Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-04
Networking Working Group Z. Liu
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: BCP L. Jin
Expires: August 12, 2014
R. Chen
ZTE Corporation
D. Cai
S. Salam
Cisco
February 8, 2014
Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-04
Abstract
In many existing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) deployments based
on RFC4762, inter-domain connectivity has been deployed without node
redundancy, or with node redundancy in a single domain. This
document describes a solution for inter-domain VPLS based on RFC4762
with node and link redundancy in both domains.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Liu, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Redundancy for VPLS Inter-domain February 2014
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Network Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. PW redundancy application procedure for inter-domain
redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. ICCP switchover condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1. Inter-domain PW failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. PE node isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.3. PE node failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Inter-domain redundancy with two-PWs . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Inter-domain redundancy with four-PWs . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Liu, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Redundancy for VPLS Inter-domain February 2014
1. Introduction
In many existing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) deployments based
on [RFC4762], inter-domain connectivity has been deployed without
node redundancy, or with node redundancy in a single domain. This
document describes a solution for inter-domain VPLS based on
[RFC4762] with node and link redundancy in both domains. The domain
in this document refers to autonomous system (AS), or other
administrative domains.
2. 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].
Show full document text