Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution Protocol
draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pals WG)
Last updated 2015-06-19
Replaces draft-ietf-pwe3-rfc4447bis
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                         Luca Martini Ed.
Internet Draft                                           Giles Heron Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 19, 2015                                         Cisco

                                                           June 19, 2015

 Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution Protocol

                   draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-01.txt

Status of this Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2015

Abstract

   Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
   and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
   encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
   transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
   pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and

Martini & Heron                                                 [Page 1]
Internet Draft     draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-01.txt       June 19, 2015

   Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
   network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
   maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
   Distribution Protocol (LDP).  Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
   PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.

   This document has been written to address errata in a previous
   version of this standard.

Martini & Heron                                                 [Page 2]
Internet Draft     draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-01.txt       June 19, 2015

Table of Contents

    1        Introduction  .........................................   4
    2        Specification of Requirements  ........................   6
    3        The Pseudowire Label  .................................   6
    4        Details Specific to Particular Emulated Services  .....   8
    4.1      IP Layer 2 Transport  .................................   8
    5        LDP  ..................................................   8
    5.1      The PWid FEC Element  .................................   9
    5.2      The Generalized PWid FEC Element  .....................  11
    5.2.1    Attachment Identifiers  ...............................  11
    5.2.2    Encoding the Generalized PWid FEC Element  ............  13
    5.2.2.1  Interface Parameters TLV  .............................  14
    5.2.2.2  PW Grouping ID TLV  ...................................  14
    5.2.3    Signaling Procedures  .................................  15
    5.3      Signaling of Pseudowire Status  .......................  16
    5.3.1    Use of Label Mapping Messages  ........................  16
    5.3.2    Signaling PW Status  ..................................  17
    5.3.3    Pseudowire Status Negotiation Procedures  .............  18
    5.4      Interface Parameters Sub-TLV  .........................  20
    5.5      LDP label Withdrawal procedures  ......................  21
    6        Control Word  .........................................  21
    6.1      PW Types for which the Control Word is REQUIRED  ......  21
    6.2      PW Types for which the Control Word is NOT mandatory  .  21
    6.3      Control-Word Renegotiation by Label Request Message  ..  23
    6.4      Sequencing Considerations  ............................  24
    6.4.1    Label Advertisements  .................................  24
    6.4.2    Label Release  ........................................  24
    7        IANA Considerations  ..................................  25
    7.1      LDP TLV TYPE  .........................................  25
    7.2      LDP Status Codes  .....................................  25
    7.3      FEC Type Name Space  ..................................  25
    8        Security Considerations  ..............................  25
    8.1      Data-Plane Security  ..................................  25
    8.2      Control-Plane Security  ...............................  27
    9        Changes from RFC4447  .................................  28
   10        Acknowledgments  ......................................  28
Show full document text