Network Working Group Rahul Aggarwal
Internet Draft XiPeng Xiao
Expiration Date: May 2003 Redback Networks
W. Mark Townsley
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
Cheng-Yin Lee
Alcatel
Tissa Senevirathne
Consultant
Mitsuru Higashiyama
Anritsu Corporation
Transport of Ethernet Frames over L2TPv3
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026, except that the right to
produce derivative works is not granted.
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.
Abstract
This document describes transport of Ethernet frames over Layer 2
Tunneling Protocol (L2TPv3). This includes the transport of Ethernet
port to port frames as well as the transport of Ethernet VLAN frames.
The mechanism described in this document can be used in the creation
of Pseudo Wires to transport Ethernet frames over an IP network.
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 2002
Table of Contents
1 Introduction........................................ 2
1.1 Abbreviations....................................... 2
1.2 Requirements........................................ 2
2 PW Establishment.................................... 3
2.1 LCCE-LCCE Control Connection Establishment.......... 3
2.2 PW Session Establishment............................ 4
2.3 PW Session Monitoring............................... 4
2.3.1 SLI Message......................................... 4
3 Packet Processing................................... 5
3.1 Encapsulation....................................... 5
3.2 Sequencing.......................................... 5
3.3 MTU Handling........................................ 6
4 Security Considerations............................. 6
5 IANA Considerations................................. 6
6 Acknowledgements.................................... 6
7 References.......................................... 6
8 Author Information.................................. 7
1. Introduction
L2TPv3 can be used as a control protocol and for data encapsulation
to set up Pseudo Wires (PW) for transporting layer 2 Packet Data Units
across an IP network [L2TPv3]. This document describes the transport
of Ethernet frames over L2TPv including the PW establishment and data
encapsulation.
1.1 Abbreviations
CE Customer Edge. (Typically also the L2TPv3 Remote System)
LCCE L2TP Control Connection Endpoint (See [L2TPv3])
PE Provider Edge (Typically also the LCCE).
PSN Packet Switched Network
PW Pseudo-Wire
PWE3 Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge to Edge (Working Group)
NSP Native Service Processing
1.2. Requirements
An Ethernet PW emulates a single Ethernet link between exactly two
endpoints. The following figure depicts the PW termination relative
to the NSP and PSN tunnel within a LCCE [PWE3-LAYER]. The
CE in this figure is typically also the L2TPv3 Remote System. The LCCE
may or may not be a PE.
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 2002
+---------------------------------------+
| LCCE |
+----+ +-+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-+
| | |P| | | |PW ter| | PSN | |P|
| C |<==>|h|<=>| NSP |<=>|minati|<=>|Tunnel|<=>|h|<==> PSN
| E | |y| | | |on | | | |y|
| | +-+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-+
+----+ | |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 1: PW termination
The PW termination point receives untagged (also referred to as 'raw')
or tagged ethernet frames and delivers them unaltered to the PW
termination point on the remote LCCE. Hence it can provide untagged
or tagged Ethernet link emulation service.
The "NSP" function includes packet processing needed to translate the
Ethernet packets that arrive at the CE-LCCE interface to/from the
Ethernet packets that are applied to the PW termination point. Such
functions may include stripping, overwriting or adding VLAN tags.
The NSP functionality can be used in conjunction with local
provisioning to provide heterogeneous services where the CE-LCCE
encapsulations at the two ends may be different.
The physical layer between the CE and LCCE, and any adaptation (NSP)
functions between it and the PW termination, are outside of the
scope of PWE3 and are not defined here.
2. PW Establishment
With L2TPv3 as the tunneling protocol, Ethernet PWs are L2TPv3
sessions. A L2TP control connection has to be set up first between
the two LCCEs. Individual PWs can then be established as L2TP sessions.
2.1. LCCE-LCCE Control Connection Establishment
The two LCCEs that wish to set up Ethernet PWs MUST establish a L2TP
control connection first as described in [L2TPv3]. Hence Ethernet
PW type must be included in the Pseudo Wire Capabilities list. The
type of PW can be either "Ethernet port" or "Ethernet VLAN". This
indicates that the control connection can support the establishment of
Ethernet PWs. Note that there are two Ethernet PW types required.
This can be used for connecting Ethernet port to another Ethernet port;
Ethernet VLAN to another Ethernet VLAN; or for providing heterogeneous
connectivity using NSP processing.
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 2002
2.2. PW Session Establishment
The provisioning of an Ethernet port or Ethernet VLAN and its
association with a PW triggers the establishment of an L2TP session
as described in [L2TPv3]. The following are the signaling elements
needed for the PW establishment:
a) Pseudo Wire Type: The type of a Pseudo wire can be either "Ethernet
port" or "Ethernet VLAN". Each LCCE signals its PW type in a AVP
[L2TPv3] Attribute Type TBA.
b) PW ID: Each PW is associated with a PW ID akin to the VC-ID in
[PWE3-CRTL]. The two LCCEs of a PW have the same PW ID for it. The
End Identifier AVP in L2TPv3 is used as the PW ID. The
End Identifier AVP MUST be present in the ICRQ in order for the
remote LCCE to determine the PW to associate the L2TP session with.
An implementation MUST support an End Identifier of four octets known
to both LCCEs either by manual configuration or some other means.
Additional End Identifier formats which MAY be supported are outside
the scope of this document.
2.3 PW Session Monitoring
The working status of a PW is reflected by the state of the L2TPv3
session. If the corresponding L2TPv3 session is down, the PW
associated with it MUST be shut down. The session keep-alive mechanism
of L2TPv3 can serve as a link status monitoring mechanism for the PW
(i.e. session).
2.3.1 SLI Message
In addition to the session keep-alive mechanism of L2TPv3, Ethernet PW
over L2TP makes use of the Set Link Info (SLI) control message defined
in [L2TPv3]. The SLI message is used to signal Ethernet link status
notifications between LCCEs. This can be useful to indicate the Ethernet
interface state change without bringing down the L2TP session.
The SLI message MUST be sent any time there is a status change of any
values identified in the Circuit Status AVP. The only exception to
this is the initial ICRQ, ICRP and CDN messages which establish and
teardown the L2TP session itself. The SLI message may be sent from
either LCCE at any time after the first ICRQ is sent (and perhaps
before an ICRP is received, requiring the peer to perform a reverse
Session ID lookup).
Ether PW reports Circuit Status with the Circuit Status AVP defined in
[L2TPv3]. For reference, this AVP is shown below:
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 2002
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |A|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Value is a 16 bit mask with the two least significant bits
defined and the remaining bits reserved for future use. Reserved bits
MUST be set to 0 when sending, and ignored upon receipt.
The A (Active) bit indicates whether the Ethernet interface is ACTIVE (1)
or INACTIVE (0).
The N (New) bit SHOULD be set to one (1) if this is the first time
this interface has transitioned to ACTIVE, zero (0) otherwise.
3. Packet Processing
3.1. Encapsulation
The encapsulation described in this section refers to the functionality
performed by the PW termination point depicted in figure 1, unless
otherwise indicated.
The entire Ethernet frame without the preamble or FCS is encapsulated
in L2TPv3 and is sent as a single packet by the ingress LCCE. This is done
regardless of whether an 802.1Q tag is present in the Ethernet frame or
not. For Ethernet port to port mode the remote LCCE simply decapsulates
the L2TP payload and sends it out on the appropriate interface without
modifying the Ethernet header. For Ethernet VLAN to VLAN, the remote
LCCE MAY rewrite the VLAN tag. As described in section 1, the VLAN tag
modification is a NSP function.
The Ethernet PW over L2TP is homogeneous with respect to packet
encapsulation i.e. both the ends of the PW are either untagged or
tagged. The Ethernet PW can still be used to provide heterogeneous
services using NSP functionality at the ingress and/or egress LCCE.
The definition of such NSP functionality is outside the scope of this
document.
3.2. Sequencing
Data packet sequencing may be enabled for Ethernet PWs. The sequencing
mechanims described in [L2TPv3] MUST be used for signaling
sequencing support.
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 2002
3.3. MTU Handling
With L2TPv3 as the tunneling protocol, the packet resulted from the
encapsulation is N bytes longer than Ethernet frame without the
preamble or FCS, where
N=8, L2TPv3 data messages are over IP;
N=16, L2TPv3 data messages are over UDP;
(N does not include the IP header).
The fragmentation implications resulting from this are discussed in
[PWE3-FRAG]. The mechanisms outlined in [PWE3-FRAG] SHOULD be followed
with regards to handling fragmentation on an Ethernet PW over L2TPv3.
4. Security Considerations
For generic security issues regarding PWs and Ethernet PWs, this document
will eventually refer to documents from the PWE3 WG. L2TP-specific
Security Considerations are TBD.
5. IANA Considerations
The signaling mechanisms defined in this document rely upon the
assignment of a Ethernet port mode and an Ethernet VLAN mode Pseudowire
Type. IANA assignment of this value should take place within the PWE3 WG.
6. Acknowledgements
This draft evolves from the draft, "Ethernet Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge". We would like to thank its authors, T.So, X.Xiao,
L. Anderson, C. Flores, N. Tingle, S. Khandekar, D. Zelig and G. Heron
for their contribution. We would also like to thank S. Nanji, the
author of the draft, "Ethernet Service for Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol", for writing the first ethernet over L2TP draft.
7. References
[L2TPv3] J. Lau, M. Townsley, A. Valencia, G. Zorn, I. Goyret,
G. Pall, A. Rubens, B. Palter, Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
a.k.a. "L2TPv3," work in progress,
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-03.txt
[L2TP-IANA] Townsley, M., "L2TP IANA Considerations Update", Internet
Draft, draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana-00.txt
[PWE3-CRTL] L. Martini., et al., "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over
MPLS", draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-00.txt
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 200
[PWE3-FRAG] A. Malis, W. M. Townsley, "PWE3 Fragmentation and
Reassembly", draft-malis-pwe3-fragmentation-00.txt
[PWE3-LAYER] S. Bryant, L. Wood, M. Townsley, D. McPherson, "Protocol
Layering in PWE3", draft-ietf-pwe3-protocol-layer-00.txt
[PWE3-REQ] X. Xiao, D. McPherson, P. Pate, C. White, K. Kompella,
V. Gill, T. D. Nadeau, "Requirements for Pseudo-Wire
Emulation Edge-to-Edge",
draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt
8. Author Information
Rahul Aggarwal
Redback Networks
350 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: rahul@redback.com
XiPeng Xiao
Redback Networks
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: xipeng@redback.com
W. Mark Townsley
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
e-mail: mark@townsley.net
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems,
4, The Square,
Stockley Park,
Uxbridge UB11 1BL,
United Kingdom.
e-mail: stbryant@cisco.com
Cheng-Yin Lee
Alcatel
600 March Rd, Ottawa
Ontario, Canada K2K 2E6
e-mail: Cheng-Yin.Lee@alcatel.com
Tissa Senevirathne
Consultant
1567 Belleville Way
Sunnywale CA 94087
e-mail: tsenevir@hotmail.com
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt October 200
Mitsuru Higashiyama
Anritsu Corporation
1800 Onna, Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa-prf., 243-8555 Japan
e-mail: Mitsuru.Higashiyama@yy.anritsu.co.jp
draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-00.txt [Page 8]