Application of Ethernet Pseudowires to MPLS Transport Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-04
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 5994.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rao Cherukuri , Monique Morrow, Thomas Nadeau , George Swallow , Neil Harrison , Ben Niven-Jenkins , Stewart Bryant | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 2009-06-29) | ||
| Replaces | draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5994 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-04
Network Working Group S. Bryant, Ed.
Internet-Draft M. Morrow
Intended status: Informational G. Swallow
Expires: December 31, 2009 Cisco Systems
R. Cherukuri
Juniper Networks,
T. Nadeau
N. Harrison
B. Niven-Jenkins
BT
June 29, 2009
Application of Ethernet Pseudowires to MPLS Transport Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-04
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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 31, 2009.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
A requirement has been identified by the operator community for the
transparent carriage of the MPLS(-TP) network of one party over the
MPLS(-TP) network of another party. This document describes a method
of satisfying this need using the existing PWE3 Ethernet pseudowire
standard RFC4448.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. PWE3 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. VCCV profile 1: BFD without IP/UDP Headers . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. VCCV profile 2: BFD with IP/UDP Headers . . . . . . . . . 7
4. MPLS Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. External Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Control Plane Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
1. Introduction
The operator community has identified the need for the transparent
carriage of the MPLS(-TP) network of one party over the MPLS(-TP)
network of another party [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-requirements]. This
document describes one mechanism to satisfy this requirement using
existing IETF standards such as PWE3 Ethernet pseudowire standard
[RFC4448] . The mechanism described here fulfills the MPLS-TP
requirements for transparent carriage (MPLS-TP requirements 30 & 31)
of the Ethernet data plane.
The key purpose of this document is to demonstrate that there is an
existing IETF mechanism with known implementations that satisfies the
requirements posed by the operator community. It is recognised that
it is possible to design a more efficient method of satisfying the
requirements, and the IETF anticipates that improved solutions will
be proposed in the future.
Much of the notation used in this document is defined in [RFC3985] to
which the reader is referred for definitions.
The architecture required for this mechanism is illustrated in Figure
1 below.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| IP/MPLS PSN (PHP may be enabled) |
| (client) |
| |
| +---------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | MPLS PSN (No PHP) | |
| | (server) | |
| | | |
| CE1 |PE1 PE2| CE2 |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | +------+ | | | | | | +------+ | | | |
| | | | | 802.3| | | | | | | | 802.3| | | | |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | +-- ---------------------- -+ | | |
+----- --- -------- -- ---------------------- - -------- --- ----+
| | | |<--MPLS LSP (no PHP)->| | | |
| | | | (server) | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |<------------PW----------->| | |
| | | (server) | | |
| | | |
| |<-------------802.3 (Ethernet)-------------->| |
| | (client) | |
| |
|<---------IP/MPLS LSP (PHP may be supported)-------->|
| (client) |
Figure 1: Application Ethernet over MPLS PW to MPLS Transport
Networks
An 802.3 (Ethernet) circuit is established between CE1 and CE2. This
circuit may be used for the concurrent transport of MPLS packets as
well as IPv4 and IPv6 packets. The MPLS packets may carry IPv4,
IPV6, or Pseudowire payloads, and Penultimate-Hop-Popping (PHP) may
be used. For clarity these paths are labeled as the client in Figure
1.
An Ethernet pseudowire (PW) is provisioned between PE1 and PE2 and
used to carry the Ethernet from PE1 to PE2. The Ethernet PW is
carried over an MPLS packet switched Network (PSN), but this PSN MUST
NOT be configured with PHP. For clarity this Ethernet PW and the
MPLS PSN are labeled as the server in Figure 1. In the remainder of
this draft call the server network a transport network.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
2. PWE3 Configuration
The PWE3 encapsulation used by this specification to satisfy the
transport requirement is Ethernet [RFC4448]. This is used in "raw"
mode.
The Control Word MUST be used. The Sequence number MUST be zero.
The use of the Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Label Distribution
Protocol [RFC4447] is not required by the profile of the PWE3
Ethernet pseudowire functionality defined in this document.
The Pseudowire Label is statically provisioned.
3. OAM
Within a connection, traffic units sent from the single source are
constrained to stay within the connection under defect-free
conditions. During misconnected defects, a connection can no longer
be assumed to be constrained and traffic units (and by implication
also OAM packets) can 'leak' unidirectionally outside a connection.
Therefore during a misconnected state, it is not possible to rely on
OAM which relies on a request/response mechanism ; and, for this
reason such OAM should be treated with caution if used for diagnostic
purposes.
Further, when implementing an Equal Cost Multi-path (ECMP) function
with MPLS, use of the label stack as the path selector such that the
OAM and data are not in a co-path SHOULD be avoided, as any failure
in the data path will note be reflected in the OAM path. Therefore,
an OAM that is carried within the data-path below the PW label such
as Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) is NOT vulnerable
to the above failure mode. For these reasons the OAM mechanism is
[RFC5085], using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base] for connection verification (CV). The method of
using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) as a CV method in VCCV
is described in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd]. One of the VCCV profiles
described in Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 MUST be used. Once a VCCV
control channel is provisioned, and the operational status of the PW
is UP, no other profile should be used until such time as the PW's
operational status is set to DOWN.
3.1. VCCV profile 1: BFD without IP/UDP Headers
When PE1 and PE1 are not IP capable or have not been configured with
IP addresses, the following VCCV mechanism SHOULD be used.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
The connection verification method used by VCCV is BFD with
diagnostics as defined in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd].
[RFC5085] specifies that the first nibble is set to 0x1 to indicate a
channel associated with a pseudowire [RFC4385].
The Version and the Reserved fields are set to zero, and the Channel
Type is set to 0x7 to indicate that the payload carried is BFD
without IP/UDP headers, as is defined in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd].
3.2. VCCV profile 2: BFD with IP/UDP Headers
When PE1 and PE1 are IP capable and have been configured with IP
addresses, the following VCCV mechanism may be used.
The connection verification method used by VCCV is BFD with
diagnostics as defined in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd].
[RFC5085] specifies that the first nibble is set to 0x1 to indicate a
channel associated with a pseudowire [RFC4385].
The Version and the Reserved fields are set to 0, and the Channel
Type is set to 0x21 for IPv4 and 0x56 for IPv6 payloads [RFC4446].
4. MPLS Layer
The architecture of MPLS enabled networks is described in [RFC3031].
This section describes a subset of the functionality of the MPLS
enabled PSN. There are two cases that need to be considered:
1. The case where external configuration is used.
2. The case where a control plane is available.
Where the use of a control plane is desired this may be based on
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945]
4.1. External Configuration
The use of external provisioning is not precluded from being
supported by the current MPLS specifications. It is however
explicitly described in this specification to address the
requirements specified by the ITU [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-requirements] to
address the needs in a transport environment.
The MPLS encapsulation is specified in [RFC3032]. All MPLS labels
used in the server layer (Figure 1) MUST be statically provisioned.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
Labels may be selected from either the per-platform or the per-
interface label space.
All transport Label Switched Paths (LSPs) utilized by the PWs
described in section 2 MUST support both unidirectional and bi-
directional point-to-point connections.
The transport LSPs SHOULD support unidirectional point-to-multipoint
connections.
The forward and backward directions of a bi-directional connection
SHOULD follow a symmetrically routed (reciprocal) LSP in the server
network.
Equal cost multi-path (ECMP) load balancing MUST NOT be configured on
the transport LSPs utilized by the PWs described in sections 2.
The merging of label switched paths is prohibited and MUST NOT be
configured for the transport LSPs utilized by the PWs described in
section 2.
Penultimate hop popping by the transport label switched routers
(LSRs) MUST be disabled on transport LSPs.
Both EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) and Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSPs
(L-LSP) MUST be supported as defined in [RFC3270].
For the MPLS EXP field [RFC3270] [RFC5462] only the pipe and short-
pipe models are supported.
4.2. Control Plane Configuration
In this section we describe the control plane configuration
when[RFC3209] "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels" or the
bi-directional support in GMPLS [RFC3471] "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description"
and[RFC3473] "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions" are used to configure the transport MPLS PSN. When these
protocols are used to provide the control plane the following are
automatically provided:
1. There is no label merging unless it is deliberately enabled to
support Fast Re-route (FRR) [RFC3209].
2. A single path is provided end-to-end (there is no ECMP).
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
3. Label switched paths may be unidirectional or bidirectional as
required.
Additionally the following configuration restrictions required to
support external configuration MUST be applied:
o Penultimate hop popping by the LSRs MUST be disabled on LSPs
providing PWE3 transport network functionality
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping].
o Both E-LSP and L-LSP MUST be supported as defined in [RFC3270].
o The MPLS EXP [RFC5462] field is supported according to [RFC3270]
for only when the pipe and short-pipe models are utilized.
5. Congestion Considerations
This draft describes a method of using the existing PWE3 Ethernet
pseudowire [RFC4448] to solve a particular network application. The
congestion considerations associated with that pseudowire and all
subsequent work on congestion considerations regarding Ethernet
pseudowires are applicable to this draft.
6. Security Considerations
This draft is a description of the use of existing IETF proposed
standards to solve a network problem, and raises no new security
issues.
The PWE3 security considerations are described in [RFC3985] and the
Ethernet pseudowire security considerations of[RFC4448].
The Ethernet pseudowire is transported on an MPLS PSN; therefore, the
security of the pseudowire itself will only be as good as the
security of the MPLS PSN. The server MPLS PSN can be secured by
various methods, as described in[RFC3031].
The use of static configuration exposes an MPLS PSN to a different
set of security risks to those found in a PSN using dynamic routing.
If a path is misconfigured in a statically configured network the
result can be a persistent black hole, or much worst, a persistent
forwarding loop. On the other hand most of the distributed
components are less complex. This is however offset by the need to
provide fail-over and redundancy in the management and configuration
system and the communications paths between those central systems and
the LSRs.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
Security achieved by access control of media access control (MAC)
addresses , and the security of the client layers is out of the scope
of this document.
7. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions required by this draft.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Matthew Bocci, John Drake, Adrian Farrel,
Andy Malis, and Yaakov Stein for their review and proposed
enhancements to the text.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base-09 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping]
Ali, Z. and G. Swallow, "Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band
mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs",
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-02 (work in
progress), March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd]
Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)",
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-05 (work in progress), June 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-requirements]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements",
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09 (work in progress),
June 2009.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant (editor)
Cisco Systems
250, Longwater, Green Park,
Reading RG2 6GB, UK
UK
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Monique Morrow
Cisco Systems
Glatt-com
CH-8301 Glattzentrum
Switzerland
Email: mmorrow@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Rao Cherukuri
Juniper Networks,
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale CA 94089
Thomas D. Nadeau
BT
Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Appln of Ethernet PW to MPLS Xport Netwks June 2009
Neil Harrison
BT
Email: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
Ben Niven-Jenkins
BT
208 Callisto House, Adastral Park
Ipswich, Suffolk IP5 3RE
UK
Phone:
Fax:
Email: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
URI:
Bryant, et al. Expires December 31, 2009 [Page 13]