Skip to main content

Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPNs
draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type RFC Internet-Draft (l2vpn WG)
Authors Himanshu C. Shah , Giles Heron , Vach Kompella , Eric C. Rosen
Last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2012-01-12)
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 6575 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Stewart Bryant
IESG note Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar, nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19
L2VPN Working Group                         Himanshu Shah(Ciena)     
     Intended Status: Proposed Standard             Eric Rosen(Cisco) 
     Internet Draft                                Giles Heron(Cisco) 
     Expires: July 10, 2012             Vach Kompella(Alcatel-Lucent) 
                                                                      
                                                     January 10 2012  
                                                                                
      
      
                                        
               ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN 
                    draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                         
     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), 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 
      
     This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2012 
      
     Copyright Notice 
      
     Copyright (c) 2012 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 
      
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012       [Page 1]  
      

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     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. 
      
      
      
     Abstract 
      
     The Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) [RFC4664] provides 
     point-to-point connections between pairs of Customer Edge (CE) 
     devices.  It does so by binding two Attachment Circuits (each 
     connecting a CE device with a Provider Edge, PE, device) to a 
     pseudowire (connecting the two PEs).  In general, the Attachment 
     Circuits must be of the same technology (e.g., both Ethernet, 
     both ATM), and the pseudowire must carry the frames of that 
     technology.  However, if it is known that the frames' payload 
     consists solely of IP datagrams, it is possible to provide a 
     point-to-point connection in which the pseudowire connects 
     Attachment Circuits of different technologies. This requires the 
     PEs to perform a function known as "ARP Mediation". ARP 
     Mediation refers to the process of resolving Layer 2 addresses 
     when different resolution protocols are used on either 
     Attachment Circuit. The methods described in this document are 
     applicable even when the CEs run a routing protocol between 
     them, as long as the routing protocol runs over IP.  
      
      
     Conventions used in this document 
      
     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 
     NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 
     "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 
     in [RFC2119]. 
      
     Table of Contents 
         
           Copyright Notice........................................... 1 
        1. Introduction............................................... 4 
        2. ARP Mediation (AM) function................................ 6 
        3. IP Layer 2 Interworking Circuit............................ 7 
        4. IP Address Discovery Mechanisms............................ 7 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 2] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
           4.1. Discovery of IP Addresses of Locally Attached IPv4 CE. 8 
              4.1.1. Monitoring Local Traffic......................... 8 
              4.1.2. CE Devices Using ARP............................. 8 
              4.1.3. CE Devices Using Inverse ARP.................... 10 
              4.1.4. CE Devices Using PPP............................ 10 
              4.1.5. Router Discovery method......................... 11 
              4.1.6. Manual Configuration............................ 12 
           4.2. How a CE Learns the IPv4 address of a remote CE...... 12 
              4.2.1. CE Devices Using ARP............................ 12 
              4.2.2. CE Devices Using Inverse ARP.................... 13 
              4.2.3. CE Devices Using PPP............................ 13 
           4.3. Discovery of IP Addresses of IPv6 CE Devices......... 13 
              4.3.1. Distinguishing Factors Between IPv4 and IPv6.... 13 
              4.3.2. Requirements for PEs............................ 14 
              4.3.3. Processing of Neighbor Solicitations............ 15 
              4.3.4. Processing of Neighbor Advertisements........... 15 
              4.3.5. Processing Inverse Neighbor Solicitations (INS). 16 
              4.3.6. Processing of Inverse Neighbor Advertisements .. 17 
              4.3.7. Processing of Router Solicitations.............. 18 
              4.3.8. Processing of Router Advertisements............. 18 
              4.3.9. Duplicate Address Detection..................... 18 
              4.3.10. CE address discovery for CEs attached using PPP 19 
        5. CE IPv4 Address Signaling between PEs..................... 19 
           5.1. When to Signal an IPv4 address of a CE............... 19 
           5.2. LDP Based Distribution of CE IPv4 Addresses.......... 20 
        6. IPv6 Capability Advertisement............................. 22 
           6.1. PW Operational Down on Stack Capability Mis-Match.... 23 
           6.2. Stack Capability Fall-back........................... 24 
        7. IANA Considerations....................................... 25 
           7.1. LDP Status messages.................................. 25 
           7.2. Interface Parameters................................. 25 
        8. Security Considerations................................... 26 
           8.1. Control Plane Security............................... 26 
           8.2. Data plane security.................................. 27 
        9. Acknowledgements.......................................... 27 
        10. References............................................... 27 
           10.1. Normative References................................ 27 
           10.2. Informative References.............................. 29 
        11. Authors' Addresses....................................... 29 
        APPENDIX A:.................................................. 32 
           A.1. Use of IGPs with IP L2 Interworking L2VPNs........... 32 
              A.1.1. OSPF............................................ 32 
              A.1.2. RIP............................................. 33 
              A.1.3. IS-IS........................................... 33 
         
         
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 3] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     1. Introduction 
         
     Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPN) are constructed over a 
     Service Provider IP/MPLS backbone but are presented to the 
     Customer Edge (CE) devices as Layer 2 networks.  In theory, 
     L2VPNs can carry any Layer 3 protocol, but in many cases, the 
     Layer 3 protocol is IP. Thus it makes sense to consider 
     procedures that are optimized for IP. 
      
     In a typical implementation, illustrated in the diagram below, 
     the CE devices are connected to the Provider Edge (PE) devices 
     via Attachment Circuits (AC). The ACs are Layer 2 circuits.  In 
     a pure L2VPN, if traffic sent from CE1 via AC1 reaches CE2 via 
     AC2, both ACs would have to be of the same type (i.e., both 
     Ethernet, both Frame Relay, etc.). However, if it is known that 
     only IP traffic will be carried, the ACs can be of different 
     technologies, provided that the PEs provide the appropriate 
     procedures to allow the proper transfer of IP packets.  
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 4] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
      
      
      
                                          +-----+ 
                             +------ -----| CE3 |  
                             |AC3         +-----+  
                          +-----+  
                    ......| PE3 |........... 
                    .     +-----+          .  
                    .        |             .  
                    .        |             .  
     +-----+ AC1 +-----+    Service      +-----+ AC2 +-----+  
     | CE1 |-----| PE1 |--- Provider ----| PE2 |-----| CE2 |  
     +-----+     +-----+    Backbone     +-----+     +-----+  
                    .                      .  
                    ........................ 
              
     A CE, which is connected via a given type of AC, may use an IP  
     Address Resolution procedure that is specific to that type of 
     AC. For example, an Ethernet-attached IPv4 CE would use ARP 
     [RFC826] and a Frame Relay-attached CE might use Inverse ARP 
     [RFC2390].  If we are to allow the two CEs to have a Layer 2 
     connection between them, even though each AC uses a different 
     Layer 2 technology, the PEs must intercept and "mediate" the 
     Layer 2 specific address resolution procedures.  
      
     In this document, we specify the procedures for VPWS services, 
     which the PEs MUST implement in order to mediate the IP address 
     resolution mechanism. We call these procedures "ARP Mediation".  
     Consider a Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) constructed 
     between CE1 and CE2 in the diagram above.  If AC1 and AC2 are of 
     different technologies, e.g. AC1 is Ethernet and AC2 is Frame 
     Relay (FR), then ARP requests coming from CE1 cannot be passed 
     transparently to CE2. PE1 MUST interpret the meaning of the ARP 
     requests and mediate the necessary information with PE2 before 
     responding. 
      
     The document uses "ARP" terminology to mean any protocol that is 
     used to resolve IP addresses to link layer addresses. For 
     instance in IPv4, ARP and Inverse ARP protocols are used for 
     address resolution while in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] 
     and Inverse Neighbor Discovery protocol [RFC3122] based on 
     ICMPv6 are used for address resolution. 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 5] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
      
     2. ARP Mediation (AM) function 
      
     The ARP Mediation (AM) function is an element of a PE node that 
     deals with the IP address resolution for CE devices connected 
     via a VPWS L2VPN. By placing this function in the PE node, ARP 
     Mediation is transparent to the CE devices.  
      
     For a given point-to-point connection between a pair of CEs, the 
     ARP Mediation procedure depends on whether the packets being 
     forwarded are IPv4 or IPV6. A PE that is to perform ARP 
     Mediation for IPv4 packets MUST perform the following logical 
     steps:  
      
        1. Discover the IP address of the locally attached CE device 
        2. Terminate, do not forward ARP and Inverse ARP requests 
           from the CE device at the local PE.  
        3. Distribute the IP Address to the remote PE using 
           pseudowire control signaling. 
        4. Notify the locally attached CE of the IP address of the 
           remote CE.  
        5. Respond appropriately to ARP and Inverse ARP requests from 
           the local CE device, using IP address of the remote CE and 
           the hardware address of the local PE. 
      
     A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets SHOULD 
     perform the following logical steps: 
      
       1. Discover the IPv6 addresses of the locally attached CE device, 
          together with those of the remote CE device. 
       2.  
            a. Intercept Neighbor Discovery (ND) and Inverse Neighbor 
               Discovery (IND) packets received from the local CE 
               device. 
            b. From these NB and IND packets learn the IPv6 
               configuration of the CE. 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 6] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
            c. Forward the ND and IND packets over the pseudowire to the 
               remote PE. 
       3. Intercept Neighbor Discovery and Inverse Neighbor Discovery 
          packets received over the pseudowire from the remote PE, 
          possibly modifying them (if required for the type of outgoing 
          AC) before forwarding to the local CE, and also learning 
          information about the IPv6 configuration of the remote CE. 
     Details for the above-described procedures are given in the 
     following sections. 
      
     3. IP Layer 2 Interworking Circuit 
      
     The IP Layer 2 interworking Circuit refers to interconnection of 
     the Attachment Circuit with the IP Layer 2 Transport pseudowire 
     that carries IP datagrams as the payload. The ingress PE removes 
     the data link header of its local Attachment Circuit and 
     transmits the payload (an IP packet) over the pseudowire with or 
     without the optional control word. If the IP packet arrives at 
     the ingress PE with multiple data link headers (for example in 
     the case of bridged Ethernet PDU on an ATM Attachment Circuit), 
     all data link headers MUST be removed from the IP packet before 
     transmission over the PW. The egress PE encapsulates the IP 
     packet with the data link header used on its local Attachment 
     Circuit.  
      
     The encapsulation for the IP Layer 2 Transport pseudowire is 
     described in [RFC4447]. The "IP Layer 2 interworking circuit" 
     pseudowire is also referred to as "IP pseudowire" in this 
     document. 
      
     In the case of an IPv6 L2 Interworking Circuit, the egress PE 
     MAY modify the contents of Neighbor Discovery or Inverse 
     Neighbor Discovery packets before encapsulating the IP packet 
     with the data link header. 
      
      
     4. IP Address Discovery Mechanisms 
         
     An IP Layer 2 Interworking Circuit enters monitoring state 
     immediately after configuration. During this state it performs 
     two functions.  
      
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 7] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
        - Discovery of the CE IP device(s)  
        - Establishment of the PW  
           
     The establishment of the PW occurs independently from local CE 
     IP address discovery. During the period when the PW has been 
     established but the local CE IP device has not been discovered, 
     only broadcast/multicast IP frames are propagated between the 
     Attachment Circuit and pseudowire; unicast IP datagrams are 
     dropped. The IP destination address is used to classify 
     unicast/multicast packets.  
      
     Unicast IP frames are propagated between the AC and pseudowire 
     only when CE IP devices on both Attachment Circuits have been 
     discovered, notified and proxy functions have completed. 
      
     The need to wait for address resolution completion before 
     unicast IP traffic can flow is simple. 
      
        . PEs do not perform routing operations 
        . The destination IP address in the packet is not necessarily 
          that of the attached CE 
        . On a broadcast link, there is no way to find out the MAC 
          address of the CE based on the Destination IP address of 
          the packet. 
         
     4.1. Discovery of IP Addresses of Locally Attached IPv4 CE 
         
     A PE MUST support manual configuration of IPv4 CE addresses. 
     This section also describes automated mechanisms by which a PE 
     MAY also discover an IPv4 CE address. 
      
     4.1.1. Monitoring Local Traffic 
      
     The PE devices MAY learn the IP addresses of the locally 
     attached CEs from any IP traffic, such as link local multicast 
     packets (e.g., destined to 224.0.0.x), and are not restricted to 
     the operations below.   
      
     4.1.2. CE Devices Using ARP 
      
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 8] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     If a CE device uses ARP to determine the IP address to MAC 
     address binding of its neighbor, the PE processes the ARP 
     requests to learn the IP address of the local CE for the local 
     Attachment Circuit. 
      
     This document mandates that there MUST be only one CE per 
     Attachment Circuit. However, customer facing access topologies 
     may exist whereby more than one CE appears to be connected to 
     the PE on a single Attachment Circuit. For example, this could 
     be the case when CEs are connected to a shared LAN that connects 
     to the PE. In such case, the PE MUST select one local CE. The 
     selection could be based on manual configuration or the PE MAY 
     optionally use the following selection criteria. In either case, 
     manual configuration of the IP address of the local CE (and its 
     MAC address) MUST be supported.   
      
        o  Wait to learn the IP address of the remote CE (through PW 
           signaling) and then select the local CE that is sending 
           the request for IP address of the remote CE.  
        o  Augment cross checking with the local IP address learned 
           through listening for link local multicast packets (as per 
           section 4.1.1. above).     
        o  Augment cross checking with the local IP address learned 
           through the Router Discovery protocol (as described below 
           in section 4.1.5. ). 
        o  There is still a possibility that the local PE may not 
           receive an IP address advertisement from the remote PE and 
           there may exist multiple local IP routers that attempt to 
           'connect' to remote CEs. In this situation, the local PE 
           MAY use some other criteria to select one IP device from 
           many (such as "the first ARP received"), or an operator 
           MAY configure the IP address of the local CE. Note that 
           the operator does not have to configure the IP address of 
           the remote CE (as that would be learned through pseudowire 
           signaling).      
      
     Once the local and remote CEs have been discovered for the given 
     Attachment Circuit, the local PE responds with its own MAC 
     address to any subsequent ARP requests from the local CE with a 
     destination IP address matching the IP address of the remote CE. 
      
     The local PE signals the IP address of the local CE to the 
     remote PE and MAY initiate an unsolicited ARP response to notify 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 9] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     the IP address to MAC address binding for the remote CE to the 
     local CE (again using its own MAC address).  
      
     Once the ARP mediation function is completed (i.e. the PE device 
     knows both the local and remote CE IP addresses), unicast IP 
     frames are propagated between the AC and the established PW. 
      
     The PE MAY periodically generate ARP request messages for the IP 
     address of the CE as a means of verifying the continued 
     existence of the IP address and its MAC address binding. The 
     absence of a response from the CE device for a given number of 
     retries could be used as a trigger for withdrawal of the IP 
     address advertisement to the remote PE. The local PE would then 
     re-enter the address resolution phase to rediscover the IP 
     address of the attached CE. Note that this "heartbeat" scheme is 
     needed only where the failure of a CE device may otherwise be 
     undetectable.  
      
     4.1.3. CE Devices Using Inverse ARP  
      
     If a CE device uses Inverse ARP to determine the IP address of 
     its neighbor, the attached PE processes the Inverse ARP request 
     from the Attachment Circuit and responds with an Inverse ARP 
     reply containing the IP address of the remote CE, if the address 
     is known. If the PE does not yet have the IP address of the 
     remote CE, it does not respond, but records the IP address of 
     the local CE and the circuit information. Subsequently, when the 
     IP address of the remote CE becomes available, the PE MAY 
     initiate an Inverse ARP request as a means of notifying the IP 
     address of the remote CE to the local CE.  
      
     This is the typical mode of operation for Frame Relay and ATM 
     Attachment Circuits. If the CE does not use Inverse ARP, the PE 
     can still discover the IP address of the local CE using the 
     mechanisms described in section 4.1.1. and 4.1.5.  
      
     4.1.4. CE Devices Using PPP  
      
     The IP Control Protocol [RFC1332] describes a procedure to 
     establish and configure IP on a point-to-point connection, 
     including the negotiation of IP addresses. When such an 
     Attachment Circuit is configured for IP interworking, PPP 
     negotiation is not performed end-to-end between CE devices. 
     Instead, PPP negotiation takes place between the CE and its 
     local PE. The PE performs proxy PPP negotiation and informs the 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 10] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     attached CE of the IP address of the remote CE during IPCP 
     negotiation using the IP-Address option (0x03). 
       
     When a PPP link completes LCP negotiations, the local PE MAY 
     perform the following IPCP actions: 
      
        o  The PE learns the IP address of the local CE from the 
           Configure-Request received with the IP-Address option 
           (0x03). If the IP address is non-zero, the PE records the 
           address and responds with Configure-Ack. However, if the 
           IP address is zero, the PE responds with Configure-Reject 
           (as this is a request from the CE to assign it an IP 
           address). Also, the IP address option is set with zero 
           value in the Configure-Reject response to instruct the CE 
           not to include that option in any subsequent Configure-
           Request. 
        o  If the PE receives a Configure-Request without the IP-
           Address option, it responds with a Configure-Ack. In this 
           case the PE is unable to learn the IP address of the local 
           CE using IPCP and hence MUST rely on other means as 
           described in sections 4.1.1. and 4.1.5.  Note that in 
           order to employ other learning mechanisms, the IPCP 
           negotiations MUST have reached the open state.  
        o  If the PE does not know the IP address of the remote CE, 
           it sends a Configure-Request without the IP-Address 
           option.  
        o  If the PE knows the IP address of the remote CE, it sends 
           a Configure-Request with the IP-Address option containing 
           the IP address of the remote CE.       
      
     The IPCP IP-Address option MAY be negotiated between the PE and 
     the local CE device. Configuration of other IPCP options MAY be 
     rejected. Other NCPs, with the exception of the Compression 
     Control Protocol (CCP) and Encryption Control Protocol (ECP), 
     MUST be rejected. The PE device MAY reject configuration of the 
     CCP and ECP.   
           
     4.1.5. Router Discovery method  
         
     In order to learn the IP address of the CE device for a given 
     Attachment Circuit, the PE device MAY execute Router Discovery 
     Protocol [RFC1256] whereby a Router Discovery Request (ICMP - 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 11] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     router solicitation) message is sent using a source IP address 
     of zero. The IP address of the CE device is extracted from the 
     Router Discovery Response (ICMP - router advertisement) message 
     from the CE. It is possible that the response contains more than 
     one router addresses with the same preference level; in which 
     case, some heuristics (such as first on the list) are necessary.  
     The use of the Router Discovery method by the PE is optional.  
      
     4.1.6. Manual Configuration  
         
     In some cases, it may not be possible to discover the IP address 
     of the local CE device using the mechanisms described in 
     sections 4.1 - 4.1.5 above. In such cases manual configuration 
     MAY be used. All implementations of this document MUST support 
     manual configuration of the IPv4 address of the local CE. This 
     is the only REQUIRED mode for a PE to support.  
      
     The support for configuration of the IP address of the remote CE 
     is OPTIONAL. 
        
     4.2. How a CE Learns the IPv4 address of a remote CE   
         
     Once the local PE has received the IP address information of the 
     remote CE from the remote PE, it will either initiate an address 
     resolution request or respond to an outstanding request from the 
     attached CE device.  
      
     In the event that IPv4 address of the remote CE is manually 
     configured, the address resolution can begin immediately as 
     receipt of remote IP address of the CE becomes unnecessary. 
           
     4.2.1. CE Devices Using ARP 
         
     When the PE learns the IP address of the remote CE as described 
     in section 5.1 below, it may or may not already know the IP 
     address of the local CE. If the IP address is not known, the PE 
     MUST wait until it is acquired through one of the methods 
     described in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.5. If the IP address 
     of the local CE is known, the PE MAY choose to generate an 
     unsolicited ARP message to notify the local CE about the binding 
     of the IP address of the remote CE with the PE's own MAC 
     address.  
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 12] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
      
     When the local CE generates an ARP request, the PE MUST proxy 
     the ARP response [RFC925] using its own MAC address as the 
     source hardware address and the IP address of the remote CE as 
     the source protocol address. The PE MUST respond only to those 
     ARP requests whose destination protocol address matches the IP 
     address of the remote CE.   
           
     4.2.2. CE Devices Using Inverse ARP  
         
     When the PE learns the IP address of the remote CE, it SHOULD 
     generate an Inverse ARP request. If the Attachment Circuit 
     requires activation (e.g. Frame Relay) the PE SHOULD activate it 
     first before the Inverse ARP request. It should be noted, that 
     the PE might never receive the response to its own request, nor 
     see any Inverse ARP request from the CE, in cases where the CE 
     is pre-configured with the IP address of the remote CE or where 
     the use of Inverse ARP has not been enabled. In either case the 
     CE has used other means to learn the IP address of its neighbor.  
           
     4.2.3. CE Devices Using PPP  
         
     When the PE learns the IP address of the remote CE, it SHOULD 
     initiate a Configure-Request and set the IP-Address option to 
     the IP address of the remote CE to notify the IP address of the 
     remote CE to the local CE.  
      
      
     4.3. Discovery of IP Addresses of IPv6 CE Devices 
         
     4.3.1. Distinguishing Factors Between IPv4 and IPv6 
         
     IPv4 uses ARP and inverse ARP to resolve IP address and link 
     layer associations. Since these are dedicated address resolution 
     protocols, and not IP packets, they cannot be carried on an IP 
     pseudowire. They MUST be processed locally and the IPv4 address 
     information they carry signaled between the PEs using the 
     pseudowire control plane. IPv6 uses ICMPv6 extensions to resolve 
     IP address and link address associations. As these are IPv6 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 13] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     packets they can be carried on an IP pseudowire and therefore no 
     IPv6 address signaling is required. 
      
      
     4.3.2. Requirements for PEs 
         
     A PE device that supports IPv6 MUST be capable of, 
        - Intercepting ICMPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] and 
          Inverse Neighbor Discovery [RFC3122] packets received over 
          the AC as well as over the PW. 
        - Recording the IPv6 interface addresses and CE link-layer 
          addresses present in these packets 
        - Possibly modifying these packets as dictated by the data 
          link type of the egress AC (described in the following 
          sections), and 
        - Forwarding them towards the original destination 
           
     The PE MUST also be capable of generating packets in order to 
     interwork between Neighbor Discovery (ND) and Inverse Neighbor 
     Discovery (IND). This is specified in Sections 4.3.3 to 4.3.6  
     below. 
      
     If an IP PW is used to interconnect CEs that use IPv6 Router 
     Discovery [RFC4861], a PE device MUST also be capable of 
     intercepting and processing those Router Discovery packets. This 
     is required in order to translate between different link layer 
     addresses. If a Router Discovery message contains a link layer 
     address, then the PE MAY also use this message to discover the 
     link layer address and IPv6 interface address. This is described 
     in more detail in Section 4.3.7 and Section 4.3.8.  
      
     The PE device MUST learn a list of CE IPv6 interface addresses 
     for its directly-attached CE and another list of CE IPv6 
     interface addresses for the far-end CE. The PE device MUST also 
     learn the link-layer address of the local CE and be able to use 
     it when forwarding traffic between the local and far-end CEs. 
     The PE MAY also wish to monitor the source link-layer address of 
     data packets received from the CE, and discard packets not 
     matching its learned CE link-layer address.  
      
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 14] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     4.3.3. Processing of Neighbor Solicitations 
         
     A Neighbor Solicitation received on an AC from a local CE SHOULD 
     be inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 interface address 
     (if provided, this will not be the case for Duplicate Address 
     Detection) and any link-layer address provided. The packet MUST 
     then be forwarded over the pseudowire unmodified. A Neighbor 
     Solicitation received over the pseudowire SHOULD be inspected to 
     determine and learn an IPv6 interface address for the far-end 
     CE. If a source link-layer address option is present, the PE 
     MUST remove it. The PE MAY substitute an appropriate link-layer 
     address option, specifying the link-layer address of the PE 
     interface attached to the local AC. Note that if the local AC is 
     Ethernet, failure to substitute a link-layer address option may 
     mean that the CE has no valid link-layer address with which to 
     transmit data packets. 
      
     When a PE with a local AC, which is of the type point-to-point 
     layer 2 circuit e.g. FR, ATM or PPP, receives a Neighbor 
     Solicitation from a far end PE over the pseudowire, after 
     learning the IP address of the far-end CE, the PE MAY use one of 
     the following procedures: 
      
        1. Forward the Neighbor Solicitation to the local CE after 
           replacing the source link-layer address with the link-
           layer address of the local AC. 
        2. Send an Inverse Neighbor Solicitation to the local CE, 
           specifying the far-end CE's IP address and the link-layer 
           address of the local AC. 
        3. Reply to the far end PE with a Neighbor Advertisement, 
           using the IP address of the local CE as the source address 
           and an appropriate link-layer address option that 
           specifies the link-layer address of the local AC. As 
           described later, the IP address of the local CE is learned 
           through IPv6CP in the case of PPP and through Neighbor 
           Solicitation in other cases. 
         
     4.3.4. Processing of Neighbor Advertisements 
         
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 15] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     A Neighbor Advertisement received on an AC from a local CE 
     SHOULD be inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 interface 
     address and any link-layer address provided. The packet MUST 
     then be forwarded over the IP pseudowire unmodified. 
      
     A Neighbor Advertisement received over the pseudowire SHOULD be 
     inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 interface address for 
     the far-end CE. If a source link-layer address option is 
     present, the PE MUST remove it. The PE MAY substitute an 
     appropriate link-layer address option, specifying the link-layer 
     address of the local AC. Note that if the local AC is Ethernet, 
     failure to substitute a link-layer address option may mean that 
     the local AC has no valid link-layer address with which to 
     transmit data packets. 
      
     When a PE with a local AC which is of the type point-to-point 
     layer 2 circuit, such as ATM, FR or PPP, receives a Neighbor 
     Advertisement over the pseudowire, in addition to learning the 
     remote CE's IPv6 address, it SHOULD perform the following steps: 
      
        o  If the AC supports Inverse Neighbor Discovery (IND) and 
           the PE had already processed an Inverse Neighbor 
           Solicitation (INS) from local CE, it SHOULD send an 
           Inverse Neighbor Advertisement (INA) on the local AC using 
           source IP address information received in ND-ADV and its 
           own local AC link layer information. 
        o  If the PE has not received any Inverse Neighbor 
           Solicitation (INS) from the local CE, and the AC supports 
           Inverse Neighbor Discovery (IND), it SHOULD send an INS on 
           the local AC using source IP address information received 
           in the INA together with its own local AC link layer 
           information. 
         
     4.3.5. Processing Inverse Neighbor Solicitations (INS) 
         
     An INS received on an AC from a local CE SHOULD be inspected to 
     determine and learn the IPv6 addresses and the link-layer 
     addresses. The packet MUST then be forwarded over the pseudowire 
     unmodified. 
      
     An INS received over the pseudowire SHOULD be inspected to 
     determine and learn one or more IPv6 addresses for the far-end 
     CE. If the local AC supports IND (e.g., a switched Frame Relay 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 16] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     AC), the packet SHOULD be forwarded to the local CE, after 
     modifying the link-layer address options to match the type of 
     the local AC.  
      
     If the local AC does not support IND, processing of the packet 
     depends on whether the PE has learned at least one interface 
     address for its directly-attached CE.  
      
       . If it has learned at least one IPv6 address for the CE, the 
          PE MUST discard the Inverse Neighbor Solicitation (INS) and 
          generate an Inverse Neighbor Advertisement (INA) back into 
          the pseudowire. The destination address of the INA is the 
          source address from the INS, the source address is one of 
          the local CE's interface addresses, and all the local CE's 
          interface addresses that have been learned so far SHOULD be 
          included in the Target Address List. The Source and Target 
          Link-Layer addresses are copied from the INS. In addition, 
          the PE SHOULD generate ND advertisements on the local AC 
          using the IPv6 address of the remote CE and link-layer 
          address of the local PE. 
      
       . If it has not learned at least one IPv6 and link-layer 
          address of its directly-connected CE, the INS MUST be 
          continued to be discarded until the PE learns an IPv6 and 
          link-layer address from the local CE (through receiving, 
          for example, a Neighbor Solicitation). After this has 
          occurred, the PE will be able to respond to INS messages 
          received over the pseudowire as described above. 
      
     4.3.6. Processing of Inverse Neighbor Advertisements (INA) 
         
     An INA received on an AC from a local CE SHOULD be inspected to 
     determine and learn one or more IPv6 addresses for the CE. It 
     MUST then be forwarded unmodified over the pseudowire. 
      
     An INA received over the pseudowire SHOULD be inspected to 
     determine and learn one or more IPv6 addresses for the far-end 
     CE. 
      
     If the local AC supports IND (e.g., a Frame Relay AC), the 
     packet MAY be forwarded to the local CE, after modifying the 
     link-layer address options to match the type of the local AC.  
      
     If the local AC does not support IND, the PE MUST discard the 
     INA and generate a Neighbor Advertisement (NA) towards its local 
     CE. The source IPv6 address of the NA is the source IPv6 address 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 17] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     from the INA, the destination IPv6 address is the destination 
     IPv6 address from the INA and the link-layer address is that of 
     the local AC on the PE. 
      
     4.3.7. Processing of Router Solicitations 
         
     A Router Solicitation received on an AC from a local CE SHOULD 
     be inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 address for the CE, 
     and, if present, the link-layer address of the CE. It MUST then 
     be forwarded unmodified over the pseudowire. 
      
     A Router Solicitation received over the pseudowire SHOULD be 
     inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 address for the far-end 
     CE. If a source link-layer address option is present, the PE 
     MUST remove it. The PE MAY substitute a source link-layer 
     address option specifying the link-layer address of its local 
     AC. The packet is then forwarded to the local CE. 
      
     4.3.8. Processing of Router Advertisements 
         
     A Router Advertisement received on an AC from a local CE SHOULD 
     be inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 address for the CE, 
     and, if present, the link-layer address of the CE. It MUST then 
     be forwarded unmodified over the pseudowire. 
      
     A Router Advertisement received over the pseudowire SHOULD be 
     inspected to determine and learn an IPv6 address for the far-end 
     CE. If a source link-layer address option is present, the PE 
     MUST remove it. The PE MAY substitute a source link-layer 
     address option specifying the link-layer address of its local 
     AC. If an MTU option is present, the PE MAY reduce the specified 
     MTU if the MTU of the pseudowire is less than the value 
     specified in the option. The packet is then forwarded to the 
     local CE. 
      
     4.3.9. Duplicate Address Detection  
         
     Duplicate Address Detection [RFC4862] allows IPv6 hosts and 
     routers to ensure that the addresses assigned to interfaces are 
     unique on a link. As with all Neighbor Discovery packets, those 
     used in Duplicate Address Detection will simply flow through the 
     pseudowire, being inspected at the PEs at each end, processing 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 18] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     is performed as above. However, the source IPv6 address of 
     Neighbor Solicitations used in Duplicate Address Detection is 
     the unspecified address, so the PEs cannot learn the CE's IPv6 
     interface address (nor would it make sense to do so, given that 
     at least one address is tentative at that time). 
      
     4.3.10. CE address discovery for CEs attached using PPP   
         
     The IPv6 Control Protocol (IPv6CP) [RFC5072] describes a 
     procedure to establish and configure IPv6 on a point-to-point 
     connection, including the negotiation of a link-local interface 
     identifier. As in the case of IPv4, when such an AC is 
     configured for IP interworking, PPP negotiation is not performed 
     end-to-end between CE devices. Instead, PPP negotiation takes 
     place between the CE and its local PE. The PE performs proxy PPP 
     negotiation and informs the attached CE of the link-local 
     identifier of its local interface using the Interface-Identifier 
     option (0x01). This local interface identifier is used by 
     stateless address auto configuration [RFC4862]. 
      
     When a PPP link completes IPv6CP negotiations and the PPP link 
     is open, a PE MAY discover the IPv6 unicast address of the CE 
     using any of the mechanisms described above.   
      
      
     5. CE IPv4 Address Signaling between PEs  
         
     5.1. When to Signal an IPv4 address of a CE   
      
     A PE device advertises the IPv4 address of the attached CE only 
     when the encapsulation type of the pseudowire is IP Layer2 
     Transport (the value 0x0000B, as defined in [RFC4446]). The IP 
     Layer2 transport PW is also referred to as IP PW and is used 
     interchangeably in this document. It is quite possible that the 
     IPv4 address of a CE device is not available at the time the PW 
     labels are signaled. For example, in Frame Relay the CE device 
     sends an inverse ARP request only when the DLCI is active. If 
     the PE signals the DLCI to be active only when it has received 
     the IPv4 address along with the PW FEC from the remote PE, a 
     deadlock situation arises. In order to avoid such problems, the 
     PE MUST be prepared to advertise the PW FEC before the IPv4 
     address of the CE is known and hence uses IPv4 address value 
     zero. When the IPv4 address of the CE device does become 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 19] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     available, the PE re-advertises the PW FEC along with the IPv4 
     address of the CE.   
      
     Similarly, if the PE detects that an IP address of a CE is no 
     longer valid (by methods described above), the PE MUST re-
     advertise the PW FEC with null IP address to denote the 
     withdrawal of IP address of the CE. The receiving PE then waits 
     for notification of the remote IP address. During this period, 
     propagation of unicast IPv4 traffic is suspended, but multicast 
     IPv4 traffic can continue to flow between the AC and the 
     pseudowire.  
      
     If two CE devices are locally attached to the PE on disparate AC 
     types (for example, one CE connected to an Ethernet port and the 
     other to a Frame Relay port), the IPv4 addresses are learned in 
     the same manner as described above. However, since the CE 
     devices are local, the distribution of IPv4 addresses for these 
     CE devices is a local step.  
      
     Note that the PEs discover the IPv6 addresses of the remote CE 
     by intercepting Neighbor Discovery and Inverse Neighbor 
     Discovery packets that have been passed in-band through the 
     pseudowire. Hence, there is no need to communicate the IPv6 
     addresses of the CEs through LDP signaling. 
      
     If the pseudowire is carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic, the 
     mechanisms used for IPV6 and IPv4 SHOULD NOT interact. In 
     particular, just because a PE has learned a link-layer address 
     for IPv6 traffic by intercepting a Neighbor Advertisement from 
     its directly-connected CE, it SHOULD NOT assume that it can use 
     that link-layer address for IPv4 traffic until that fact is 
     confirmed by reception of, for example, an IPv4 ARP message from 
     the CE. 
           
     5.2. LDP Based Distribution of CE IPv4 Addresses  
      
     [RFC4447] uses Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) transport to 
     exchange PW FECs in the Label Mapping message in the Downstream 
     Unsolicited (DU) mode. The PW-FEC comes in two flavors; PWid and 
     Generalized ID FEC elements and has some common fields between 
     them. The discussions below refer to these common fields for IP 
     L2 Interworking encapsulation.   
          
     In addition to PW-FEC, this document uses an IP Address List TLV 
     (as defined in [RFC5036]) that is to be included in the optional 
     parameter field of the Label Mapping message when advertising 
     the PW FEC for the IP Layer2 Transport. The use of optional 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 20] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     parameters in the Label Mapping message to extend the attributes 
     of the PW FEC is specified in [RFC4447].   
           
     As defined in [RFC4447], when processing a received PW FEC, the 
     PE matches the PW ID and PW type with the locally configured PW 
     ID and PW Type. If there is a match and if the PW Type is IP 
     Layer2 Transport, the PE further checks for the presence of an 
     Address List TLV [RFC5036] in the optional parameter TLVs. The 
     processing of the Address List TLV is as follows. 
      
        o  If a PE is configured for an AC to a CE enabled for IPv4 
           or dual-stack IPv4/IPv6, the PE SHOULD advertise an 
           Address List TLV with address family type of IPv4 address. 
           The PE SHOULD process the IPv4 Address List TLV as 
           described in this document. The PE MUST advertise and 
           process IPv6 capability using the procedures described in 
           Section 6 below. 
        o  If a PE does not receive any IPv4 address in the Address 
           List TLV it MAY assume IPv4 behavior. The address 
           resolution for IPv4 MUST then depend on local manual 
           configuration. In the case of mis-matched configuration 
           whereby one PE has manual configuration while other does 
           not, the IP address to Link Layer address mapping remains 
           unresolved resulting into unsuccessful propagation of IPv4 
           traffic to the local CE. 
        o  If a PE is configured for an AC to a CE enabled for IPv6 
           only, the PE MUST advertise IPv6 capability using the 
           procedures described in Section 6 below. In addition, by 
           virtue of not setting the manual configuration for IPv4 
           support, an IPv6 only support is realized. 
      
     We use the Address List TLV [RFC5036] to signal the IPv4 address 
     of the local CE. This IP Address List TLV is included in the 
     optional parameter field of the Label Mapping message. 
      
     The Address List TLV is only used for IPv4 addresses.  
      
     The fields of the IP Address List TLV are set as follows:   
                
     Length   
          Set to 6 to encompass 2 bytes of Address Family field and 4 
          bytes of Addresses field (because a single IPv4 address is 
          used). 
                
     Address Family   
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 21] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
          Set to 1 to indicate IPv4 as defined in [RFC5036].   
                
     Addresses  
          Contains a single IPv4 address that is the address of the 
          CE attached to the advertising PE.  
           
     The address in the Addresses field is set to all zeros to denote 
     that the advertising PE has not learned the IPv4 address of its 
     local CE. Any non-zero address value denotes the IPv4 address of 
     the advertising PE's attached CE device. 
           
     The IPv4 address of the CE is also supplied in the optional 
     parameters field of the LDP Notification message along with the 
     PW FEC. The LDP Notification message is used to signal any 
     change in the status of the CE's IPv4 address.  
      
     The encoding of the LDP Notification message is as follows.  
      
     0                   1                   2                   3         
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1       
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       
     |0|   Notification (0x0001)     |      Message Length           |       
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       
     |                       Message ID                              |       
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       
     |                       Status (TLV)                            |       
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       
     |                 IP Address List TLV (as defined above)        |       
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       
     |                 PWId FEC or Generalized ID FEC                |       
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       
          
     The Status TLV status code is set to 0x0000002C "IP address of 
     CE", to indicate that an IP Address update follows. Since this 
     notification does not refer to any particular message the 
     Message ID field is set to 0.  
      
     The PW FEC TLV SHOULD NOT include the interface parameters as 
     they are ignored in the context of this message. 
        
     6. IPv6 Capability Advertisement 
         
     A 'Stack Capability' Interface Parameter sub-TLV is signaled by 
     the two PEs so that they can agree which network protocol(s) 
     they SHOULD be using. As discussed earlier, the use of Address-
     List TLV signifies the support for IPv4 stack, so the 'Stack 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 22] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     Capability' sub-TLV is used to indicate whether support for IPv6 
     stack is required on a given IP PW.  
      
     The 'Stack Capability' sub-TLV is part of the interface 
     parameters. The proposed format for the Stack Capability 
     Interface Parameter sub-TLV is as follows: 
      
      0                   1                   2                   3 
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     | Parameter ID  |     Length    |       Stack Capability        | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      
     Parameter ID = 0x16 
      
     Length = 4 
      
     The Stack Capability field is a bit field. Only one bit is 
     defined in this document. When bit zero (the least significant 
     bit with bitmask 0x0001) is set, it indicates IPv6 stack 
     capability. 
      
     The presence of stack capability TLV is relevant only when the 
     PW type is IP PW. A PE that supports the IPv6 on an IP PW MUST 
     signal the Stack Capability sub-TLV in the initial Label Mapping 
     message for the PW. The PE nodes compare the value advertised by 
     the remote PE with the local configuration and only use a 
     capability which is supported by both. 
      
     The behavior of a PE that does not understand an Interface 
     Parameter sub-TLV is specified in section 5.5 of RFC 4447 
     [RFC4447]. 
      
     In some deployment scenarios, it may be desirable to take a PW 
     operationally down if there is a mismatch of the Stack 
     Capability between the PEs. In other deployment scenarios, an     
     operator may wish the IP version supported by both PEs to fall-
     back to IPv4 if one of the PEs does not support IPv6. The 
     following procedures MUST be followed for each of these cases.    
             
             
     6.1. PW Operational Down on Stack Capability Mis-Match   
         
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 23] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     If a PE that supports IPv6 and has not yet sent a Label Mapping, 
     receives an initial Label Mapping message from the far end PE  
     that does not include the 'Stack Capability' sub-TLV, or one is 
     received but it is not set to 'IPv6 Stack Capability' value, 
     then the PE supporting this procedure MUST NOT send a Label 
     Mapping for this PW.  
             
     If a PE that supports IPv6 has already sent an initial Label 
     Mapping message for the PW and does not receive a 'Stack 
     Capability' sub-TLV in the Label Mapping message from the far-
     end PE, or one is received but it is not set to 'IPv6 Stack 
     Capability', the PE supporting this procedure MUST withdraw its 
     PW label with the LDP status code meaning "IP Address type 
     mismatch" (Status Code 0x0000004A). However, subsequently if the 
     configuration was to change at the far-end PE and a 'Stack 
     Capability' sub-TLV in the Label Mapping message is received 
     from the far-end PE, the local PE MUST re-advertise the Label 
     Mapping message for the PW.   
             
             
     6.2. Stack Capability Fall-back  
             
     If a PE that supports IPv6 and has not yet sent a Label Mapping,      
     receives an initial Label Mapping from the far end PE that does      
     not include the 'Stack Capability' sub-TLV, or one is received      
     but it is not set to the 'IPv6 Stack Capability' value, then it MAY 
     send a Label Mapping for this PW but MUST NOT include the Stack 
     Capability sub-TLV. 
      
     If a PE that supports IPv6 and has already sent a Label Mapping      
     for the PW with the 'Stack Capability' sub-TLV, but does not    
     receive a 'Stack Capability' sub-TLV from the far-end PE in the      
     initial Label Mapping message, or one is received but it is not set     
     to the 'IPv6 Stack Capability' value, the PE following this 
     procedure MUST send a Label Withdraw for its PW label with the LDP 
     status code meaning "Wrong IP Address type" (Status Code 0x000004B) 
     followed by a Label Mapping message that does not include the 
     'Stack Capability' sub-TLV.  
     If a Label Withdraw message with the "Wrong IP Address Type"      
     status code is received by a PE, it SHOULD treat this as a      
     normal Label Withdraw, but MUST NOT respond with a Label Release. 
     It MUST continue to wait for the next control message for the PW as 
     specified in section 6.2 of RFC 4447 [RFC4447].  
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 24] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
      
     7. IANA Considerations    
         
     7.1. LDP Status messages  
      
     This document uses new LDP status codes, IANA already maintains 
     a registry of name "STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by 
     [RFC5036]. The following values are suggested for assignment:  
         
        0x0000002C "IP Address of CE" 
        0x0000004A "IP Address Type Mismatch"  
        0x0000004B "Wrong IP Address Type" 
         
         
     7.2. Interface Parameters 
         
     This document proposes a new Interface Parameters sub-TLV, to be 
     assigned from the 'Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type 
     Registry'. The following value is suggested for the Parameter ID: 
      
        0x16   "Stack Capability" 
         
     IANA is also requested to set up a registry of "L2VPN PE stack 
     capabilities". This is a 16 bit field. Stack Capability bitmask 
     0x0001 is specified in Section 6 of this document. The remaining 
     bitfield values (0x0002,..,0x8000) are to be assigned by IANA using 
     the "IETF Review" policy defined in [RFC5226].  
      
     L2VPN PE Stack Capabilities: 
      
     Bit (Value)       Description 
     ===============   ========================================== 
     Bit 0  (0x0001) - IPv6 stack capability 
     Bit 1  (0x0002) - Reserved 
     Bit 2  (0x0004) - Reserved 
              . 
              . 
              . 
      
     Bit 14 (0x4000) - Reserved 
     Bit 15 (0x8000) - Reserved 
          
        
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 25] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     8. Security Considerations 
         
     The security aspect of this solution is addressed for two 
     planes; control plane and data plane.   
           
     8.1. Control Plane Security  
      
     Control plane security pertains to establishing the LDP 
     connection, and to pseudowire signaling and CE IP address 
     distribution over that LDP connection. For greater security the 
     LDP connection between two trusted PEs MUST be secured by each 
     PE verifying the incoming connection against the configured 
     address of the peer and authenticating the LDP messages using 
     MD5 authentication, as described in section 2.9 of [RFC5036]. 
     Pseudowire signaling between two secure LDP peers does not pose 
     a security issue but mis-wiring could occur due to configuration 
     error. However, the fact that the pseudowire will only be 
     established if the two PEs have matching configurations (e.g. PW 
     ID, PW type, and MTU) provides some protection against mis-
     wiring due to configuration errors.  
      
     Learning the IP address of the appropriate CE can be a security 
     issue. It is expected that the Attachment Circuit to the local 
     CE will be physically secured. If this is a concern, the PE MUST 
     be configured with IP and MAC address of the CE when connected 
     with Ethernet or IP and virtual circuit information (DLCI or 
     VPI/VCI) when connected over Frame Relay or ATM and IP address 
     only when connected over PPP. During ARP/inverse ARP frame 
     processing, the PE MUST verify the received information against 
     local configuration before forwarding the information to the 
     remote PE to protect against hijacking of the connection. 
      
     For IPv6, the preferred means of security is Secure Neighbor 
     Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971]. SEND provides a mechanism for 
     securing Neighbor Discovery packets over media (such as wireless 
     links) that may be insecure and open to packet interception and 
     substitution. SEND is based upon cryptographic signatures of 
     Neighbor Discovery packets. These signatures allow the receiving 
     node to detect packet modification and confirm that a received 
     packet originated from the claimed source node. SEND is 
     incompatible with the Neighbor Discovery packet modifications 
     described in this document. As such, SEND cannot be used for 
     Neighbor Discovery across an ARP Mediation pseudowire. PEs 
     taking part in IPv6 ARP Mediation MUST remove all SEND packet 
     options from Neighbor Discovery packets before forwarding into 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 26] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     the pseudowire. If the CE devices are configured to accept only 
     SEND Neighbor Discovery packets, this will lead to Neighbor 
     Discovery failing. Thus, the CE devices MUST be configured to 
     accept non-SEND packets, even if they treat them with lower 
     priority than SEND packets. Because SEND cannot be used in 
     combination with IPv6 ARP Mediation, it is suggested that IPv6 
     ARP Mediation is only used with secure Attachment Circuits.  
     An exception to this recommendation applies to an implementation 
     that supports the SEND Proxy [SPROXY] experimental draft which 
     allows a device such as PEs to act as an ND proxy as described 
     in [SPROXY].  
          
     8.2. Data plane security  
      
     The data traffic between CE and PE is not encrypted and it is 
     possible that in an insecure environment, a malicious user may 
     tap into the CE to PE connection and generate traffic using the 
     spoofed destination MAC address on the Ethernet Attachment 
     Circuit. In order to avoid such hijacking, the local PE may 
     verify the source MAC address of the received frame against the 
     MAC address of the admitted connection. The frame is forwarded 
     to the PW only when authenticity is verified. When spoofing is 
     detected, the PE MUST sever the connection with the local CE, 
     tear down the PW and start over.   
          
     9. Acknowledgements  
      
     The authors would like to thank Yetik Serbest, Prabhu Kavi, 
     Bruce Lasley, Mark Lewis, Carlos Pignataro and other folks who 
     participated in the discussions related to this document. 
      
     10. References  
         
     10.1. Normative References  
         
        [RFC826]   RFC 826, STD 37, D. Plummer, "An Ethernet Address 
                   Resolution protocol:  Or Converting Network 
                   Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Addresses 
                   for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware".  
         
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 27] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
        [RFC2390]  RFC 2390, T. Bradley et al., "Inverse Address 
                   Resolution Protocol".   
         
        [RFC4447]   L. Martini et al., "Pseudowire Setup and 
                       Maintenance using LDP", RFC 4447.  
         
        [RFC4446]  L. Martini et al,. "IANA Allocations for pseudo 
                   Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", RFC 4446.  
         
        [RFC2119]  S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate 
                   requirement levels", RFC 2119. 
         
        [RFC5036]  L.Anderseen et al., "LDP Specification", RFC 
                   5036. 
         
        [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W.Simpson, "Neighbor 
                   Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861.  
         
        [RFC3122]   Conta, A., "Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery 
                    for Inverse Discovery Specification", RFC 3122. 
         
        [RFC4862]   Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless 
                    Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862. 
         
        [RFC3971]   Arkko, J. et al., "Secure Neighbor Discovery 
                    (SEND)", RFC 3971. 
         
        [RFC5226]  Narten, T et al., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 
                    Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226. 
           
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 28] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     10.2. Informative References  
         
        [RFC4664]  L. Andersson et al., "Framework for L2VPN", RFC 
                   4664.     
         
        [RFC1332]  G. McGregor, "The PPP Internet Protocol Control 
                   Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 1332.    
         
        [RFC5072]   D. Haskin, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 5072. 
         
        [RFC925]   J.Postel,  "Multi-LAN Address Resolution", RFC 
                   925. 
         
        [RFC1256]  S.Deering, "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 
                   1256. 
         
        [RFC5309]  Shen and Zinin, "Point-to-point operation over 
                   LAN in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309. 
         
        [SPROXY]  S.Krishnan et al., "Secure Proxy ND support for 
                   SEND", draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-05.txt 
       
           
     11. Authors' Addresses 
      
     This document is the combined effort of many who have 
     contributed, carefully reviewed and provided the technical 
     clarifications for the document. 
          
           
     Himanshu Shah (editor) 
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 29] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     Ciena 
     Email: hshah@ciena.com  
           
     Eric Rosen (editor) 
     Cisco Systems  
     Email: erosen@cisco.com  
      
     Giles Heron  
     Cisco Systems (editor) 
     Email: giheron@cisco.com  
           
     Vach Kompella (editor) 
     Alcatel-Lucent 
     Email: vach.kompella@alcatel-lucent.com 
      
     Matthew Bocci 
     Alcatel-Lucent 
     Email: Mathew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com 
      
     Tiberiu Grigoriu         
     Alcatel-Lucent 
     Email: Tiberiu.Grigoriu@alcatel-lucent.com 
      
     Neil Hart 
     Alcatel-Lucent 
     Email: Neil.Hart@alcatel-lucent.com 
      
     Andrew Dolganow 
     Alcatel-Lucent 
     Email: Andrew.Dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com 
      
     Shane Amante 
     Level 3 
     Email: Shane@castlepoint.net 
           
     Toby Smith 
     Google 
     EMail: tob@google.com 
      
     Andrew G. Malis 
     Verizon 
     EMail: Andy.g.Malis@verizon.com   
           
     Steven Wright  
     Bell South Corp  
     Email: steven.wright@bellsouth.com 
      
     Waldemar Augustyn  
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 30] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     Consultant 
     Email: waldemar@wdmsys.com 
      
     Arun Vishwanathan 
     Juniper Networks 
     Email: arunvn@juniper.net 
      
     Ashwin Moranganti 
     IneoQuest Technologies 
     Email: Ashwin.Moranganti@Ineoquest.com 
      
      
         
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 31] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     APPENDIX A:  
      
     A.1. Use of IGPs with IP L2 Interworking L2VPNs   
      
     In an IP L2 interworking L2VPN, when an IGP on a CE connected to 
     a broadcast link is cross-connected with an IGP on a CE 
     connected to a point-to-point link, there are routing protocol 
     related issues that MUST be addressed. The link state routing 
     protocols are cognizant of the underlying link characteristics 
     and behave accordingly when establishing neighbor adjacencies, 
     representing the network topology, and passing protocol packets. 
     The point to point operations of the routing protocols over a 
     LAN is discussed in [RFC5309].  
         
     A.1.1. OSPF   
      
     The OSPF protocol treats a broadcast link type with a special 
     procedure that engages in neighbor discovery to elect a 
     designated and a backup designated router (DR and BDR 
     respectively) with which each other router on the link forms 
     adjacencies. However, these procedures are neither applicable 
     nor understood by OSPF running on a point-to-point link. By 
     cross-connecting two neighbors with disparate link types, an IP 
     L2 interworking L2VPN may experience connectivity issues.  
      
     Additionally, the link type specified in the router LSA will not 
     match for the two cross-connected routers. 
      
     Finally, each OSPF router generates network LSAs when connected 
     to a broadcast link such as Ethernet, receipt of which by an 
     OSPF router which believes itself to be connected to a point-to-
     point link further adds to the confusion.      
      
     Fortunately, the OSPF protocol provides a configuration option 
     (ospfIfType), whereby OSPF will treat the underlying physical 
     broadcast link as a point-to-point link.  
      
     It is strongly recommended that all OSPF protocols on CE devices 
     connected to Ethernet interfaces use this configuration option 
     when attached to a PE that is participating in an IP L2 
     Interworking VPN. The point-to-point operation of the routing 
     protocol over    
           
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 32] 
         

                  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt 
                                            
     A.1.2. RIP   
      
     RIP protocol broadcasts RIP advertisements every 30 seconds. If 
     the multicast/broadcast traffic snooping mechanism is used as 
     described in section 4.1, the attached PE can learn the local CE 
     router's IP address from the IP header of its advertisements. No 
     special configuration is required for RIP in this type of Layer 
     2 IP Interworking L2VPN. 
        
      
     A.1.3. IS-IS 
         
     The IS-IS protocol does not encapsulate its PDUs in IP, and 
     hence cannot be supported in IP L2 Interworking L2VPNs. 
        
      
      
                                      
                                      
      
      
      
     Shah et al               Expires July 2012            [Page 33]