we have created two identifiers at the PE, one customer facing 
   and the other service provider facing. The PE IP address used for 
   the VPN-PPI is independent of the PE IP address used for the PPI (as 
   the two are taken from different address realms, the former from the 
   customer's addressing realm and the latter from a VPN service 
   Provider's addressing realm). If for a given port on a PE, the PPI 
   and the VPN-PPI port identifiers are unnumbered, then they both 
   could use exactly the same port index. This is a mere convenience 
   since the PPI and VPN_PPI can be in any combination of valid 
   formats.  
    
    
                   (Customer realm) 
               +----+                             +----+ 
               |    |<Port Index>    <Port Index> |    | 
               |    |CPI              VPN-PPI     |    | 
            ---| CE |-----------------------------| PE |--- 
               |    |                <Port Index> |    | 
               |    |                 PPI         |    | 
               +----+                             +----+   
                                     (Provider realm) 
    
    
             Figure 2: Customer/Provider Port/Index Mapping 
    
   Note, as stated earlier, that IP addresses used for the CPIs, PPIs 
   and VPN-PPIs could be either IPv4, or IPv6 format addresses.  
     
   For a given link connecting a CE to a PE: 
    
   - If the CPI is an IPv4 address, then the VPN-PPI MUST be an IPv4 
   address as well since VPN-PPI are created from the customer address 
   space.  If the CPI is a <port index, CPI IPv4 address>, then the 
   VPN-PPI MUST be a <port index, PE IPv4 address> for the same reason.  
    
   - If the CPI is an IPv6 address, then the VPN-PPI MUST be an IPv6 
   address as well since VPN-PPI are created from the customer address 
   space.  If the CPI is a <port index, CPI IPv6 address>, then the 
   VPN-PPI MUST be a <port index, PE IPv6 address> for the same reason.  
    
   Note: for a given port on PE, whether the VPN-PPI of that port is an 
   IP address or a <port index, PE IP address> is independent of the 
   format of the PPI of that port. 
    
   This document assumes that assignment of the PPIs is controlled 
   solely by the service provider (without any coordination with the 
   L1VPN customers), while assignment of addresses used by the CPIs and 
   VPN-PPIs is controlled solely by the administrators of L1VPN. This 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                          [Page 9] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   provides maximum flexibility. The L1VPN administrator is the entity 
   that controls the L1VPN service specifics for the L1VPN customers. 
   This function may be owned by the service provider but may also be 
   performed by a third party who has agreements with the service 
   provider. And, of course, each L1VPN customer could assign such 
   addresses on its own, without any coordination with other L1VPNs.  
    
   This document also requires IP connectivity between the CE and the 
   PE as specified earlier, which is used for the control channel 
   between CE and PE. This connectivity could be either a single IP 
   hop, which could be realized by either a dedicated link or by an L2 
   VPN, or an IP private network, such as L3VPN. The only requirement 
   on this connectivity is an unambiguous way to correlate a particular 
   CE-PE control channel with a particular L1VPN. When such a channel 
   is realized by a dedicated link, such a link should be associated    
   with a particular L1VPN. When such channel is realized by an L2VPN, 
   a distinct L2VPN should be associated with an L1VPN. When such  
   channel is realized by an L3VPN, a distinct L3VPN should be 
   associated with an L1VPN. 
    
   We'll refer to the CE's address of this channel as the CE Control 
   Channel Address (CE-CC-Addr), and to the PE's address of this 
   channel as the PE Control Channel Address (PE-CC-Addr). Both CE-CC-
   Addr and PE-CC-Addr are REQUIRED to be unique within the L1VPN they 
   belong to, but are not REQUIRED to be unique across multiple L1VPNs. 
   Control channel addresses are not shared amongst multiple VPNs. 
   Assignment of CE-CC-Addr and PE-CC-Addr is controlled by the 
   administrators of the L1VPN.  
    
   Multiple ports on a CE could share the same control channel only as 
   long as all these ports belong to the same L1VPN. Likewise, multiple 
   ports on a PE could share the same control channel only as long as 
   all these ports belong to the same L1VPN.  
    
4. Port Based L1VPN Basic Mode 
    
   An L1VPN is a port-based VPN service where a pair of CEs could be 
   connected through the service provider network via a GMPLS-based LSP 
   within a given VPN port topology. It is precisely this LSP that 
   forms the basic unit of the L1VPN service that the service provider 
   network offers. If a port by which a CE is connected to a PE 
   consists of multiple channels (e.g., multiple wavelengths), the CE 
   could establish LSPs to multiple other CEs in the same VPN over this 
   single port. 
 
   In the L1VPN, the service provider does not initiate the creation of 
   an LSP between a pair of CE ports. The LSP establishment is 
   initiated by the CE. However, the SP, by using the 
   mechanisms/toolkit outlined in this document, restricts the set of 
   other CE ports, which may be the remote endpoints of LSPs that have 
   the given port as the local endpoint. Subject to these restrictions, 
   the CE-to-CE connectivity is under the control of the CEs 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 10] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   themselves. In other words, the SP allows a L1VPN to have a certain 
   set of topologies (expressed as a port-to-port connectivity matrix. 
   CE-initiated signaling is used to choose a particular topology from 
   that set. 
    
   For each L1VPN that has at least one port on a given PE, the PE 
   maintains a Port Information Table (PIT) associated with that L1VPN. 
   This tables contains a list of <CPI, PPI> tuples for all the ports 
   within its L1VPN. In addition, for local PE ports of a given L1VPN 
   the tuples also include the VPN-PPIs of these ports. 
    
    
                  PE                        PE  
               +---------+             +--------------+ 
   +--------+  | +------+|             | +----------+ | +--------+ 
   |  VPN-A |  | |VPN-A ||             | |  VPN-A   | | |  VPN-A | 
   |   CE1  |--| |PIT   ||    Route    | |  PIT     | |-|   CE2  | 
   +--------+  | |      ||<----------->| |          | | +--------+ 
               | +------+|Dissemination| +----------+ | 
               |         |             |              | 
   +--------+  | +------+|             | +----------+ | +--------+  
   | VPN-B  |  | |VPN-B ||  --------   | |   VPN-B  | | |  VPN-B | 
   |  CE1   |--| |PIT   ||-(  GMPLS  )-| |   PIT    | |-|   CE2  | 
   +--------+  | |      || (Backbone ) | |          | | +--------+ 
               | +------+|  ---------  | +----------+ | 
               |         |             |              | 
   +--------+  | +-----+ |             | +----------+ | +--------+ 
   | VPN-C  |  | |VPN-C| |             | |   VPN-C  | | |  VPN-C | 
   |  CE1   |--| |PIT  | |             | |   PIT    | |-|   CE2  | 
   +--------+  | |     | |             | |          | | +--------+ 
               | +-----+ |             | +----------+ | 
               +---------+             +--------------+ 
    
                   Figure 3 Basic Mode L1VPN Service 
 
4.1 L1VPN Port Information Tables 
    
    
   Figure 3 illustrates three VPNs, VPN-A, VPN-B, and VPN-C with their 
   associated PITs. A PIT consists of local information as well as 
   remote information. It follows that PIT on a given PE is populated 
   from two information sources:  
    
     1. The information related to the CEs' ports attached to the ports 
        local to that PE.  
     2. The information about the CEs connected to the remote PEs 
    
   A PIT MAY be populated via provisioning or by auto-discovery 
   procedures. When provisioning is used the entire table MAY be 
   populated by provisioning commands either at a console or by a 
   management system which may have some automation capability.  
   As the network grows some form of automation is desirable.  
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 11] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
    
   For local information between a CE and a PE, a PE MAY leverage LMP 
   to populate the <CPI, VPN-PPI> link information. This local 
   information also needs to be propagated to other PEs that share the 
   same VPN. The mechanisms for this are out of scope for this document 
   but the information needed to be exchanged is described in section 
   4.1.1.  
    
   The PIT is by nature VPN-specific. A PE is REQUIRED to maintain a 
   PIT for each L1VPN for which it has member CEs locally attached. A 
   PE is does not need to maintain PITs for other L1VPNs. However, the 
   full set of PITs with all L1VPN entries for multiple VPNs MAY also 
   be available to all PEs. 
    
   The remote information in the context of a VPN identifier (i.e., the  
   remote CEs of this VPN) MAY also be sent to the local CE belonging 
   to the same VPN. Exchange of this information is outside the scope 
   of this document.  
    
4.1.1. Local Auto-Discovery Information 
 
   The information that needs to be discovered on a PE local port is 
   the local CPI and the VPN-PPI.   
    
   This information MAY be configured or if LMP is used between the CE 
   and PE, LMP MAY be used to exchange this information.  
    
   Once a CPI has been discovered, the corresponding VPN-PPI maps in a 
   local context to a VPN Identifier and a corresponding PPI. 
   One way to enforce a provider controlled VPN context is to pre-
   provision VPN-PPI's with a VPN identifier. Other policy mechanisms 
   to achieve this are outside the scope of this document.  In this 
   manner, a relationship of a CPI to a VPN and PPI port can be 
   established when the port is provisioned as belonging to the VPN.    
 
 
4.1.2. PE Remote Auto-Discovery Information 
    
   This section provides the information that is carried by any auto-
   discovery mechanism, and is used to dynamically populate a PIT. The 
   information provides a single <CPI, PPI> mapping.  Each auto-
   discovery mechanism will define the method(s) by which multiple 
   <CPI, PPI> mappings are communicated, as well as invalidated. 
    
   This information should be consistent regardless of the mechanism 
   used to distribute the information [L1VPN-BGP-AD], [L1VPN-OSPF-AD].  
    

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 12] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   The format of encoding a single <PPI, CPI> tuple is: 
    
        +---------------------------------------+ 
        |     PPI Length (1 octet)              | 
        +---------------------------------------+ 
        |     PPI (variable)                    | 
        +---------------------------------------+ 
        |     CPI AFI (2 octets)                | 
        +---------------------------------------+ 
        |     CPI (length)                      | 
        +---------------------------------------+ 
        |     CPI (variable)                    | 
        +---------------------------------------+ 
    
        Figure 4: Auto-Discovery Information 
    
   The use and meaning of these fields are as follows: 
    
    
   PPI Length: 
    
      A one octet field whose value indicates the length of the PPI 
      field. 
    
   PPI field: 
    
      A variable length field that contains the value of the PPI 
      (either an address or <port index, address> tuple. Note, PPI is 
      always encoded consistently within a provider domain so the 
      format of the PPI field is implicit within a given provider 
      network.  
    
    
   CPI AFI field: 
    
      A two octets field whose value indicates address family of the 
      CPI. This value is assigned in [L1VPN-BGP-AD]. 
    
   CPI Length: 
    
      A one octet field whose value indicates the length of the CPI 
      field. 
    
   CPI (variable): 
    
      A variable length field that contains the CPI value (either an 
      address or <port index, address> tuple. 
    
    
   <PPI, CPI> tuples MUST also be associated with one or more globally 
   unique identifiers associated with a particular VPN.  A globally 
   unique identifier can encode a VPN-ID, a route target, or any other 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 13] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   globally unique identifier. The globally unique identifiers are 
   under control of network providers. Uniqueness within a service 
   provider administrative domain is sufficient for basic mode 
   operation. In the case of multiple provider networks which is beyond 
   the scope of this document, the globally unique identifier need only 
   be unique and consistent between the those providers.  In this 
   document we specify a generic encoding format for the globally 
   unique identifier common to all the auto-discovery mechanisms. 
   However, each auto-discovery mechanism will define the specific 
   method(s) by which the encoding is distributed and the association 
   with a <PPI, CPI> tuple is made.  The encoding of the globally 
   unique identifier associated with the VPN is: 
    
            +------------------------------------------------+ 
            |  L1vpn Globally unique identifier  (8 octets)  | 
            +------------------------------------------------+ 
    
       Figure 5: Auto-Discovery Globally unique identifier Format 
    
 
4.2 CE to CE LSP Establishment 
    
   In order to establish an LSP, a CE needs to identify all other CEs 
   in the CE's L1VPN it wants to connect to. A CE may already have 
   obtained this information through provisioning or through some other 
   schemes (such schemes are outside the scope of this document). 
    
   Ports associated with a given CE-PE link, in addition to their CPI 
   and PPI MAY also have other information associated with them that 
   describes characteristics and constraints of the channels within 
   these ports, such as encoding supported by the channels, bandwidth 
   of a channel, total unreserved bandwidth within the port, etc. This 
   information could be further augmented with the information about 
   certain capabilities of the service provider network (e.g., support 
   regeneration section overhead (RSOH) Data Communications Channel 
   (DCC) transparency, arbitrary concatenation, etc.). This information 
   is used to ensure that ports at each end of an LSP have compatible 
   characteristics, and that there are sufficient unallocated resources 
   to establish an LSP between these ports.  
    
   It may happen that for a given pair of ports within an L1VPN, each 
   of the CEs connected to these ports would concurrently try to 
   establish an LSP to the other CE. If having a pair of LSPs between a 
   pair of ports is viewed as undesirable, the way to resolve this is 
   to require the CE with the lower value of the CPI to terminate the 
   LSP originated by the CE. This option could be controlled by 
   configuration on the CE devices. 
 
4.3 Signaling  
    
   In L1VPN BM a CE needs to be configured with the CPIs of other 
   ports. Once a CE is configured with the CPIs of the other ports 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 14] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   within the same L1VPN, which we'll refer to as "target ports", the 
   CE uses a (subset of) GMPLS signaling, to request the provider 
   network to establish an LSP to a target port.  
    
   For inter-CE connectivity, the request originated by the CE contains 
   the CPI of the port on the CE that CE wants to use for the LSP, and 
   the CPI of the target port. When the PE attached to the CE that 
   originated the request receives the request, the PE identifies the 
   appropriate PIT, and then uses the information in that PIT to find 
   out the PPI associated with the CPI of the target port carried in 
   the request. The PPI should be sufficient for the PE to establish an 
   LSP. Ultimately the request reaches the CE associated with the 
   target CPI (note that the request still carries the CPI of the CE 
   that originated the request). If the CE associated with the target 
   CPI accepts the request, the LSP is established.  
    
   Note that a CE need not establish an LSP to every target port that 
   CE knows about - it is a local CE matter to select a subset of 
   target ports to which the CE will try to establish LSPs. 
     
   The procedures for establishing an individual connection between two 
   corresponding CEs is the same as the procedure specified for GMPLS 
   overlay [RFC4208]. 
     
4.3.1 Signaling Procedures 
 
   When an ingress CE sends an RSVP Path message to an ingress PE, the 
   source IP address in the IP packet that carries the message is set 
   to the appropriate CE-CC-Addr, and the destination IP address in the 
   packet is set to the appropriate PE-CC-Addr. When the ingress PE 
   sends back to the ingress CE the corresponding Resv message, the 
   source IP address in the IP packet that carries the message is set 
   to the PE-CC-Addr, and the destination IP address is set to the CE-
   CC-Addr. 
    
   Likewise, when an egress PE sends an RSVP Path message to an egress 
   CE, the source IP address in the IP packet that carries the message 
   is set to the appropriate PE-CC-Addr, and the destination IP address 
   in the packet is set to the appropriate CE-CC-Addr. When the egress 
   CE sends back to the egress PE the corresponding Resv message, the 
   source IP address in the IP packet that carries the message is set 
   to the CE-CC-Addr, and the destination IP address is set to the PE-
   CC-Addr. 
    
   In addition to being used for IP addresses in the IP packet that 
   carries RSVP messages between CE and PE, CE-CC-Addr and PE-CC-Addr 
   are also used in the Next/Previous Hop Address field of the IF_ID 
   RSVP_Hop Object that is carried between CEs and PEs. 
    
   In the case where a link between CE and PE is a numbered non-bundled 
   link, the CPI and VPN-PPI of that link are used for the Type 1 or 2 
   TLVs of the IF_ID RSVP Hop Object that is carried between the CE and 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 15] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   PE. In the case where a link between CE and PE is an unnumbered non-
   bundled link, the CPI and VPN-PPI of that link are used for the IP 
   Address field of the Type 3 TLV. In the case where a link between CE 
   and PE is a bundled link, the CPI and VPN-PPI of that link are used 
   for the IP Address field of the Type 3 TLVs. 
    
   Additional processing related to unnumbered links is described in 
   the "Processing the IF_ID RSVP_Hop Object"/"Processing the IF_ID 
   TLV", and "Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies" sections of RFC 3477 
   [RFC3477]. 
    
   When an ingress CE originates a Path message to establish an LSP 
   from a particular port on that CE to a particular target port, the 
   CE uses the CPI of its port in the Sender Template object. If the 
   CPI of the target port is an IP address, then the CE uses it in the 
   Session object. And if the CPI of the target port is a <port index, 
   IP address> tuple, then the CE uses the IP address part of the tuple 
   in the Session object, and the whole tuple as the Unnumbered 
   Interface ID subobject in the ERO. 
    
   There are two options for RSVP-TE sessions. One option is to have a 
   single RSVP-TE session end to end where the addresses of the 
   customer and the provider are swapped at the PE, termed shuffling. 
   The other option is when stitching or hierarchy is used to create 
   two LSP sessions, one between the provider PE(s) and another end to 
   end session between the CEs.   
    
4.3.1.1 Shuffling Sessions 
    
   Shuffling sessions are used when the desire is to have a single LSP 
   originating at the CE and terminating at the far end CE. The 
   customer addresses are shuffled to provider addresses at the ingress 
   PE, and back to customer addresses at the egress PE by using the 
   mapping provided by the PIT.  
     
   When the Path message arrives at the ingress PE, the PE selects the 
   PIT associated with the L1VPN, and then uses this PIT to map CPIs 
   carried in the Session and the Sender Template objects to the 
   appropriate PPIs. Once the mapping is done, the ingress PE replaces 
   CPIs with these PPIs. As a result, the Session and the Sender 
   Template objects that are carried in the GMPLS signaling within the 
   service provider network carry PPIs, and not CPIs.  
    
   At the egress PE, the reverse mapping operation is performed. The PE 
   extracts the ingress/egress PPI values carried in the Sender 
   Template and Session objects (respectively). The egress PE 
   identifies the appropriate PIT to find the appropriate CPI 
   associated with the PPI of the egress CE. Once the mapping is 
   retrieved, the egress PE replaces the ingress/egress PPI values with 
   the corresponding CPI values. As a result, the Session and the 
   Sender Template objects included in the GMPLS RSVP-TE Path message 
   sent from the egress PE to the egress CE carry CPIs, and not PPIs. 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 16] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   Here also, for the GMPLS RSVP-TE Path messages sent from the egress 
   PE to CE, the source IP address (of the IP packet carrying this 
   message) is set to the appropriate PE-CC-Addr, and the destination 
   IP address (of the IP packet carrying this message) is set to the 
   appropriate CE-CC-Addr.  
    
   At this point the CE's view is a single LSP point to point between 
   the two CEs with a virtual link between the PE nodes.  CE-PE(-)PE-
   CE.  The L1VPN PE nodes have a view of the PE-PE LSP segment in all 
   its detail.  The PEs MAY filter the RSVP-TE signaling removing 
   information about the provider topology and replacing it with a view 
   of a virtual link.  
    
   This translation of addresses and session ids is termed shuffling 
   and driven by the L1VPN Port information tables (see section 4). 
   This MUST be performed for all RSVP-TE Messages at the PE edges.  In 
   this case there is one CE to CE session. 
    
4.3.1.2 Stitched or Nested Sessions 
 
   Stitching or Nesting options are dependent on the LSP switching 
   types. If the CE to CE and PE to PE LSPs are identical in switching 
   type and capacity the LSP MAY be stitched together and the 
   procedures in [RFC5150] apply. If the CE to CE LSPs and the PE to PE 
   LSPs are of not the same switching type or of different but 
   compatible capacity the LSPs MAY be Nested and the procedures for  
   [RFC4206] apply.  The Stitched and Nested LSP signaling are 
   analogous procedures and can be discussed together.  
    
   When the Path Message arrives at the ingress PE, the PE selects the 
   PIT associated with the L1VPN, and then uses this PIT to map CPIs 
   carried in the Session and the Sender Template objects to the 
   appropriate PPIs. Once the mapping is done, a new PE to PE session 
   is established with the parameters compatible with the CE session. 
   Upon successful establishment of the PE to PE session, the CE 
   signaling request is sent to the egress PE.  
    
   At the ingress PE, when stitching and nesting are used a PE to PE 
   session is established. This could be achieved by several means: 
     - Associating an already established PE-PE FA-LSP or LSP to the 
      destination that meets the requested parameters. 
     - Establishing a compliant PE-PE LSP segment. 
    
   At this point the CE's view is a single LSP point to point between 
   the two CEs with a virtual node between the PE nodes.  CE-PE(-)PE-
   CE.  The L1VPN PE nodes have a view of the PE-PE LSP segment in all 
   its detail.  The PEs do not have to filter the RSVP-TE signaling 
   removing information about the provider topology because the PE-PE 
   signaling is not visible to the CE nodes.  
    
4.3.1.3 Other Signaling 
    
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 17] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   An ingress PE may receive and potentially reject a Path message that 
   contains an Explicit Route Object and so cause the switched 
   connection setup to fail. However, the ingress PE may accept EROs, 
   which include a sequence of {<ingress PE (strict), egress CE CPI 
   (loose)>}.  
    
   - Path message without ERO: when an ingress PE receives a Path 
   message from an ingress CE that contains no ERO, it MUST calculate a 
   route to the destination for the PE-to-PE LSP and include that route 
   in an ERO, before forwarding the Path message. One exception would 
   be if the egress core node were also adjacent to this core node.  
    
   - Path message with ERO: when an ingress PE receives a Path message 
   from an ingress CE that contains an ERO (of the form detailed 
   above), the former computes a path to reach the egress PE. It then 
   inserts this path as part of the ERO before forwarding the Path 
   message. 
 
   In the case of Shuffling the overlay rules for Notification and RRO 
   Processing are identical to the UNI or Overlay Model[RFC4208] which 
   state that Edge PE MAY remove/edit Provider Notification and RRO 
   objects when passing the messages to the CEs.   
    
    
4.4 Recovery Procedures 
    
   Signaling: 
    
   A CE requests a network protected (from PE-to-PE) LSP by using 
   [RFC4873] technique. Dynamic identification of merge nodes is 
   supported via the LSP Segment Recovery Flags carried in the 
   Protection object (see Section 6.2 of [RFC4873]). 
    
   Notification: 
    
   A Notify Request object MAY be inserted in Path or Resv messages to 
   indicate the address of a CE that should be notified of an LSP 
   failure.  Notifications MAY be requested in both the upstream and 
   downstream directions: 
    
   o) Upstream notification is indicated via the inclusion of a Notify 
   Request object in the corresponding Path message. 
    
   o) Downstream notification is indicated via the inclusion of a 
   Notify Request object in the corresponding Resv message. 
    
   A PE receiving a message containing a Notify Request object SHOULD 
   store the Notify Node Address in the corresponding RSVP state block. 
   The PE SHOULD also include a Notify Request object in the outgoing 
   Path or Resv message.  The outgoing Notify Node Address MAY be 
   updated based on local policy.  This means that a PE upon reception 
   of this object from the CE MAY update its value.  
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 18] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
    
   If the ingress CE includes a Notify Request object into the Path 
   message, the ingress PE MAY replace the received 'Notify Node 
   Address' by its own selected 'Notify Node Address', and in 
   particular the local TE Router_ID.  The Notify Request object MAY be 
   carried in Path or Resv messages (Section 7 of [RFC3473]). The 
   format of the Notify Request object is defined in [RFC3473]. 
   In GMPLS, Notify Node Addresses may be IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC3473]. 
    
   Inclusion of a Notify Request object is used to request the 
   generation of notifications upon failure occurrence but does not 
   guarantee that a Notify message will be generated.  
    
    
     
5. Security Considerations 
 
   Security for L1VPNs is covered in [RFC4847] and [L1VPN-APPLIC]. In 
   this document we discuss the security aspects with respect to the 
   control plane. 
    
   The association of a particular port with a particular L1VPN (or to 
   be more precise with a particular PIT) is a configuration operation, 
   generally done manually by the service provider as part of the 
   service provisioning process. Thus, it cannot be altered via 
   signaling between CE and PE. This means that the signaling cannot be 
   used to deliver L1VPN traffic to the wrong customer. The operator 
   should apply appropriate security mechanisms to the management and 
   configuration process, and should consider data plane verification 
   techniques to protect against accidental misconfiguration. The  
   customer may also apply end-to-end (i.e., CE to CE) data plane 
   connectivity tests over the L1VPN connection to detect 
   misconnection. Data plane connectivity testing can be performed 
   using the Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]. 
    
   Note that it is also possible to populate the local part of a PIT 
   using autodiscovery through LMP. LMP may be secured as described in 
   [RFC4204]. Signaling between CE and PE is assumed to be over a 
   private link (for example, in-band or in-fiber) or a private 
   network. Use of a private link makes the CE-PE connection secure at 
   the same level as the data link described in the previous 
   paragraphs. The use of a private network assumes that entities 
   outside the network cannot spoof or modify control plane  
   communications between CE and PE. Furthermore, all entities in the 
   private network are assumed to be trusted. Thus, no security 
   mechanisms are required by the protocol exchanges described in this 
   document. 
    
   However, an operator that is concerned about the security of their 
   private control plane network may use the authentication and 
   integrity functions available in RSVP-TE [RFC3473] or utilize IPsec 
   [RFC4301], [RFC4302], [RFC4835], [RFC4306], and [RFC2411] for the 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 19] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   point-to-point signaling between PE and CE. See [MPLS-SEC] for a 
   full discussion of the security options available for the GMPLS 
   control plane. 
    
   Note further that a private network (e.g., Layer 2 VPN, or Layer 3 
   VPN) might be used to provide control plane connectivity between a 
   PE and more than one CE. In this scenario, it is RECOMMENDED that 
   each L1 VPN customer would have its own such private network. Then 
   the security mechanisms provided by the private network SHOULD be 
   used to ensure security of the control plane communication between a 
   customer and a service provider. 
    
6. IANA Considerations 
 
   This document makes no requests for IANA action. 
    
7. Intellectual Property Considerations 
    
   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. 
    

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 20] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
    
8. References 
 
8.1 Normative References 
    
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.  
    
   [RFC3471] Berger, L. (editor), "Generalized MPLS -Signaling 
             Functional Description", January 2003, RFC3471. 
    
   [RFC3473] Berger, L. (editor), "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE 
             Extensions", RFC3473, January 2003. 
     
   [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered                   
             Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic 
             Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. 
    
   [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support 
             of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", 
             RFC 4202, October 2005. 
    
   [RFC4204] J. Lang (editor), "Link Management Protocol (LMP)," RFC 
             4204, October 2005. 
    
   [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) 
             Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
             (GMPLS)Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. 
    
   [RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label 
             Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource 
             ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support 
             for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. 
    
   [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D. Farrel, A., 
             "GMPLS Based Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. 
    
   [RFC5150] A. Ayyangar, K. Kompella, J.P. Vasseur, A. Farrel, "Label 
             Switched Path Stitching with Generalized MPLS Traffic 
             Engineering", RFC 5150, February 2008. 
    
    
    
8.2 Informative References 
    
   [RFC3945] E. Mannie (editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
             Switching (GMPLS) Architecture" RFC3945, October 2004. 
    
   [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in 
             MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005. 
    

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 21] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   [RFC4847] Takeda, T., Editor "Framework and Requirements for Layer 1 
             Virtual Private Networks", RFC 4847, April 2007. 
    
   [RFC2411] R. Thayer, N. Doraswamy, R. Glenn, "IP Security Document   
             Roadmap," November 1998. 
    
   [RFC4301] S. Kent, K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet 
             Protocol," December 2005. 
    
   [RFC4302] S. Kent, "IP Authentication Header," December 2005. 
    
   [RFC4306] C. Kaufman, "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", 
             December 2005. 
    
   [RFC4835] V. Manral, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation   
             Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and   
             Authentication Header (AH)", April 2007. 
    
   [L1VPN-BGP-AD] Ould-Brahim, H., Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-based 
             Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs", work in progress. 
    
   [L1VPN-OSPF-AD] Bryskin, I., Berger, Lou "OSPF Based L1VPN Auto-
             Discovery", work in progress. 
    
   [L1VPN-APPLIC] Takeda, T (editor), "Applicability Statement for 
             Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks (L1VPNs) Basic Mode", 
             draft-ietf-l1vpn-applicability-basic-mode, work in 
             progress. 
    
   [MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., " Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS   
             Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
             framework, work in progress. 
    

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 22] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
 
9. Acknowledgments 
 
   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Hamid Ould-Brahim, 
   and Tomonori Takeda for their valuable comments. 
    
   Sandy Murphy, Charlie Kaufman, Pasi Eronen, Russ Housley, Tim   
   Polk, and Ron Bonica provided input during the IESG review process. 
    
 
10. Authors' Addresses 
    
       
   Don Fedyk 
   Nortel Networks 
   600 Technology Park   
   Billerica, Massachusetts 
   01821 U.S.A    
   Phone: +1 (978) 288 3041 
   Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com 
 
   Yakov Rekhter 
   Juniper Networks    
   1194 N. Mathilda Avenue    
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089    
   Email: yakov@juniper.net                 
      
   Dimitri Papadimitriou  
   Alcatel-Lucent 
   Fr. Wellesplein 1,  
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium  
   Phone: +32 3 240-8491  
   Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be 
    
   Richard Rabbat 
   Google, Inc 
   1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy 
   Mountain View, CA 95054 
   Email: rabbat@alum.mit.edu 
 
   Lou Berger 
   LabN Consulting, LLC 
   Phone:  +1 301-468-9228 
   EMail:  lberger@labn.net 
    
 
11. 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 
 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 23] 
 

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05.txt       May 2008 
 
   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. 
    
 
 
12. 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.  
 

 
Fedyk & Rekhter.                                         [Page 24]