Skip to main content

Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5501.
Authors Yetik Serbest , Yuichiro Wada , Luyuan Fang , Thomas Morin , Yuji Kamite
Last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2009-01-14)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Informational
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 5501 (Informational)
Action Holders
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Mark Townsley
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                     Y. Kamite, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                        NTT Communications
Intended status: Informational                                   Y. Wada
Expires: July 19, 2009                                               NTT
                                                              Y. Serbest
                                                                T. Morin
                                                          France Telecom
                                                                 L. Fang
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            Jan 15, 2009

   Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.


   This document provides functional requirements for network solutions
   that support multicast over Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS).  It
   specifies requirements both from the end user and service provider
   standpoints.  It is intended that potential solutions will use these
   requirements as guidelines.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Scope of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Problem Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Multicast Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Application Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.3.1.  Two Perspectives of the Service  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Scope of Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.1.  Traffic Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.2.  Multicast Packet Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.3.  MAC Learning Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  Static Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Customer Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  CE-PE protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.1.1.  Layer-2 Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.1.2.  Layer-3 Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Multicast Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Quality of Service (QoS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  SLA Parameters Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.5.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.5.1.  Isolation from Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.5.2.  Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.5.3.  Policing and Shaping on Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.6.  Access Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.7.  Multi-Homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.8.  Protection and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.9.  Minimum MTU  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.10. Frame Reordering Prevention  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

     5.11. Fate-Sharing between Unicast and Multicast . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  Service Provider Network Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.1.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       6.1.1.  Trade-off of Optimality and State Resource . . . . . . 18
       6.1.2.  Key Metrics for Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.2.  Tunneling Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.2.1.  Tunneling Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.2.2.  MTU of MDTunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     6.3.  Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.4.  Discovering Related Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.5.  Operation, Administration and Maintenance  . . . . . . . . 21
       6.5.1.  Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.5.2.  Testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.5.3.  Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.5.4.  Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     6.6.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.6.1.  Security Threat Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.6.2.  Security Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     6.7.  Hierarchical VPLS support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     6.8.  L2VPN Wholesale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Background

   VPLS (Virtual Private LAN Service) is a provider service that
   emulates the full functionality of a traditional Local Area Network
   (LAN).  VPLS interconnects several customer LAN segments over a
   packet switched network (PSN) backbone, creating a multipoint-to-
   multipoint Ethernet VPN.  For customers, their remote LAN segments
   behave as one single LAN.

   In a VPLS, the provider network emulates a learning bridge, and
   forwarding takes place based on Ethernet MAC learning.  Hence, a VPLS
   requires MAC address learning/aging on a per PW (Pseudo Wire) basis,
   where forwarding decisions treat the PW as a "bridge port".

   VPLS is a Layer-2 service.  However, it provides two applications
   from the customer's point of view:

      - LAN Routing application: providing connectivity between customer
      - LAN Switching application: providing connectivity between
      customer Ethernet switches

   Thus, in some cases, customers across MAN/WAN have transparent
   Layer-2 connectivity while their main goal is to run Layer-3
   applications within their routing domain.  As a result, different
   requirements arise from their variety of applications.

   Originally, PEs (Provider Edges) in VPLS transport broadcast/
   multicast Ethernet frames by replicating all multicast/broadcast
   frames received from an AC to all PW's corresponding to a particular
   VSI.  Such a technique has the advantage of keeping the P (Provider
   Router) and PE devices completely unaware of IP multicast-specific
   issues.  Obviously, however, it has quite a few scalability drawbacks
   in terms of bandwidth consumption, which will lead to increased cost
   in large-scale deployment.

   Meanwhile, there is a growing need for support of multicast-based
   services such as IP TV.  This commercial trend makes it necessary for
   most VPLS deployments to support multicast more efficiently than
   before.  It is also necessary as customer routers are now likely to
   be running IP multicast protocols and those routers and connected to
   switches that will be handling large amounts of multicast traffic.

   Therefore, it is desirable to have more efficient techniques to
   support IP multicast over VPLS.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

1.2.  Scope of this document

   This document provides functional requirements for network solutions
   that support IP multicast in VPLS [RFC4761] [RFC4762].  It identifies
   requirements that MAY apply to the existing base VPLS architecture in
   order to optimize IP multicast.  It also complements the generic L2
   VPN requirements document [RFC4665], by specifying additional
   requirements specific to the deployment of IP multicast in VPLS.

   The technical specifications are outside the scope of this document.
   There is no intent to either specify solution-specific details in
   this document or application-specific requirements.  Also, this
   document does NOT aim to express multicast-inferred requirements that
   are not specific to VPLS.  It does NOT aim to express any
   requirements for native Ethernet specifications, either.

   This document is proposed as a solution guideline and a checklist of
   requirements for solutions, by which we will evaluate how each
   solution satisfies the requirements.

   This document clarifies the needs from both VPLS customer as well as
   provider standpoints and formulates the problems that should be
   addressed by technical solutions while staying solution agnostic.

   A technical solution and corresponding service which supports this
   document's requirements are hereinafter called a "multicast VPLS".

2.  Conventions used in this document

2.1.  Terminology

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology, reference
   models and taxonomy defined in [RFC4664] and [RFC4665].  For
   readability purposes, we repeat some of the terms here.

   Moreover, we also propose some other terms needed when IP multicast
   support in VPLS is discussed.

   - ASM:  Any Source Multicast.  One of the two multicast service
      models where each corresponding service can have an arbitrary
      number of senders.

   - G:  denotes a multicast group.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   - MDTunnel:  Multicast Distribution Tunnel, the means by which the
      customer's multicast traffic will be conveyed across the SP
      network.  This is meant in a generic way: such tunnels can be
      point-to-point, point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-multipoint.
      Although this definition may seem to assume that distribution
      tunnels are unidirectional, the wording encompasses bi-directional
      tunnels as well.

   - Multicast Channel:  In the multicast SSM (Source Specific
      Multicast) model [RFC4607], a "multicast channel" designates
      traffic from a specific source S to a multicast group G. Also
      denominated as "(S,G)".

   - Multicast domain:  An area in which multicast data is transmitted.
      In this document, this term has a generic meaning which can refer
      to Layer-2 and Layer-3.  Generally, the Layer-3 multicast domain
      is determined by the Layer-3 multicast protocol used to establish
      reachability between all potential receivers in the corresponding
      domain.  The Layer-2 multicast domain can be the same as the
      Layer-2 broadcast domain (i.e., VLAN), but it may be restricted to
      being smaller than the Layer-2 broadcast domain if an additional
      control protocol is used.

   - CE:  Customer Edge Device.

   - PE:  Provider Edge.

   - P:  Provider Router.

   - S:  denotes a multicast source.

   - SP:  Service Provider.

   - SSM:  Source Specific Multicast.  One of the two multicast service
      models where each corresponding service relies upon the use of a
      single source.

   - U-PE/N-PE:  The device closest to the customer/user is called User
      facing PE (U-PE) and the device closest to the core network is
      called Network facing PE (N-PE).

   - VPLS instance:  A service entity manageable in VPLS architecture.
      All CE devices participating in a single VPLS instance appear to
      be on the same LAN, composing a VPN across the SP's network.  A
      VPLS instance corresponds to a group of VSIs that are
      interconnected using PWs (Pseudo Wires).

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   - VSI:  Virtual Switching Instance.  VSI is a logical entity in a PE
      that maps multiple ACs (Attachment Circuits) to multiple PWs
      (Pseudo Wires).  The VSI is populated in much the same way as a
      standard bridge populates its forwarding table.  Each PE device
      may have multiple VSIs, where each VSI belongs to a different VPLS

2.2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .

3.  Problem Statements

3.1.  Motivation

   Today, many kinds of IP multicast services are becoming available.
   Over their Layer-2 VPN service, particularly over VPLS, customers
   would often like to operate their multicast applications to remote
   sites.  Also, VPN service providers using an IP-based networks expect
   that such Layer-2 network infrastructure will efficiently support
   multicast data traffic.

   However, VPLS has a shortcoming as it relates to multicast
   scalability as mentioned below because of the replication mechanisms
   intrinsic to the original architecture.  Accordingly, the primary
   goal for technical solutions is to solve this issue partially or
   completely, and provide efficient ways to support IP multicast
   services over VPLS.

3.2.  Multicast Scalability

   In VPLS, replication occurs at an ingress PE (in H-VPLS case, at
   N-PE) when a CE sends (1) Broadcast, (2) Multicast or (3) Unknown
   destination unicast.  There are two well known issues with this

   Issue A: Replication to non-member site

      In case (1) and (3), the upstream PE has to transmit packets to
      all of the downstream PEs which belong to the common VPLS
      instance.  You cannot decrease the number of members, so this is
      basically an inevitable situation for most VPLS deployments.

      In case (2), however, there is an issue that multicast traffic is
      sent to sites with no members.  Usually this is caused when the

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

      upstream PE does not maintain downstream membership information.
      The upstream PE simply floods frames to all downstream PEs, and
      the downstream PEs forward them to directly connected CEs;
      however, those CEs might not be the members of any multicast
      group.  From the perspective of customers, they might suffer from
      pressure on their own resources due to unnecessary traffic.  From
      the perspective of SPs, they would not like wasteful over-
      provisioning to cover such traffic.

   Issue B: Replication of PWs on shared physical path

      In VPLS, a VSI associated with each VPLS instance behaves as a
      logical emulated bridge which can transport Ethernet across the
      PSN backbone using PWs.  In principle, PWs are designed for
      unicast traffic.

      In all cases (1), (2) and (3), Ethernet frames are replicated on
      one or more PWs that belong to that VSI.  This replication is
      often inefficient in terms of bandwidth usage if those PWs are
      traversing shared physical links in the backbone.

      For instance, suppose there are 20 remote PEs belonging to a
      particular VPLS instance, and all PWs happen to be traversing over
      the same link from one local PE to its next-hop P. In this case,
      even if a CE sends 50Mbps to the local PE, the total bandwidth of
      that link will be to 1000Mbps.

      Note that while traditional 802.1D Ethernet switches replicate
      broadcast/multicast flows once at most per output interface, VPLS
      often needs to transmit one or more flows duplicated over the same
      output interface.

      From the perspective of customers, there is no serious issue
      because they do not know what happens in the core.  However, from
      the perspective of SPs, unnecessary replication brings the risk of
      resource exhaustion when the number of PWs increases.

   In both issues A and B, these undesirable situations will become
   obvious with the wide-spread use of IP multicast applications by
   customers.  Naturally the problem will become more serious as the
   number of sites grows.  In other words, there are concerns over the
   scalability of multicast in VPLS today.

3.3.  Application Considerations

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

3.3.1.  Two Perspectives of the Service

   When it comes to IP multicast over VPLS, there are two different
   aspects in terms of service provisioning.  They are closely related
   to the functional requirements from two technical standpoints:
   Layer-2 and Layer-3.

   - Native Ethernet service aspect

      This aspect mainly affects Ethernet network service operators.
      Their main interest is to solve the issue that existing VPLS
      deployments cannot always handle multicast/broadcast frames

      Today, wide-area Ethernet services are becoming popular, and VPLS
      can be utilized to provide wide-area LAN services.  As customers
      come to use various kinds of content distribution applications
      which use IP multicast (or other protocols which lead to
      multicast/broadcast in the Ethernet layer), the total amount of
      traffic will also grow.  In addition, considerations of OAM,
      security and other related points in multicast in view of Layer-2
      are important as well.

      In such circumstances, the native VPLS specification would not
      always be satisfactory if multicast traffic is more dominant in
      total resource utilization than before.  The scalability issues
      mentioned in the previous section are expected to be solved.

   - IP multicast service aspect

      This aspect mainly affects both IP service providers and end
      users.  Their main interest is to provide IP multicast services
      transparently but effectively by means of VPLS as a network

      SPs might expect VPLS as an access/metro network to deliver
      multicast traffic (such as Triple-play (Video, Voice, Data) and
      Multicast IP VPNs) in an efficient way.

4.  General Requirements

   We assume the basic requirements for VPLS written in [RFC4665] are
   fulfilled if there is no special reference in this document.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

4.1.  Scope of Transport

4.1.1.  Traffic Types  Multicast and Broadcast

   As described before, any solution is expected to have mechanisms for
   efficient transport of IP multicast.  Multicast is related to both
   issues A and B (see section 3.2.); however, broadcast is related to
   issue B only because it does not need membership control.

   -  A multicast VPLS solution SHOULD attempt to solve both issues (A)
      and (B), if possible.  However, since some applications prioritize
      solving one issue over the other, the solution MUST identify which
      issue (A or B) it is attempting to solve.  The solution SHOULD
      provide a basis for evaluating how well it solves the issue(s) it
      is targeting, if it is providing an approximate solution.  Unknown Destination Unicast

   Unknown destination MAC unicast requires flooding, but its
   characteristics are quite different from multicast/broadcast.  When
   the unicast MAC address is learned, the PE changes its forwarding
   behavior from flooding over all PWs into sending over one PW.
   Thereby it will require different technical studies from multicast/
   broadcast, which is out of scope of this document.

4.1.2.  Multicast Packet Types

   Ethernet multicast is used for conveying Layer-3 multicast data.
   When IP multicast is encapsulated by an Ethernet frame, the IP
   multicast group address is mapped to the Ethernet destination MAC
   address.  In IPv4, the mapping uses the lower 23 bits of the (32bit)
   IPv4 multicast address and places them as the lower 23 bits of a
   destination MAC address with the fixed header of 01-00-5E in hex.
   Since this mapping is ambiguous (i.e., there is a multiplicity of 1
   Ethernet address to 32 IPv4 addresses), MAC-based forwarding is not
   ideal for IP multicast because some hosts might possibly receive
   packets they are not interested in, which is inefficient in traffic
   delivery and has an impact on security.  On the other hand, if the
   solution tracks IP addresses rather than MAC addresses, this concern
   can be prevented.  The drawback of this approach is, however, that
   the network administration becomes slightly more complicated.

   Ethernet multicast is also used for Layer-2 control frames.  For
   example, BPDU (Bridge Protocol Data Unit) for IEEE 802.1D Spanning
   Tree uses a multicast destination MAC address (01-80-C2-00-00-00).
   Also some of IEEE 802.1ag [802.1ag] Connectivity Fault Management

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   (CFM) messages use a multicast destination MAC address dependent on
   their message type and application.  From the perspective of IP
   multicast, however, it is necessary in VPLS to flood such control
   frames to all participating CEs, without requiring any membership

   As for a multicast VPLS solution, it can only use Ethernet-related
   information, if you stand by the strict application of the basic
   requirement: "a L2VPN service SHOULD be agnostic to customer's Layer
   3 traffic [RFC4665]."  This means no Layer-3 information should be
   checked for transport.  However, it is obvious this is an impediment
   to solve Issue A.

   Consequently, a multicast VPLS can be allowed to make use of some
   Layer-3-related supplementary information in order to improve
   transport efficiency.  In fact, today's LAN switch implementations
   often support such approaches and snoop upper layer protocols and
   examine IP multicast memberships (e.g., PIM snooping and IGMP/MLD
   snooping [RFC4541]).  This will implicitly suggest that VPLS may
   adopt similar techniques although this document does NOT state
   Layer-3 snooping is mandatory.  If such an approach is taken, careful
   consideration of Layer-3 state maintenance is necessary.  In
   addition, note that snooping approaches sometimes have disadvantages
   in the system's transparency; that is, one particular protocol's
   snooping solution might hinder other (especially future) protocol's
   working (e.g., an IGMPv2-snooping switch vs. a new IGMPv3-snooping
   one).  Also, note that there are potential alternatives to snooping:
   -  Static configuration of multicast Ethernet addresses and ports/
   -  Multicast control protocol based on Layer-2 technology which
      signals mappings of multicast addresses to ports/interfaces, such
      as GARP/GMRP[802.1D], CGMP[CGMP] and RGMP[RFC3488].

   On the basis described above, general requirements about packet types
   are given as follows:

   -  A solution SHOULD support a way to facilitate IP multicast
      forwarding of the customers.  It MAY observe Layer-3 information
      (i.e., multicast routing protocols and state) to the degree
      necessary, but any information irrelevant to multicast transport
      SHOULD NOT be consulted.

   -  In a solution, Layer-2 control frames (e.g., BPDU, 802.1ag CFM)
      SHOULD be flooded to all PE/CEs in a common VPLS instance.  A
      solution SHOULD NOT change or limit the flooding scope to remote
      PE/CEs in terms of end-point reachability.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   -  In a solution, Layer-2 frames that encapsulate Layer-3 multicast
      control packets (e.g., PIM, IGMP(for IPv4), MLD(for IPv6)) MAY be
      flooded only to relevant members, with the goal of limiting
      flooding scope.  However, Layer-2 frames that encapsulate other
      Layer-3 control packets (e.g., OSPF, ISIS) SHOULD be flooded to
      all PE/CEs in a VPLS instance.

4.1.3.  MAC Learning Consideration

   In a common VPLS architecture, MAC learning is carried out by PEs
   based on the incoming frame's source MAC address, independently of
   the destination MAC address (i.e., regardless of whether it is
   unicast, multicast or broadcast).  This is the case with multicast
   VPLS solution's environment too.  In this document, the improvement
   of MAC learning scalability is beyond the scope.  It will be covered
   in the future work.

4.2.  Static Solutions

   A solution SHOULD allow static configuration to account for various
   operator policies, where the logical multicast topology does not
   change dynamically in conjunction with a customer's multicast

4.3.  Backward Compatibility

   A solution SHOULD be backward compatible with the existing VPLS
   solution.  It SHOULD allow a case where a common VPLS instance is
   composed of both PEs supporting the solution and PEs not supporting
   it, and the multicast optimization (both forwarding and receiving) is
   achieved between the compliant PEs.

   Note again that the existing VPLS solutions already have a simple
   flooding capability.  Thus this backward compatibility will give
   customers and SPs the improved efficiency of multicast forwarding
   incrementally as the solution is deployed.

5.  Customer Requirements

5.1.  CE-PE protocol

5.1.1.  Layer-2 Aspect

   A solution SHOULD allow transparent operation of Ethernet control
   protocols employed by customers (e.g.  Spanning Tree Protocol
   [802.1D]) and their seamless operation with multicast data transport.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   Solutions MAY examine Ethernet multicast control frames for the
   purpose of efficient dynamic transport (e.g.  GARP/GMRP [802.1D]).
   However, solutions MUST NOT assume all CEs are always running such
   protocols (typically in the case where a CE is a router and is not
   aware of Layer-2 details).

   A whole Layer-2 multicast frame (whether for data or control) SHOULD
   NOT be altered from a CE to CE(s) EXCEPT for the VLAN Id field,
   ensuring that it is transparently transported.  If VLAN Ids are
   assigned by the SP, they can be altered.  Note, however, when VLAN
   Ids are changed, Layer-2 protocols may be broken in some cases, such
   as Multiple Spanning Tree [802.1s].  Also if the Layer-2 frame is
   encapsulating Layer-3 multicast control packet (e.g., PIM/IGMP) and
   customers allow it to be regenerated at PE (aka proxy: see section
   5.1.2.), then the MAC address for that frame MAY be altered to the
   minimum necessary (e.g., use PE's own MAC address as a source).

5.1.2.  Layer-3 Aspect

   Again, a solution MAY examine customer's Layer-3 multicast protocol
   packets for the purpose of efficient and dynamic transport.  If it
   does, supported protocols SHOULD include:

   o  PIM-SM [RFC4601], PIM-SSM [RFC4607], bidirectional PIM [RFC5015]
      and PIM-DM [RFC3973]
   o  IGMP (v1[RFC1112], v2[RFC2236] and v3[RFC3376]) (for IPv4
   o  Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD) (v1[RFC2710] and
      v2[RFC3810]) (for IPv6 solutions).

   A solution MUST NOT require any special Layer-3 multicast protocol
   packet processing by the end users.  However, it MAY require some
   configuration changes (e.g., turning explicit tracking on/off in

   A whole Layer-3 multicast packet (whether for data or control), which
   is encapsulated inside a Layer-2 frame, SHOULD NOT be altered from a
   CE to CE(s), ensuring that it is transparently transported.  However,
   as for Layer-3 multicast control (like PIM Join/Prune/Hello and IGMP
   Query/Report packet), it MAY be altered to the minimum necessary if
   such partial non-transparency is acceptable from point of view of the
   multicast service.  Similarly, a PE MAY consume such Layer-3
   multicast control packets and regenerate an entirely new packet if
   partial non-transparency is acceptable with legitimate reason for
   customers (aka proxy).

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

5.2.  Multicast Domain

   As noted in Section 2.1., the term "multicast domain" is used in a
   generic context for Layer-2 and Layer-3.

   A solution SHOULD NOT alter customer multicast domains' boundaries.
   It MUST ensure that the provided Ethernet multicast domain always
   encompasses the corresponding customer Layer-3 multicast domain.

   A solution SHOULD optimize those domains' coverage sizes, i.e., a
   solution SHOULD ensure that unnecessary traffic is not sent to CEs
   with no members.  Ideally, the provided domain size will be close to
   that of the customer's Layer-3 multicast membership distribution;
   however, it is OPTIONAL to achieve such absolute optimality from the
   perspective of Layer-3.

   If a customer uses VLANs and a VLAN Id as a service delimiter (i.e.,
   each VPLS instance is represented by a unique customer VLAN tag
   carried by a frame through the UNI port), a solution MUST support
   separate multicast domains per VLAN Id.  Note that if VLAN Id
   translation is provided (i.e., if a customer VLAN at one site is
   mapped into a different customer VLAN at a different site), multicast
   domains will be created per set of VLAN Ids which are associated with

   If a customer uses VLANs but a VLAN Id is not a service delimiter
   (i.e., the VPN disregards customer VLAN Ids), a solution MAY provide
   separate multicast domains per VLAN Id.  A SP is not required to
   provide separate multicast domains per VLAN IDs, but it may be
   considered beneficial to do so.

   A solution MAY build multicast domains based on Ethernet MAC
   addresses.  It MAY also build multicast domains based on the IP
   addresses inside Ethernet frames.  That is, PEs in each VPLS instance
   might control forwarding behavior and provide different multicast
   frame reachability depending on each MAC/IP destination address
   separately.  If IP multicast channels are fully considered in a
   solution, the provided domain size will be closer to actual channel

5.3.  Quality of Service (QoS)

   Customers require that multicast quality of service MUST be at least
   on par with what exists for unicast traffic.  Moreover, as multicast
   is often used to deliver high quality services such as TV broadcast,
   delay/jitter/loss sensitive traffic MUST be supported over multicast

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   To accomplish this, the solution MAY have additional features to
   support high QoS such as bandwidth reservation and flow admission
   control.  Also multicast VPLS deployment SHALL benefit from IEEE
   802.1p CoS techniques [802.1D] and DiffServ [RFC2475] mechanisms.

   Moreover, multicast traffic SHOULD NOT affect the QoS that unicast
   traffic receives and vice versa.  That is, separation of multicast
   and unicast traffic in terms of QoS is necessary.

5.4.  SLA Parameters Measurement

   Since SLA parameters are part of the service sold to customers, they
   simply want to verify their application performance by measuring the
   parameters SP(s) provide.

   Multicast specific characteristics that may be monitored are, for
   instance, multicast statistics per stream (e.g. total/incoming/
   outgoing/dropped traffic by period of time), one-way delay, jitter
   and group join/leave delay (time to start receiving traffic from a
   multicast group across the VPN since join/leave was issued).  An
   operator may also wish to compare the difference in one-way delay for
   a solitary multicast group/stream from a single, source PE to
   multiple receiver PEs.

   A solution SHOULD provide these parameters with Ethernet multicast
   group level granularity.  (For example, multicast MAC address will be
   one of those entries for classifying flows with statistics, delay and
   so on.)  However, if a solution is aimed at IP multicast transport
   efficiency, it MAY support IP multicast level granularity.  (For
   example, multicast IP address/channel will be entries for latency

   In order to monitor them, standard interfaces for statistics
   gathering SHOULD also be provided (e.g., standard SNMP MIB Modules).

5.5.  Security

   A solution MUST provide customers with architectures that give the
   same level of security both for unicast and multicast.

5.5.1.  Isolation from Unicast

   Solutions SHOULD NOT affect any forwarding information base,
   throughput or resiliency etc. of unicast frames; that is, they SHOULD
   provide isolation from unicast.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

5.5.2.  Access Control

   A solution MAY filter multicast traffic inside a VPLS, upon the
   request of an individual customer, (for example, MAC/VLAN filtering,
   IP multicast channel filtering, etc.).

5.5.3.  Policing and Shaping on Multicast

   A solution SHOULD support policing and shaping multicast traffic on a
   per customer basis and on a per AC (Attachment Circuit) basis.  This
   is intended to prevent multicast traffic from exhausting resources
   for unicast inside a common customer's VPN.  This might also be
   beneficial for QoS separation (see section 5.3).

5.6.  Access Connectivity

   First and foremost various physical connectivity types described in
   [RFC4665] MUST be supported.

5.7.  Multi-Homing

   A multicast VPLS MUST allow a situation in which a CE is dual-homed
   to two different SPs via diverse access networks -- one is supporting
   multicast VPLS but the other is not supporting it, (because it is an
   existing VPLS or 802.1Q/QinQ network).

5.8.  Protection and Restoration

   A multicast VPLS infrastructure SHOULD allow redundant paths to
   assure high availability.

   Multicast forwarding restoration time MUST NOT be greater than the
   time it takes a customer's Layer-3 multicast protocols to detect a
   failure in the VPLS infrastructure.  For example, if a customer uses
   PIM with default configuration, hello hold timer is 105 seconds, and
   solutions are required to restore a failure no later than this
   period.  To achieve this, a solution might need to support providing
   alternative multicast paths.

   Moreover, if multicast forwarding was not successfully restored
   (e.g., in case of no redundant paths), a solution MAY raise alarms to
   provide outage notification to customers before such a hold timer

5.9.  Minimum MTU

   Multicast applications are often sensitive to packet fragmentation
   and reassembly, so the requirement to avoid fragmentation might be

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   stronger than the existing VPLS solution.

   A solution SHOULD provide customers with enough committed minimum MTU
   (i.e., service MTU) for multicast Ethernet frames to ensure that IP
   fragmentation between customer sites never occurs.  It MAY give
   different MTU sizes to multicast and unicast.

5.10.  Frame Reordering Prevention

   A solution SHOULD attempt to prevent frame reordering when delivering
   customer multicast traffic.  Likewise, for unicast and unknown
   unicast traffic, it SHOULD attempt not to increase the likelihood of
   reordering compared with existing VPLS solutions.

   It is to be noted that delivery of out-of-order frames is not
   avoidable in certain cases.  Specifically if a solution adopts some
   MDTunnels (see section 6.2.1) and dynamically selects them for
   optimized delivery (e.g., switching from one aggregate tree to
   another), end-to-end data delivery is prone to be out-of-order.  This
   fact can be considered a trade-off between bandwidth optimization and
   network stability.  Therefore, such a solution is expected to promote
   awareness about this kind of drawback.

5.11.  Fate-Sharing between Unicast and Multicast

   In native Ethernet, multicast and unicast connectivity are often
   managed together.  For instance, 802.1ag CFM Continuity Check message
   is forwarded by multicast as a periodic heartbeat, but it is supposed
   to check the "whole" traffic continuity regardless of unicast or
   multicast, at the same time.  Hence, the aliveness of unicast and
   multicast is naturally coupled (i.e., fate-shared) in this customer's

   A multicast VPLS solution may decouple the path that a customer's
   unicast and multicast traffic follow through a SP's backbone, in
   order to provide the most optimal path for multicast data traffic.
   This may cause concern among some multicast VPLS customers who desire
   that, during a failure in the SP's network, both unicast and
   multicast traffic fail concurrently.

   Therefore, there will be an additional requirement that makes both
   unicast and multicast connectivity coupled.  This means that if
   either one of them have a failure, the other is also disabled.  If
   one of the services (either unicast or multicast) becomes
   operational, the other is also activated simultaneously.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   -  It SHOULD be identified if the solution can provide customers with
      fate-sharing between unicast and multicast connectivity for their
      LAN switching application.  It MAY have a configurable mechanism
      for SPs to provide that on behalf of customers, e.g., aliveness
      synchronization, but its use is OPTIONAL.

   This policy will benefit customers.  Some customers would like to
   detect failure soon at CE side and restore full connectivity by
   switching over to their backup line, rather than to keep poor half
   connectivity (i.e., either unicast or multicast being in fail).  Even
   if either unicast or multicast is kept alive, it is just
   disadvantageous to the customer's application protocols which need
   both traffic.  Fate-sharing policy contributes to preventing such a
   complicated situation.

   Note that how serious this issue is depends on each customer's stance
   in Ethernet operation.  If all CEs are IP routers i.e., if VPLS is
   provided for LAN routing application, the customer might not care
   about it because both unicast and multicast connectivity is assured
   in IP layer.  If the CE routers are running an IGP (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS)
   and a multicast routing protocol (e.g., PIM), then aliveness of both
   the unicast and multicast paths will be detected by the CEs.  This
   does not guarantee that unicast and multicast traffic are to follow
   the same path in the SP's backbone network, but does mitigate this
   issue to some degree.

6.  Service Provider Network Requirements

6.1.  Scalability

   The existing VPLS architecture has major advantages in scalability.
   For example, P-routers are free from maintaining customers'
   information because customer traffic is encapsulated in PSN tunnels.
   Also a PW's split-horizon technique can prevent loops, making PE
   routers free from maintaining complicated spanning trees.

   However, a multicast VPLS needs additional scalability considerations
   related to its expected enhanced mechanisms.  [RFC3809] lists common
   L2VPN sizing and scalability requirements and metrics, which are
   applicable in multicast VPLS too.  Accordingly, this section deals
   with specific requirements related to scalability.

6.1.1.  Trade-off of Optimality and State Resource

   A solution needs to improve the scalability of multicast as is shown
   in section 3:

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

      Issue A: Replication to non-member site.
      Issue B: Replication of PWs on shared physical path.

   For both issues, the optimization of physical resources (i.e. link
   bandwidth usage and router duplication performance) will become a
   major goal.  However, there is a trade-off between optimality and
   state resource consumption.

   In order to solve Issue A, a PE might have to maintain multicast
   group information for CEs which was not kept in the existing VPLS
   solutions.  This will present scalability concerns about state
   resources (memory, CPU, etc.) and their maintenance complexity.

   In order to solve Issue B, PE and P routers might have to have
   knowledge of additional membership information for remote PEs, and
   possibly additional tree topology information, when they are using
   point-to-multipoint techniques (PIM tree, P2MP-LSP, etc.).

   Consequently, the scalability evaluation of multicast VPLS solutions
   needs a careful trade-off analysis between bandwidth optimality and
   state resource consumption.

6.1.2.  Key Metrics for Scalability

      (Note: This part has a number of similar characteristics to
      requirements for Layer 3 Multicast VPN [RFC4834].)

   A multicast VPLS solution MUST be designed to scale well with an
   increase in the number of any of the following metrics:

   -  the number of PEs
   -  the number of VPLS instances (total and per PE)
   -  the number of PEs and sites in any VPLS instance
   -  the number of client VLAN Ids
   -  the number of client Layer-2 MAC multicast groups
   -  the number of client Layer-3 multicast channels (groups or source-
   -  the number of PWs and PSN Tunnels (MDTunnels) (total and per PE)

   Each multicast VPLS solution SHALL document its scalability
   characteristics in quantitative terms.  A solution SHOULD quantify
   the amount of state that a PE and a P device has to support.

   The scalability characteristics SHOULD include:

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   -  the processing resources required by the control plane in managing
      PWs (neighborhood or session maintenance messages, keepalives,
      timers, etc.)
   -  the processing resources required by the control plane in managing
      PSN tunnels
   -  the memory resources needed for the control plane
   -  the amount of protocol information transmitted to manage a
      multicast VPLS (e.g. signaling throughput)
   -  the amount of Layer-2/Layer-3 multicast information a P/PE router
      consumes (e.g. traffic rate of join/leave, keepalives etc.)
   -  the number of multicast IP addresses used (if IP multicast in ASM
      mode is proposed as a multicast distribution tunnel)
   -  other particular elements inherent to each solution that impact

   Another metric for scalability is operational complexity.  Operations
   will naturally become more complicated if the number of managed
   objects (e.g., multicast groups) increases, or the topology changes
   occur more frequently.  A solution SHOULD note the factors which lead
   to additional operational complexity.

6.2.  Tunneling Requirements

6.2.1.  Tunneling Technologies

   A MDTunnel denotes a multicast distribution tunnel.  This is a
   generic term for tunneling where customer multicast traffic is
   carried over a provider's network.  In the L2VPN service context, it
   will correspond to a PSN tunnel.

   A solution SHOULD be able to use a range of tunneling technologies,
   including point-to-point (unicast oriented) and point-to-multipoint/
   multipoint-to-multipoint (multicast oriented).  For example, today
   there are many kinds of protocols for tunneling such as L2TP, IP,
   (including multicast IP trees), MPLS (including P2MP-LSP [RFC4875]
   and P2MP/MP2MP-LSP [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp] ), etc.

   Note that which variant, point-to-point, point-to-multipoint or
   multipoint-to-multipoint, is used depends largely on the trade-offs
   mentioned above and the targeted network and applications.
   Therefore, this document does not mandate any specific protocols.  A
   solution, however, SHOULD state reasonable criteria if it adopts a
   specific kind of tunneling protocol.

6.2.2.  MTU of MDTunnel

   From the view of a SP, it is not acceptable to have fragmentation/
   reassembly so often while packets are traversing a MDTunnel.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   Therefore, a solution SHOULD support a method that provides the
   minimum path MTU of the MDTunnel in order to accommodate the service

6.3.  Robustness

   Multicast VPLS solutions SHOULD avoid single points of failures or
   propose technical solutions that make it possible to implement a
   failover mechanism.

6.4.  Discovering Related Information

   The operation of a multicast VPLS solution SHALL be as light as
   possible and providing automatic configuration and discovery SHOULD
   be considered a high priority.

   Therefore, in addition to the L2VPN discovery requirements in
   [RFC4665], a multicast VPLS solution SHOULD provide a method that
   dynamically allows multicast membership information to be discovered
   by PEs if the solution supports (A), as defined in section 3.2.  This
   means, a PE needs to discover multicast membership (e.g., join group
   addresses) that is controlled dynamically from the sites connected to
   that PE.  In addition, a PE needs to discover such information
   automatically from other remote PEs as well in order to limit
   flooding scope across the backbone.

6.5.  Operation, Administration and Maintenance

6.5.1.  Activation

   The activation of multicast enhancement in a solution MUST be

   o  with a VPLS instance granularity
   o  with an Attachment Circuit granularity (i.e., with a PE-CE
      Ethernet port granularity, or with a VLAN Id granularity when it
      is a service delimiter)

   Also it SHOULD be possible:

   o  with a CE granularity (when multiple CEs of a same VPN are
      associated with a common VPLS instance)
   o  with a distinction between multicast reception and emission
   o  with a multicast MAC address granularity
   o  with a customer IP multicast group and/or channel granularity
      (when Layer-3 information is consulted)

   Also it MAY be possible:

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   o  with a VLAN Id granularity when it is not a service delimiter

6.5.2.  Testing

   A solution MUST provide a mechanism for testing multicast data
   connectivity and verifying the associated information.  Examples that
   SHOULD be supported which are specific to multicast are:

   -  Testing connectivity per multicast MAC address
   -  Testing connectivity per multicast Layer-3 group/channel
   -  Verifying data plane and control plane integrity (e.g.  PW,
   -  Verifying multicast membership-relevant information (e.g.
      multicast MAC-addresses/PW-ports associations, Layer-3 group

   Operators usually want to test if an end-to-end multicast user's
   connectivity is OK before and after activation.  Such end-to-end
   multicast connectivity checking SHOULD enable the end-to-end testing
   of the data path used by that customer's multicast data packets.
   Specifically, end-to-end checking will have CE-to-CE path test and
   PE-to-PE path test.  A solution MUST support PE-to-PE path test and
   MAY support CE-to-CE path test.

   Also operators will want to make use of a testing mechanism for
   diagnosis and troubleshooting.  In particular, a solution SHOULD be
   able to monitor information describing how client multicast traffic
   is carried over the SP network.  Note that if a solution supports
   frequent dynamic membership changes with optimized transport,
   troubleshooting within the SP's network will tend to be difficult.

6.5.3.  Performance Management

   Mechanisms to monitor multicast specific parameters and statistics
   MUST be offered to the SP.

      (Note: This part has a number of similar characteristics to
      requirements for Layer 3 Multicast VPN [RFC4834].)

   A solution MUST provide SPs with access to:

   -  Multicast traffic statistics (total traffic forwarded, incoming,
      outgoing, dropped, etc., by period of time)

   A solution SHOULD provide access to:

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   -  Information about a customer's multicast resource usage (the
      amount of multicast state and throughput)
   -  Performance information related to multicast traffic usage, e.g.,
      one-way delay, jitter, loss, delay variations (the difference in
      one-way delay for a solitary multicast group/stream from a single,
      source PE to multiple receiver PEs) etc.
   -  Alarms when limits are reached on such resources
   -  Statistics on decisions related to how client traffic is carried
      on MDTunnels (e.g.  "How much traffic was switched onto a
      multicast tree dedicated to such groups or channels")
   -  Statistics on parameters that could help the provider to evaluate
      its optimality/state trade-off

   All or part of this information SHOULD be made available through
   standardized SNMP MIB Modules (Management Information Base).

6.5.4.  Fault Management

   A multicast VPLS solution needs to consider those management steps
   taken by SPs below:

   o  Fault detection
         A solution MUST provide tools that detect group membership/
         reachability failure and traffic looping for multicast
         transport.  It is anticipated that such tools are coordinated
         with the testing mechanisms mentioned in 6.5.2.

         In particular, such mechanisms SHOULD be able to detect a
         multicast failure quickly, (on par with unicast cases).  It
         SHOULD also avoid situations where multicast traffic has been
         in a failure state for a relatively long time while unicast
         traffic remains operational.  If such a situation were to
         occur, it would end up causing problems with customer
         applications that depend on a combination of unicast and
         multicast forwarding.

         With multicast, there may be many receivers associated with a
         particular mulitcast stream/group.  As the number of receivers
         increases, the number of places (typically nearest the
         receivers) required to detect a fault will increase
         proportionately.  This raises concerns over the scalability of
         fault detection in large multicast deployments.  Consequently,
         a fault detection solution SHOULD scale well; in particular, a
         solution should consider key metrics for scalability as
         described in section 6.1.2.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   o  Fault notification
         A solution MUST also provide fault notification and trouble
         tracking mechanisms. (e.g.  SNMP-trap and syslog.)

         In case of multicast, one point of failure often affects a
         number of downstream routers/receivers that might be able to
         raise a notification.  Hence notification messages MAY be
         summarized or compressed for operators' ease of management.

   o  Fault isolation
         A solution MUST provide diagnostic/troubleshooting tools for
         multicast as well.  Also it is anticipated that such tools are
         coordinated with the testing mechanisms mentioned in 6.5.2.

         In particular, a solution needs to correctly identify the area
         inside a multicast group impacted by the failure.  A solution
         SHOULD be able to diagnose if an entire multicast group is
         faulty or if some specific destinations are still alive.

6.6.  Security

6.6.1.  Security Threat Analysis

   In multicast VPLS, there is a concern that one or more customer nodes
   (presumably untrusted) might cause multicast-related attacks to the
   SP network.  There is a danger that it might compromise some
   components which belong to the whole system.

   This subsection states possible security threats relevant to the
   system and which are protected against and which are not.

   General security consideration about a base VPLS (as part of L2VPNs)
   is referred to [RFC4665].  Following is the threat analysis list
   which is inherent to multicast VPLS.

   (a)  Attack by huge amount of multicast control packets.
      There is a threat that a CE joins too many multicast groups and
      causes Denial of Service (DoS).  This is caused by sending a large
      number of packets join/prune messages in short time and/or putting
      a large variety of group addresses in join/prune messages.  This
      attack will waste PE's control resources (e.g., CPU, memory) which
      examine customer control messages (for solving issue A in section
      3.2.) and it will not continue expected services for other trusted

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   (b)  Attack by invalid/malformed multicast control packets.
      There is a threat that a CE sends invalid or malformed control
      packets that might corrupt PE, which will cause DoS attack.  In
      particular, a CE might be spoofing legitimate source/group IP
      multicast addresses in such control packets (in PIM, IGMP etc.)
      and source/destination MAC addresses as Layer-2 frame.

   (c)  Attack by rapid state change of multicast.
      If a malicious CE changes multicast state by sending control
      packets in an extremely short period, this might affect PE's
      control resources (e.g., CPU, memory) to follow such state
      changes.  Besides, it might also affect PE/P's control resources
      if MDTunnel inside the core is dynamically created in conjunction
      with customer's multicast group.

   (d)  Attack by high volume of multicast/broadcast data traffic.
      A malicious CE might send very high volume of multicast and/or
      broadcast data to a PE.  If that PE does not provide any
      safeguards, it will cause excessive replication in SP network and
      the bandwidth resources for other trusted customers might be

   (e)  Attack by high volume of unknown destination unicast data
      A malicious CE can send a high volume of unknown unicast to a PE.
      Generally according to VPLS architecture, that PE must flood such
      unknown traffic to all correspond PEs in the same VPN.  A variety
      of unknown destinations and huge amount of such frames might cause
      excess traffic in SP network unless there is an appropriate
      safeguard provided.

6.6.2.  Security Requirements

   Based on the analysis in the previous subsection, the security
   requirements from the SP's perspective are shown as follows.

   A SP network MUST be invulnerable to malformed or maliciously
   constructed customer traffic.  This applies to both multicast data
   packets and multicast control packets.

   Moreover, because multicast, broadcast, and unknown-unicast need more
   resources than unicast, a SP network MUST have safeguards against
   unwanted or malicious multicast traffic.  This applies to both
   multicast data packets and multicast control packets.

   Specifically, a multicast VPLS solution SHOULD have mechanisms to
   protect a SP network from:

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   (1)  invalid multicast MAC addresses
   (2)  invalid multicast IP addresses
   (3)  malformed Ethernet multicast control protocol frames
   (4)  malformed IP multicast control protocol packets
   (5)  high volumes of
      *  valid/invalid customer control packets
      *  valid/invalid customer data packets (broadcast/multicast/

   Depending each solution's actual approach to tackle with issue A and
   B or both (see section 3.2.), there are relationships to be
   highlighted about each item's importance listed above.  First off,
   protection against (3) and (4) becomes significantly important if a
   solution supports solving issue A, and PEs are processing customer's
   Ethernet/IP multicast control messages from CE.  Moreover protection
   against (2) should also be much focused because PIM/IGMP snooping
   will usually require that PE's data forwarding be based on IP
   addresses.  By contrast, however, if a solution is solving only issue
   B, not A, then PEs might never process customer's multicast control
   messages at all, and they do not perform IP address-based forwarding,
   but does native Ethernet forwarding.  If so, there is relatively less
   danger about (2)(3)(4) compared to the first case.

   The following are a few additional guidelines in detail.

      For protecting against threat (a), a solution SHOULD support to
      impose some bounds on the quantity of state used by a VPN to be
      imposed in order to prevent state resource exhaustion (i.e., lack
      of memory, CPU etc.).  In this case, the bounds MUST be
      configurable per VPN basis, not total of various VPNs so that SP
      can isolate the resorce waste that is caused by any malicious

      For protecting against threat (d) and (e), a solution SHOULD
      support to perform traffic policing to limit the unwanted data
      traffic shown above.  In this case, while policing MAY be
      configurable to the sum of unicast, multicast, broadcast and
      unknown unicast traffic, it SHOULD also be configurable to each
      such type of traffic individually in order to prevent physical
      resource exhaustion (i.e., lack of bandwidth and degradation of
      throughput).  If the policing limit is configured on total traffic
      only, there will be a concern that one customer's huge multicast
      might close other irrelevant unicast traffic.  If it can be
      configured individually, this concern will be avoided.  Moreover,
      such a policing mechanism MUST be configurable per VPN basis, not
      total of various VPNs to isolate malicious customer's traffic from

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

      For protecting against threat (c), a solution SHOULD be able to
      limit frequent changes of group membership by customers.  For
      example, PEs might support a dampening mechanism that throttles
      their multicast state changes if the customers are changing too
      excessively.  Also if MDTunnel is provided being tightly coupled
      to dynamic changes of customer's multicast domain, it is also
      effective to delay building the tunnel when customer's state is
      changed frequently.

      Protecting against threat (b) might not be an easy task.
      Generally, checking the legitimacy of customer's IP multicast
      control packets will eventually require the authentication between
      PE and CE in Layer-3; however, L2VPN (including VPLS) by its
      nature does not usually assume Layer-3-based security mechanism
      supported at PE-CE level.
      The ramification of this fact is that there remains possibility
      that a PE's control plain might be badly affected by corrupted
      multicast control packets that the PE is examining.  Hence each PE
      implementation will need to make an effort to minimize this impact
      from malicious customers and isolate it from other trusted
      customers as much as possible.
      Nevertheless, it is possible to mitigate this threat to some
      degree.  For example, a PE MAY support a filter mechanism about
      MAC and IP addresses in Layer-2/Layer-3 header and a filter
      mechanism about source/group addresses in the multicast join/prune
      messages.  This will help a PE to validate customers' control
      messages, to a certain extent.

6.7.  Hierarchical VPLS support

   A VPLS multicast solution SHOULD allow a hierarchical VPLS (H-VPLS)
   [RFC4762] service model.  In other words, a solution is expected to
   operate seamlessly with existing hub and spoke PW connectivity.

   Note that it is also important to take into account the case of
   redundant spoke connections between U-PEs and N-PEs.

6.8.  L2VPN Wholesale

   A solution MUST allow a situation where one SP is offering L2VPN
   services to another SP.  One example here is a wholesale model where
   one VPLS interconnects other SPs' VPLS or 802.1D network islands.
   For customer SP, their multicast forwarding can be optimized by
   making use of multicast VPLS in the wholesaler SP.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 27]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

7.  Security Considerations

   Security concerns and requirements for a base VPLS solution are
   described in [RFC4665].

   In addition, there are security considerations specific to multicast
   VPLS.  Thus a set of security issues have been identified that MUST
   be addressed when considering the design and deployment of multicast
   VPLS.  Such issues have been described in Section 5.5 and 6.6.

   In particular, security requirements from the view of customers are
   shown in Section 5.5.  Security requirements from the view of
   providers are shown in Section 6.6.  Section 6.6.1 conducts security
   threat analysis about the provider's whole system.  Section 6.6.2
   explains how each threat can be addressed or mitigated.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors thank the contributors of [RFC4834] since the structure
   and content of this document were, for some sections, largely
   inspired by [RFC4834].

   The authors also thank Yuichi Ikejiri, Jerry Ash, Bill Fenner, Vach
   Kompella, Shane Amante, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Venu Hemige for their
   valuable reviews and feedbacks.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4665]  Augustyn, W. and Y. Serbest, "Service Requirements for
              Layer 2 Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks",
              RFC 4665, September 2006.

10.2.  Informative References

   [802.1D]   ISO/IEC 15802-3: 1998 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1998 Edition
              (Revision and redesignation of ISO/IEC  10038:98), "Part

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 28]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

              3: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", ISO/IEC 15802-3:,

   [802.1ag]  IEEE, "Virtual Bridge Local Area Networks: Connectivity
              Fault Management (Work in Progress)", 2007.

   [802.1s]   IEEE Std 802.1s-2002, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks- Amendment 3: Multiple Spanning Trees", 2002.

   [CGMP]     Farinacci, D., Tweedly, A., and T. Speakman, "Cisco Group
              Management Protocol (CGMP)",
     , 1996/

              Minei, I., "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for
              Point-to-Multipoint and  Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label
              Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-05 (work in
              progress), June 2008.

   [RFC1112]  Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
              RFC 1112, August 1989.

   [RFC2236]  Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              October 1999.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC3488]  Wu, I. and T. Eckert, "Cisco Systems Router-port Group
              Management Protocol (RGMP)", RFC 3488, February 2003.

   [RFC3809]  Nagarajan, A., "Generic Requirements for Provider
              Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC 3809,
              June 2004.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 29]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

   [RFC3973]  Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
              Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
              Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.

   [RFC4541]  Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
              "Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
              (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping
              Switches", RFC 4541, May 2006.

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
              IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.

   [RFC4664]  Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
              Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.

   [RFC4761]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
              RFC 4761, January 2007.

   [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
              RFC 4762, January 2007.

   [RFC4834]  Morin, T., Ed., "Requirements for Multicast in Layer 3
              Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
              RFC 4834, April 2007.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 30]
Internet-Draft         Multicast VPLS Requirements              Jan 2009

Authors' Addresses

   Yuji Kamite (editor)
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Granpark Tower
   3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
   Tokyo  108-8118


   Yuichiro Wada
   3-9-11 Midori-cho
   Tokyo  180-8585


   Yetik Serbest
   AT&T Labs
   9505 Arboretum Blvd.
   Austin, TX  78759


   Thomas Morin
   France Telecom R&D
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex


   Luyuan Fang
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719


Kamite, et al.            Expires July 19, 2009                [Page 31]