INTERNET DRAFT                                           W. Augustyn
   Internet Engineering Task Force
   Document:                                                 Y. Serbest
   draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt                             SBC
   October 2004                                               (Editors)
   Category: Informational
   Expires: April 2005



 Service Requirements for Layer-2 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private
                                Networks

   Status of this memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, we represent that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been
   disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which we are aware have
   been or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware will be
   disclosed in accordance with RFC 3668.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   Sections 5 and 6 of RFC 3667 and Section 5 of RFC 3668.

   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 provides requirements for Provider Provisioned Layer-2
   Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs).  It first provides taxonomy and
   terminology and states generic and general service requirements.  It
   covers point to point VPNs referred to as Virtual Private Wire
   Service (VPWS), as well as multipoint to multipoint VPNs also known
   as Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS).  Detailed requirements are
   expressed from a customer as well as a service provider perspective.

   Conventions used in this document



                                                              [Page 1]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   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 RFC 2119.

   Table of Contents
1  Contributing Authors..............................................4
2  Introduction......................................................4
 2.1  Scope of this document.........................................4
 2.2  Outline........................................................5
3  Definitions and Taxonomy..........................................5
 3.1  Definitions....................................................5
 3.2  Taxonomy of L2VPN Types........................................5
 3.3  VPWS...........................................................6
 3.4  VPLS...........................................................6
4  Service Requirements Common to Customers and Service Providers....7
 4.1  Scope of emulation.............................................7
 4.2  Traffic Types..................................................7
 4.3  Topology.......................................................7
 4.4  Isolated Exchange of Data and Forwarding Information...........8
 4.5  Security.......................................................8
   4.5.1 User data security..........................................9
   4.5.2 Access control..............................................9
 4.6  Addressing.....................................................9
 4.7  Quality of Service............................................10
   4.7.1 QoS Standards..............................................10
   4.7.2 Service Models.............................................10
 4.8  Service Level Specifications..................................10
 4.9  Protection and Restoration....................................10
 4.10 CE-to-PE and PE-to-PE link requirements.......................10
 4.11 Management....................................................11
 4.12 Interoperability..............................................11
 4.13 Inter-working.................................................11
5  Customer Requirements............................................11
 5.1  Service Provider Independence.................................11
 5.2  Layer-3 Support...............................................12
 5.3  Quality of Service and Traffic Parameters.....................12
 5.4  Service Level Specification...................................12
 5.5  Security......................................................12
   5.5.1 Isolation..................................................12
   5.5.2 Access control.............................................13
   5.5.3 Value added security services..............................13
 5.6  Network Access................................................13
   5.6.1 Physical/Link Layer Technology.............................13
   5.6.2 Access Connectivity........................................13
 5.7  Customer traffic..............................................15
   5.7.1 Unicast, Unknown Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast forwarding
         15
   5.7.2 Packet Re-ordering.........................................15
   5.7.3 Minimum MTU................................................15
   5.7.4 End-point VLAN tag translation.............................15
   5.7.5 Transparency...............................................15
 5.8  Support for Layer-2 Control Protocols.........................16


                                                              [Page 2]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


 5.9  CE Provisioning...............................................16
6  Service Provider Network Requirements............................16
 6.1  Scalability...................................................16
   6.1.1 Service Provider Capacity Sizing Projections...............16
   6.1.2 Solution-Specific Metrics..................................17
 6.2  Identifiers...................................................17
 6.3  Discovering L2VPN Related Information.........................18
 6.4  SLS Support...................................................18
 6.5  Quality of Service (QoS)......................................18
 6.6  Isolation of Traffic and Forwarding Information...............18
 6.7  Security......................................................19
 6.8  Inter-AS/SP L2VPNs............................................19
   6.8.1 Management.................................................19
   6.8.2 Bandwidth and QoS Brokering................................20
 6.9  L2VPN Wholesale...............................................20
 6.10 Tunneling Requirements........................................20
 6.11 Support for Access Technologies...............................20
 6.12 Backbone Networks.............................................21
 6.13 Network Resource Partitioning and Sharing Between L2VPNs......21
 6.14 Interoperability..............................................21
 6.15 Testing.......................................................22
 6.16 Support on Existing PEs.......................................22
7  Service Provider Management Requirements.........................22
8  Engineering Requirements.........................................22
 8.1  Control Plane Requirements....................................22
 8.2  Data Plane Requirements.......................................23
   8.2.1 Encapsulation..............................................23
   8.2.2 Responsiveness to Congestion...............................23
   8.2.3 Broadcast Domain...........................................23
   8.2.4 Virtual Switching Instance.................................23
   8.2.5 MAC address learning.......................................24
9  Security Considerations..........................................24
10   Acknowledgments.................................................24
11   References......................................................24
 11.1 Normative References..........................................24
 11.2 Informative References........................................24
12   Editors' Addresses..............................................25
13   Intellectual Property Statement.................................25
14   Full copyright statement........................................26















                                                              [Page 3]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004



1 Contributing Authors
   This document was the combined effort of several individuals.  The
   following are the authors that contributed to this document:

          Waldemar Augustyn
          Marco Carugi
          Giles Heron
          Vach Kompella
          Marc Lasserre
          Pascal Menezes
          Hamid Ould-Brahim
          Tissa Senevirathne
          Yetik Serbest

2 Introduction
   This section describes the scope and outline of the document.

2.1 Scope of this document
   This document provides requirements for provider provisioned Layer-2
   Virtual Private Networks (L2VPN).  It identifies requirements that
   MAY apply to one or more individual approaches that a Service
   Provider (SP) MAY use for the provisioning of a Layer-2 VPN service.
   The content of this document makes use of the terminology defined in
   [VPN_TERM] and common components for deploying L2VPNs described in
   [L2VPN_FR].

   The technical specifications to provide L2VPN services are outside
   the scope of this document.  The framework document [L2VPN_FR] and
   several documents, which explain technical approaches providing
   L2VPN services, are available to cover this aspect.

   This document describes requirements for two types of L2VPNs: 1.
   Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS), and 2. Virtual Private LAN
   Service (VPLS).  The approach followed in this document
   distinguishes L2VPN types as to how the connectivity is provided
   (point-point or multipoint-multipoint) as detailed in [L2VPN_FR].

   This document is intended as a "checklist" of requirements that will
   provide a consistent way to evaluate and document how well each
   individual approach satisfies specific requirements.  The
   applicability statement document for each individual approach SHOULD
   document the results of this evaluation.

   In the context of provider provisioned VPNs, there are two entities
   involved in operation of such services, the Provider and the
   Customer.  The Provider engages in a binding agreement with the
   Customer as to the behavior of the service in normal situation as
   well as exceptional situations.  Such agreement is known as Service
   Level Specification (SLS) which is part of the Service Level
   Agreement (SLA) established between the Provider and the Customer.



                                                              [Page 4]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   A proper design of L2VPNs aids formulation of SLSs in that it
   provides means for proper separation between CE and PE, allows
   proper execution of the SLS offer, and supports flexible and rich
   set of capabilities.

   This document provides requirements from both the Provider's and the
   Customer's point of view.  It begins with common customer's and
   service provider's point of view, followed by a customer's
   perspective, and concludes with specific needs of a SP.  These
   requirements provide high-level L2VPN features expected by a SP in
   provisioning L2VPNs, which include SP requirements for security,
   privacy, manageability, interoperability and scalability.

2.2 Outline
   The outline of the rest of this document is as follows.  Section 3
   provides definitions and taxonomy.  Section 4 provides common
   requirements that apply to both customer and SP respectively.
   Section 5 states requirements from a customer perspective.  Section
   6 states network requirements from a SP perspective.  Section 7
   states SP management requirements.  Section 8 describes the
   engineering requirements, particularly control and data plane
   requirements.  Section 9 provides security considerations.  Section
   10 lists acknowledgements.  Section 11 provides a list of references
   cited herein.  Section 12 lists the editors' addresses.

3 Definitions and Taxonomy
3.1 Definitions
   The terminology used in this document is defined in [VPN_TERM].  The
   L2VPN framework document [L2VPN_FR] further describes these concepts
   in the context of a reference model that defines layered service
   relationships between devices and one or more levels of tunnels.

3.2 Taxonomy of L2VPN Types
   The requirements distinguish two major L2VPN models, a Virtual
   Private Wire Service (VPWS), and a Virtual Private LAN Service
   (VPLS).

   The following diagram shows a L2VPN reference model.

    +-----+                                       +-----+
    + CE1 +--+                                +---| CE2 |
    +-----+  |    ........................    |   +-----+
    L2VPN A  |  +----+                +----+  |   L2VPN A
             +--| PE |--- Service  ---| PE |--+
                +----+    Provider    +----+
               /  .       Backbone       .  \     -   /\-_
    +-----+   /   .          |           .   \   / \ /   \     +-----+
    + CE4 +--+    .          |           .    +--\ Access \----| CE5 |
    +-----+       .        +----+        .       | Network |   +-----+
    L2VPN B       .........| PE |.........        \       /    L2VPN B
                           +----+     ^            -------
                             |        |


                                                              [Page 5]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


                             |        |
                          +-----+     |
                          | CE3 |     +-- Logical switching instance
                          +-----+
                          L2VPN A

                     Figure 1 L2VPN Reference Model

3.3 VPWS
   The PE devices provide a logical interconnect such that a pair of CE
   devices appear to be connected by a single logical Layer-2 circuit.
   PE devices act as Layer-2 circuit switches.  Layer-2 circuits are
   then mapped onto tunnels in the SP network.  These tunnels can
   either be specific to a particular VPWS, or shared among several
   services.  VPWS applies for all services including Ethernet, ATM,
   Frame Relay etc.  In Figure 1, L2VPN B represents a VPWS case.

   Each PE device is responsible for allocating customer Layer-2 frames
   to the appropriate VPWS and for proper forwarding to the intended
   destinations.

3.4 VPLS
   In case of VPLS, the PE devices provide a logical interconnect such
   that CE devices belonging to a specific VPLS appear to be connected
   by a single LAN.  End-to-end VPLS consists of a bridge module and a
   LAN emulation module ([L2VPN_FR]).  A VPLS can contain a single VLAN
   or multiple VLANs ([IEEE_802.1Q]).  A variation of this service is
   IPLS ([L2VPN_FR]), which is limited to supporting only customer IP
   traffic.

   In a VPLS, a customer site receives Layer-2 service from the SP.
   The PE is attached via an access connection to one or more CEs.  The
   PE performs forwarding of user data packets based on information in
   the Layer-2 header, such as a MAC destination address.  The CE sees
   a bridge.

   The details of VPLS reference model, which we summarize here, can be
   found in [L2VPN_FR].  In VPLS, the PE can be viewed as containing a
   Virtual Switching Instance (VSI) for each L2VPN that it serves.  A
   CE device attaches, possibly through an access network, to a bridge
   module of a PE.  Within the PE, the bridge module attaches, through
   an Emulated LAN Interface to an Emulated LAN.  For each VPLS, there
   is an Emulated LAN instance.  The Emulated LAN consists of VPLS
   Forwarder module (one per PE per VPLS service instance) connected by
   pseudo wires (PW), where the PWs may be traveling through Packet
   Switched Network (PSN) tunnels over a routed backbone.  VSI is a
   logical entity that contains a VPLS forwarder module and part of the
   bridge module relevant to the VPLS service instance [L2VPN_FR].
   Hence, the VSI terminates PWs for interconnection with other VSIs
   and also terminates attachment circuits (ACs) for accommodating CEs.
   A VSI includes the forwarding information base for a L2VPN
   [L2VPN_FR] which is the set of information regarding how to forward


                                                              [Page 6]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   Layer-2 frames received over the AC from the CE to VSIs in other PEs
   supporting the same L2VPN service (and/or to other ACs), and
   contains information regarding how to forward Layer-2 frames
   received from PWs to ACs.  Forwarding information bases can be
   populated dynamically (such as by source MAC address learning) or
   statically (e.g., by configuration).  Each PE device is responsible
   for proper forwarding of the customer traffic to the appropriate
   destination(s) based on the forwarding information base of the
   corresponding VSI.

4 Service Requirements Common to Customers and Service Providers
   This section contains requirements that apply to both the customer
   and the provider, or are of an otherwise general nature.

4.1 Scope of emulation
   L2VPN protocols SHOULD NOT interfere with existing Layer-2 protocols
   and standards of the Layer-2 network the customer is managing.  If
   they impact customer Layer-2 protocols that are sent over the VPLS,
   then these impacts MUST be documented.

   Some possibly salient differences between VPLS and a real LAN are:
     - The reliability MAY likely be less, i.e., the probability that a
     message broadcast over the VPLS is not seen by one of the bridge
     modules in PEs is higher than in a true Ethernet.
     - VPLS frames can get duplicated if the PW sequencing option isn't
     turned on.  The data frames on the PWs are sent in IP datagrams,
     and under certain failure scenarios, IP networks can duplicate
     packets.  If the PW data transmission protocol does not ensure
     sequence of data packets, frames can be duplicated or received out
     of sequence.  If the customer's BPDU frames are sent as data
     packets, then BPDU frames can be duplicated or mis-sequenced.
     - Delayed delivery of packets (e.g., more than half a second)
     rather than dropping them could have adverse effect on the
     performance of the service.
     - 802.3x Pause frames will not be transported over a VPLS, as the
     bridge module ([L2VPN_FR]) in the PE terminates them.
     - Since the IPLS solution aims at transporting encapsulated
     traffic (rather than Layer-2 frames themselves), the IPLS solution
     is NOT REQUIRED to preserve the Layer-2 Header transparently from
     CE to CE.  For example, Source MAC address MAY NOT be preserved by
     the IPLS solution.

4.2 Traffic Types
   A VPLS MUST support unicast, multicast, and broadcast traffic.
   Support for efficient replication of broadcast and multicast traffic
   is highly desirable.

4.3 Topology
   A SP network MAY be realized using one or more network tunnel
   topologies to interconnect PEs, ranging from simple point-to-point
   to distributed hierarchical arrangements.  The typical topologies
   include:


                                                              [Page 7]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004



     o Point-to-point
     o Point-to-multipoint, a.k.a. hub and spoke
     o Any-to-any, a.k.a. full mesh
     o Mixed, a.k.a. partial mesh
     o Hierarchical

   Regardless of the SP topology employed, the service to the customers
   MUST retain the connectivity type implied by the type of L2VPN.  For
   example, a VPLS MUST allow multipoint to multipoint connectivity
   even if implemented with point to point circuits.  This requirement
   does not imply that all traffic characteristics (such as bandwidth,
   QoS, delay, etc.) be necessarily the same between any two end points
   of a L2VPN.  It is important to note that SLS requirements of a
   service have a bearing on the type of topology that can be used.

   To the extent possible, a L2VPN service SHOULD be capable of
   crossing multiple administrative boundaries.

   To the extent possible, the L2VPN services SHOULD be independent of
   access network technology.

4.4 Isolated Exchange of Data and Forwarding Information
   L2VPN solutions SHALL define means that prevent CEs in a L2VPN from
   interaction with unauthorized entities.

   L2VPN solutions SHALL avoid introducing undesired forwarding
   information that could corrupt the L2VPN forwarding information
   base.

   A means to constrain, or isolate, the distribution of addressed data
   to only those VPLS sites determined either by MAC learning and/or
   configuration MUST be provided.

   The internal structure of a L2VPN SHOULD not be advertised nor
   discoverable from outside that L2VPN.

4.5 Security
   A range of security features MUST be supported by the suite of L2VPN
   solutions.  Each L2VPN solution MUST state which security features
   it supports and how such features can be configured on a per
   customer basis.

   A number of security concerns arise in the setup and operation of a
   L2VPN, ranging from mis-configurations to attacks that can be
   launched on a L2VPN.  This section lists some potential security
   hazards.  There MUST be methods available to protect against the
   following situations.

     - Protocol attacks
       o Excessive protocol adjacency setup/teardown


                                                              [Page 8]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


       o Excessive protocol signaling/withdrawal
     - Resource Utilization
       o Forwarding plane replication (VPLS)
       o Looping (VPLS primarily)
       o MAC learning table size limit (VPLS)
     - Unauthorized access
       o Unauthorized member of VPN
       o Incorrect customer interface
       o Incorrect service delimiting VLAN tag
       o Unauthorized access to PE
     - Tampering with signaling
       o Incorrect FEC signaling
       o Incorrect PW label assignment
       o Incorrect signaled VPN parameters (e.g., QoS, MTU, etc.)
     - Tampering with data forwarding
       o Incorrect MAC learning entry
       o Incorrect PW label
       o Incorrect AC identifier
       o Incorrect customer facing encapsulation
       o Incorrect PW encapsulation
       o Hijacking PWs using the wrong tunnel
       o Incorrect tunnel encapsulation

4.5.1  User data security
   L2VPN solution MUST provide traffic separation between different
   L2VPNs.

   In case of VPLS, VLAN Ids MAY be used as service delimiters.  When
   used in this manner, they MUST be honored and traffic separation
   MUST be provided.

4.5.2  Access control
   A L2VPN solution MAY also have the ability to activate the
   appropriate filtering capabilities upon request of a customer.

4.6 Addressing
   A L2VPN solution MUST support overlapping addresses of different
   L2VPNs.  For instance, customers SHOULD not be prevented from using
   the same MAC addresses and/or the same VLAN Ids when used with
   different L2VPNs.  Actually, for VLANs, there are two cases.  First,
   a L2VPN is oblivious to customer VLANs.  In this case, customers can
   have overlapping VLAN Ids.  Second, VLAN Ids MAY be used as service
   delimiters, in which case it depends on whether the SP assigns the
   VLANs or not.  If it does, then there is no overlapping.  If it
   doesn't, then overlapping VLAN Ids can occur and the SP has to put
   safeguards in place to avoid this situation.





                                                              [Page 9]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


4.7 Quality of Service
   To the extent possible, L2VPN QoS SHOULD be independent of the
   access network technology.

4.7.1  QoS Standards
   As provided in [RFC3809] a L2PVN SHALL be able to support QoS in one
   or more of the following already standardized modes:
     - Best Effort  (support mandatory for all provider provisioned
        VPN types)
     - Aggregate CE Interface Level QoS (i.e., 'hose' level)
     - Site-to-site, or 'pipe' level QoS

   Note that all cases involving QoS MAY require that the CE and/or PE
   perform shaping and/or policing.

   Mappings or translations of Layer-2 QoS parameters into PSN QoS
   (e.g., DSCPs or MPLS EXP field) as well as QoS mapping based on VC
   (e.g., FR/ATM or VLAN) MAY be performed in order to provide QoS
   transparency.  The actual mechanisms for these mappings or
   translations are outside the scope of this document.  In addition,
   the Diffserv support of underlying tunneling technologies (e.g.,
   [RFC3270] or [RFC3308]) and the Intserv model ([RFC2205]) MAY be
   used.  As such, the L2VPN SLS requirements SHOULD be supported by
   appropriate core mechanisms.

4.7.2  Service Models
   A service provider MUST be able to offer QoS service to a customer
   for at least the following generic service types: managed access VPN
   service or an edge-to-edge QoS service.  The details of the service
   models can be found in [RFC3809] and in [L3VPN_REQTS].  In L2VPN
   service, both DSCP ([RFC2474]) and 802.1p ([IEEE_802.1D]) fields MAY
   be used for this purpose.

4.8 Service Level Specifications
   For a L2VPN service, the capabilities for Service Level
   Specification (SLS) monitoring and reporting stated in [RFC3809]
   SHOULD be provided.

4.9 Protection and Restoration
   The L2VPN service infrastructure SHOULD provide redundant paths to
   assure high availability.  The reaction to failures SHOULD result in
   an attempt to restore the service using alternative paths.

   The intention is to keep the restoration time small.  The
   restoration time MUST be less than the time it takes the CE devices,
   or customer Layer-2 control protocols as well as Layer-3 routing
   protocols, to detect a failure in the L2VPN.

4.10 CE-to-PE and PE-to-PE link requirements
   The CE-to-PE links MAY be
     - direct physical links (e.g., 100BaseTX, and T1/E1 TDM),


                                                             [Page 10]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


     - logical links (e.g., ATM PVC, and RFC2427-encapsulated link),
     - transport networks carrying Ethernet,
     - a Layer-2 tunnel that go through a Layer-3 network (e.g., L2TP
        sessions).

   Layer-2 frames MAY be tunneled through a Layer-3 backbone from PE to
   PE, using one of a variety of tunneling technologies (e.g., IP-in-
   IP, GRE, MPLS, L2TP, etc.).

4.11 Management
   Standard interfaces to manage L2VPN services MUST be provided
   (e.g., standard SNMP MIBs).  These interfaces SHOULD provide access
   to configuration, verification and runtime monitoring protocols.

   Service management MAY include the TMN 'FCAPS' functionalities, as
   follows: Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Provisioning, and
   Security, as detailed in [L3VPN_REQTS].

4.12 Interoperability
   Multi-vendor interoperability at network element, network and
   service levels among different implementations of the same technical
   solution SHOULD be guaranteed (that will likely rely on the
   completeness of the corresponding standard).  This is a central
   requirement for SPs and customers.

   The technical solution MUST be multi-vendor interoperable not only
   within the SP network infrastructure, but also with the customer's
   network equipment and services making usage of the L2VPN service.

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD NOT preclude different access technologies.
   For instance, customer access connections to a L2VPN service MAY be
   different at different CE devices (e.g., Frame Relay, ATM, 802.1d,
   MPLS).

4.13 Inter-working
   Inter-working scenarios among different solutions, providing L2VPN
   services, are highly desirable.  Inter-working SHOULD be supported
   in a scalable manner.

   Inter-working scenarios MUST consider at least traffic isolation,
   security, QoS, access, and management aspects.  This requirement is
   essential in the case of network migration, to ensure service
   continuity among sites belonging to different portions of the
   network.

5 Customer Requirements
   This section captures requirements from a customer perspective.

5.1 Service Provider Independence
   Customers MAY require L2VPN service that spans multiple
   administrative domains or SP networks.  Therefore, a L2VPN service


                                                             [Page 11]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   MUST be able to span multiple AS and SP networks, but still to act
   and to appear as a single, homogenous L2VPN from a customer point of
   view.

   A customer might also start with a L2VPN provided in a single AS
   with a certain SLS but then ask for an expansion of the service
   spanning multiple ASs and/or multiple-SPs.  In this case, as well as
   for all kinds of multi-AS and multiple-SP L2VPNs, L2VPN service
   SHOULD be able to deliver the same SLS to all sites in a VPN
   regardless of the AS/SP to which it homes.

5.2 Layer-3 Support
   With the exception of IPLS, a L2VPN service SHOULD be agnostic to
   customer's Layer-3 traffic (e.g., IP, IPX, Appletalk) encapsulated
   within Layer-2 frames.

   IPLS MUST allow transport of customer's IPv4 and IPv6 traffic
   encapsulated within Layer-2 frames.  IPLS SHOULD also allow CEs to
   run ISIS and MPLS protocols transparently among them when those are
   used in conjunction with IP.

5.3 Quality of Service and Traffic Parameters
   QoS is expected to be an important aspect of a L2VPN service for
   some customers.

   A customer requires that the L2VPN service provide the QoS
   applicable to his or her application, which can range from PWs
   (e.g., SONET emulation) to voice and interactive video, and
   multimedia applications.  Hence, best-effort as well as delay and
   loss sensitive traffic MUST be supported over a L2VPN service.
   A customer application SHOULD experience consistent QoS independent
   of the access network technology used at different sites connected
   to the same L2VPN.

5.4 Service Level Specification
   Most customers simply want their applications to perform well.  A
   SLS is a vehicle for a customer to measure the quality of the
   service that SP(s) provide.  Therefore, when purchasing a service, a
   customer requires access to the measures from the SP(s) that support
   the SLS.

   Standard interfaces to monitor usage of L2VPN services SHOULD be
   provided (e.g., standard SNMP MIBs).

5.5 Security
5.5.1  Isolation
   A L2VPN solution MUST provide traffic as well as forwarding
   information base isolation for customers similar to that obtained in
   private lines, FR, or ATM services.





                                                             [Page 12]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   A L2VPN service MAY use customer VLAN Ids as service delimiters.  In
   that case, they MUST be honored and traffic separation MUST be
   provided.

5.5.2  Access control
   A L2VPN solution MAY have the mechanisms to activate the appropriate
   filtering capabilities upon request of a customer.  For instance,
   MAC and/or VLAN filtering MAY be considered between CE and PE for a
   VPLS.

5.5.3  Value added security services
   A L2VPN solution MAY provide value added security services such as
   encryption and/or authentication of customer packets, certificate
   management, and similar.

   L2VPN services MUST NOT interfere with the security mechanisms
   employed at Layer-3 and higher layers by customers.  Layer-2
   security mechanisms, such as 802.10b ([IEEE_802.10]), MAY inhibit
   L2VPN services, when the service delimiting VLAN Ids are encrypted.

5.6 Network Access
   Every packet exchanged between the customer and the SP over the
   access connection MUST appear as it would on a private network
   providing an equivalent service to that offered by the L2VPN.

5.6.1  Physical/Link Layer Technology
   L2VPNs SHOULD support a broad range of physical and link layer
   access technologies, such as PSTN, ISDN, xDSL, cable modem, leased
   line, Ethernet, Ethernet VLAN, ATM, Frame Relay, Wireless local
   loop, mobile radio access, etc.  The capacity and QoS achievable MAY
   be dependent on the specific access technology in use.

5.6.2  Access Connectivity
   Various types of physical connectivity scenarios MUST be supported,
   such as multi-homed sites, backdoor links between customer sites,
   devices homed to two or more SP networks.  In case of VPLS, multi-
   link access for CE devices SHOULD be supported.  L2VPN solutions
   SHOULD support at least the types of physical or link-layer
   connectivity arrangements shown in Figure 2-Figure 4 (in addition to
   the case shown in Figure 1).  As in Figure 2, a CE can be dual-homed
   to a SP or to two different SPs via diverse access networks.

                  +----------------                    +---------------
                  |                                    |
               +------+                            +------+
     +---------|  PE  |                  +---------|  PE  |
     |         |device|                  |         |device| SP network
     |         +------+                  |         +------+
  +------+         |                  +------+         |
  |  CE  |         |                  |  CE  |         +---------------
  |device|         |   SP network     |device|         +---------------
  +------+         |                  +------+         |


                                                             [Page 13]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


     |         +------+                  |         +------+
     |         |  PE  |                  |         |  PE  |
     +---------|device|                  +---------|device| SP network
               +------+                            +------+
                   |                                   |
                   +----------------                   +---------------
                  (a)                                 (b)

                Figure 2 Dual-Homed Access of CE Devices

   Resiliency of the L2VPN service can be further enhanced as shown in
   Figure 3, where CE's, connected via a "back door" connection,
   connect to the same SP or to different SPs.

                   +----------------                  +---------------
                   |                                  |
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
  |  CE  |-----|  PE  |               |  CE  |-----|  PE  |
  |device|     |device|               |device|     |device| SP network
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
     |             |                     |             |
     | Backdoor    |                     | Backdoor    +---------------
     | link        |   SP network        | link        +---------------
     |             |                     |             |
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
  |  CE  |     |  PE  |               |  CE  |     |  PE  |
  |device|-----|device|               |device|-----|device| SP network
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
                   |                                   |
                   +----------------                   +---------------
                  (a)                                  (b)

               Figure 3 Backdoor Links Between CE Devices

Arbitrary combinations of the above methods, with a few examples shown
in Figure 4 SHOULD be supported by any L2VPN solution.

                   +----------------                   +---------------
                   |                                   |
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
  |  CE  |-----|  PE  |               |  CE  |-----|  PE  |
  |device|     |device|               |device|     |device| SP network
  +------+\    +------+               +------+\    +------+
     |     \       |                     |     \       |
     |Back  \      |                     |Back  \      +---------------
     |door   \     |   SP network        |door   \     +---------------
     |link    \    |                     |link    \    |
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
  |  CE  |     |  PE  |               |  CE  |     |  PE  |
  |device|-----|device|               |device|-----|device| SP network
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
                   |                                   |


                                                             [Page 14]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


                   +----------------                   +---------------
                  (a)                                 (b)

 Figure 4 Combination of Dual-Homing and Backdoor Links for CE Devices

5.7 Customer traffic
5.7.1  Unicast, Unknown Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast forwarding
   A VPLS MUST deliver every packet at least to its intended
   destination(s) within the scope of the VPLS, subject to the ingress
   policing and security policies.

5.7.2  Packet Re-ordering
   The queuing and forwarding policies SHOULD preserve packet order for
   packets with the same QoS parameters.

5.7.3  Minimum MTU
   A VPLS MUST support the theoretical MTU of the offered service.

   The committed minimum MTU size MUST be the same for a given VPLS
   instance.  Different L2VPN services MAY have different committed MTU
   sizes.  If the customer VLANs are used as service delimiters, all
   VLANs within a given VPLS MUST inherit the same MTU size.

   A VPLS MAY fragment packets as long as it is transparent to the
   customer.

5.7.4  End-point VLAN tag translation
   The L2VPN service MAY support translation of customers' AC
   identifiers (e.g., VLAN tags, if the customer VLANs are used as
   service delimiters).  Such service simplifies connectivity of sites
   that want to keep their AC assignments or sites that belong to
   different administrative domains.  In the latter case, the
   connectivity is sometimes referred to as Layer-2 extranet.  On the
   other hand, it SHOULD be noted that VLAN tag translation affects the
   support for multiple spanning trees (i.e., 802.1s [IEEE_802.1s]) and
   can break the proper operation.

5.7.5  Transparency
   The L2VPN service is intended to be transparent to Layer-2 customer
   networks.  A L2VPN solution SHOULD NOT require any special packet
   processing by the end users before sending packets to the provider's
   network.

   If VLAN Ids are assigned by the SP, then VLANs are not transparent.
   Transparency does not apply in this case, as it is the same as
   FR/ATM service model.

   Since the IPLS solution aims at transporting encapsulated traffic
   (rather than Layer-2 frames themselves) the IPLS solution MUST not
   alter the packets encapsulated inside Layer-2 frames which are
   transported by the IPLS.  However, the IPLS solution is NOT REQUIRED
   to preserve the Layer-2 header transparently from CE to CE.  For


                                                             [Page 15]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   example, Source MAC address might not be preserved by the IPLS
   solution.  The IPLS solution MAY remove Layer-2 headers for
   transport over the backbone when those can be reconstructed on
   egress without compromising transport of encapsulated traffic.

5.8 Support for Layer-2 Control Protocols
   The L2VPN solution SHOULD allow transparent operation of Layer-2
   control protocols employed by customers.

   In case of VPLS, the L2VPN service MUST ensure that loops be
   prevented.  This can be accomplished with a loop free topology or
   appropriate forwarding rules.  Control protocols such as Spanning
   Tree (STP) or similar could be employed.  The L2VPN solution MAY use
   indications from customer Layer-2 control protocols, e.g., STP BPDU
   snooping, to improve the operation of a VPLS.

5.9 CE Provisioning
   The L2VPN solution MUST require only minimal or no configuration on
   the CE devices, depending on the type of CE device that connects
   into the infrastructure.

6 Service Provider Network Requirements
   This section describes requirements from a SP perspective.

6.1 Scalability
   This section contains projections regarding L2VPN sizing and
   scalability requirements and metrics specific to particular
   solutions.

6.1.1  Service Provider Capacity Sizing Projections
   This section captures projections for scaling requirements over the
   next several years in terms of number of L2VPNs, number of
   interfaces per L2VPN, the size of forwarding information base per
   L2VPN, and the rate of L2VPN configuration changes.  The examples
   are provided in [RFC3809].

   The numbers provided in this section are examples and MUST be
   treated as such.  A L2VPN solution MAY scale much more than the
   examples provided here.  Each requirement in this section MUST be
   considered independently.

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD be scalable to support a very large number
   of L2VPNs per SP network.  The estimate is that a large SP will
   require support of O(10^5) VPWSs and O(10^4) VPLSs within the next
   four years.

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD be scalable to support of a wide range of
   number of site interfaces per VPLS, depending on the size and/or
   structure of the customer organization.  The number of site
   interfaces SHOULD range from a few site interfaces to O(10^2) site
   interfaces per VPLS.



                                                             [Page 16]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   A L2VPN solution SHOULD be scalable to support a wide range of
   number of customer addresses (e.g., MAC) per VPLS.  The number of
   customer addresses per VPLS MAY range from just a few (i.e., the
   number of sites when the CE devices are routers or when the service
   is IPLS) to a very large number such as 1,000 (i.e., when CE devices
   are switches).  The number of customer addresses would be on the
   order of addresses supported in a typical native Layer-2 backbone.

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD support high values of the frequency of
   configuration setup and change, e.g., for real-time provisioning of
   an on-demand videoconferencing or addition/deletion of sites.

   Approaches SHOULD articulate scaling and performance limits for more
   complex deployment scenarios, such as inter-AS(S) L2VPNs and
   carriers' carrier.  Approaches SHOULD also describe other dimensions
   of interest, such as capacity requirements or limits, number of
   inter-working instances supported as well as any scalability
   implications on management systems.

   The number of users per VPLS is the combination of servers and hosts
   connected to the VPLS.  It needs to scale from a handful to high
   numbers.  A VPLS MUST scale from 2 users to a few hundred.

   The number of users per VPLS interface follows the same logic as for
   users per VPLS.  Further, it MUST be possible to have single user
   sites connected to the same VPLS as very large sites are connected
   to.  VPLSs MUST scale from 1 user to a few hundred per site.

   The number of sites per VPLS is clearly limited by the number of
   users for a VPLS.  The largest number of sites in a VPLS would be
   equal to the largest number of users, distributed one per site.

   The number of L2VPNs SHOULD scale linearly with the size of the
   access network and with the number of PEs.

6.1.2  Solution-Specific Metrics
   Each L2VPN solution SHALL document its scalability characteristics
   in quantitative terms.

6.2 Identifiers
   A SP domain MUST be uniquely identified at least within the set of
   all interconnected SP networks when supporting a L2VPN that spans
   multiple SPs.  Ideally, this identifier SHOULD be globally unique
   (e.g., an AS number).

   An identifier for each L2VPN SHOULD be unique, at least within each
   SP's network, as it MAY be used in auto-discovery, management (e.g.,
   alarm and service correlation, troubleshooting, performance
   statistics collection), and signaling.  Ideally, the L2VPN
   identifier SHOULD be globally unique to support the case, where a
   L2VPN spans multiple SPs (e.g., [RFC2685]).  Globally unique
   identifiers facilitate the support of inter-AS/SP L2VPNs.


                                                             [Page 17]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004



6.3 Discovering L2VPN Related Information
   Configuration of PE devices (i.e., U-PE and N-PE [L2VPN_FR]) is a
   significant task for a SP.  Solutions SHOULD provide methods that
   dynamically allow L2VPN information to be discovered by the PEs to
   minimize the configuration steps.

   Each device in a L2VPN SHOULD be able to determine which other
   devices belong to the same L2VPN.  Such a membership discovery
   scheme MUST prevent unauthorized access and allows authentication of
   the source.

   Distribution of L2VPN information SHOULD be limited to those devices
   involved in that L2VPN.  A L2VPN solution SHOULD employ discovery
   mechanisms to minimize the amount of operational information
   maintained by the SPs.  For example, if a SP adds or removes a
   customer port on a given PE, the remaining PEs SHOULD determine the
   necessary actions to take without the SP having to explicitly
   reconfigure those PEs.

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD support the means for attached CEs to
   authenticate each other and verify that the SP L2VPN is correctly
   configured.

   The mechanism SHOULD respond to L2VPN membership changes in a timely
   manner.  A "timely manner" is no longer than the provisioning
   timeframe, typically on the order of minutes, and MAY be as short as
   the timeframe required for "rerouting," typically on the order of
   seconds.

   Dynamically creating, changing, and managing multiple L2VPN
   assignments to sites and/or customers is another aspect of
   membership that MUST be addressed in a L2VPN solution.

6.4 SLS Support
   Typically, a SP offering a L2VPN service commits to specific SLS as
   part of a contract with the customer.  Such a SLA drives the
   specific SP requirements for measuring specific SLSs for quality,
   availability, response time, and configuration intervals.

6.5 Quality of Service (QoS)
   A significant aspect of a provider provisioned VPN is support for
   QoS.  A SP has control over the provisioning of resources and
   configuration of parameters in at least the PE and P devices, and in
   some cases, the CE devices as well.  Therefore, the SP is to provide
   either managed QoS access service, or edge-to-edge QoS service, as
   defined in [L3VPN_REQTS].

6.6 Isolation of Traffic and Forwarding Information
   From a high level SP perspective, a L2VPN MUST isolate the exchange
   of traffic and forwarding information to only those sites that are
   authenticated and authorized members of a L2VPN.


                                                             [Page 18]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004



   A L2VPN solution SHOULD provide a means for meeting provider
   provisioned VPN QoS SLS requirements that isolates L2VPN traffic
   from the affects of traffic offered by non-VPN customers.  Also,
   L2VPN solutions SHOULD provide a means so that traffic congestion
   produced by sites as part of one L2VPN does not affect another
   L2VPN.

6.7 Security
   The security requirements are stated in Section 4.5.  The security
   requirements provided in [RFC3809] SHOULD be met.  The security
   requirements, except Layer-3 and higher layer dependent ones,
   specified in [L3VPN_REQTS] SHOULD be met.

   In addition, a SP network MUST be immune to malformed or maliciously
   constructed customer traffic.  This includes but not limited to
   duplicate or invalid Layer-2 addresses, customer side loops,
   short/long packets, spoofed management packets, spoofed VLAN tags,
   high volume traffic.

   The SP network devices MUST NOT be accessible from any L2VPN, unless
   specifically authorized.  The devices in the SP network SHOULD
   provide some means of reporting intrusion attempts to the SP, if the
   intrusion is detected.

6.8 Inter-AS/SP L2VPNs
   All applicable SP requirements, such as traffic and forwarding
   information isolation, SLS's, management, security, provisioning,
   etc. MUST be preserved across adjacent AS's.  The solution MUST
   describe the inter-SP network interface, encapsulation method(s),
   routing protocol(s), and all applicable parameters.

   A L2VPN solution MUST provide the specifics of offering L2VPN
   services spanning multiple ASs and/or SPs.

   A L2VPN solution MUST support proper dissemination of operational
   parameters to all elements of a L2VPN service in the presence of
   multiple ASs and/or SPs.  A L2VPN solution MUST employ mechanisms
   for sharing operational parameters between different ASs

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD support policies for proper selection of
   operational parameters coming from different ASs.  Similarly, a
   L2VPN solution SHOULD support policies for selecting information to
   be disseminated to different ASs.

6.8.1  Management
   The general requirements for managing a single AS apply to a
   concatenation of AS's.  A minimum subset of such capabilities is the
   following:
     - Diagnostic tools
     - Secured access to one AS management system by another


                                                             [Page 19]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


     - Configuration request and status query tools
     - Fault notification and trouble tracking tools

6.8.2  Bandwidth and QoS Brokering
   When a L2VPN spans multiple AS's, there is a need for a brokering
   mechanism that requests certain SLS parameters, such as bandwidth
   and QoS, from the other domains and/or networks involved in
   transferring traffic to various sites.  The essential requirement is
   that a solution MUST be able to determine whether a set of AS's can
   establish and guarantee uniform QoS in support of a provider
   provisioned VPN.

6.9 L2VPN Wholesale
   The architecture MUST support the possibility of one SP offering
   L2VPN service to another SP.  One example is when one SP sells L2VPN
   service at wholesale to another SP, who then resells that L2VPN
   service to his or her customers.

6.10 Tunneling Requirements
   Connectivity between CE sites or PE devices in the backbone SHOULD
   be able to use a range of tunneling technologies, such as L2TP, GRE,
   IP-in-IP, MPLS, etc.

   Every PE MUST support a tunnel setup protocol, if tunneling is used.
   A PE MAY support static configuration.  If employed, a tunnel
   establishment protocol SHOULD be capable of conveying information,
   such as the following:
     - Relevant identifiers
     - QoS/SLS parameters
     - Restoration parameters
     - Multiplexing identifiers
     - Security parameters

   There MUST be a means to monitor the following aspects of tunnels:
     - Statistics, such as amount of time spent in the up and down
        state
     - Count of transitions between the up and down state
     - Events, such as transitions between the up and down states

   The tunneling technology used by the VPN SP and its associated
   mechanisms for tunnel establishment, multiplexing, and maintenance
   MUST meet the requirements on scaling, isolation, security, QoS,
   manageability, etc.

   Regardless of the tunneling choice, the existence of the tunnels and
   their operations MUST be transparent to the customers.

6.11 Support for Access Technologies
   The connectivity between PE and CE devices is referred to as an AC.
   ACs MAY span networks of other providers or public networks.


                                                             [Page 20]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004



   There are several choices for implementing ACs.  Some popular
   choices include Ethernet, ATM (DSL), Frame Relay, MPLS-based virtual
   circuits etc.

   In case of VPLS, the AC MUST use Ethernet frames as the Service
   Protocol Data Unit (SPDU).

   A CE access connection over an AC MUST be bi-directional.

   PE devices MAY support multiple ACs on a single physical interface.
   In such cases, PE devices MUST NOT rely on customer controlled
   parameters for distinguishing between different access connections.
   For example, if VLAN tags were used for that purpose, the provider
   would be controlling the assignment of the VLAN tag values and would
   strictly enforce compliance by the CEs.

   An AC, whether direct or virtual, MUST maintain all committed
   characteristics of the customer traffic, such as QoS, priorities
   etc.  The characteristics of an AC are only applicable to that
   connection.

6.12 Backbone Networks
   Ideally, the backbone, interconnecting SP's PE and P devices, SHOULD
   be independent of physical and link layer technology.  Nevertheless,
   the characteristics of backbone technology MUST be taken into
   account when specifying the QoS aspects of SLSs for VPN service
   offerings.

6.13 Network Resource Partitioning and Sharing Between L2VPNs
   In case network resources such as memory space, forwarding
   information base table, bandwidth and CPU processing are shared
   between L2VPNs, the solution SHOULD guarantee availability of
   resources necessary to prevent any specific L2VPN service instance
   from taking up available network resources and causing others to
   fail.  The solution SHOULD be able to limit the resources consumed
   by a L2VPN service instance.  The solution SHOULD guarantee
   availability of resources necessary to fulfill the obligation of
   committed SLSs.

6.14 Interoperability
   Service providers are interested in interoperability in at least the
   following scenarios:
     - To facilitate use of PE and managed CE devices within a single
        SP network
     - To implement L2VPN services across two or more interconnected
        SP networks
     - To achieve inter-working or interconnection between customer
        sites using different L2VPN solutions or different
        implementations of the same approach



                                                             [Page 21]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   Each approach MUST describe whether any of the above objectives can
   be met.  If an objective can be met, the approach MUST describe how
   such interoperability could be achieved.

6.15 Testing
   The L2VPN solution SHOULD provide the ability to test and verify
   operational and maintenance activities on a per L2VPN service basis,
   and in case of VPLS, on a per VLAN basis if customer VLANs are used
   as service delimiters.

   The L2VPN solution SHOULD provide mechanisms for connectivity
   verification, and for detecting and locating faults.

   Examples of testing mechanisms are as follows:
     - Checking connectivity between "service-aware" network nodes
     - Verifying data plane and control plane integrity
     - Verifying service membership

   The provided mechanisms MUST satisfy the following: the
   connectivity checking for a given customer MUST enable the end-to-
   end testing of the data path used by that of customer's data packets
   and the test packets MUST not propagate beyond the boundary of the
   SP network.

6.16 Support on Existing PEs
   To the extent possible, the IPLS solution SHOULD facilitate support
   of IPLS on existing PE devices that may be already deployed by the
   SP and MAY have been designed primarily for Layer-3 services.

7 Service Provider Management Requirements
   A SP desires to have a means to view the topology, operational
   state, and other parameters associated with each customer's L2VPN.
   Furthermore, the SP requires a means to view the underlying logical
   and physical topology, operational state, provisioning status, and
   other parameters associated with the equipment providing the L2VPN
   service(s) to its customers.  Therefore, the devices SHOULD provide
   standards-based interfaces (e.g., L2VPN MIBs) wherever feasible.

   The details of service provider management requirements for a
   Network Management System (NMS) in the traditional fault,
   configuration, accounting, performance, and security (FCAPS)
   management categories can be found in [ITU_Y.1311.1].

8 Engineering Requirements
   These requirements are driven by implementation characteristics that
   make service and SP requirements achievable.

8.1 Control Plane Requirements
   A L2VPN service SHOULD be provisioned with minimum number of steps.
   Therefore, the control protocols SHOULD provide methods for



                                                             [Page 22]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   signaling between PEs.  The signaling SHOULD inform of membership,
   tunneling information, and other relevant parameters.

   The infrastructure MAY employ manual configuration methods to
   provide this type of information.

   The infrastructure SHOULD use policies to scope the membership and
   reachability advertisements for a particular L2VPN service.  A
   mechanism for isolating the distribution of reachability information
   to only those sites associated with a L2VPN MUST be provided.

   The control plane traffic increases with the growth of L2VPN
   membership.  Similarly, the control plane traffic increases with the
   number of supported L2VPN services.  The use of control plane
   resources MAY increase as the number of hosts connected to a L2VPN
   service grows.

   A L2VPN solution SHOULD minimize control plane traffic and the
   consumption of control plane resources.  The control plane MAY offer
   means for enforcing a limit on the number of customer hosts attached
   to a L2VPN service.

8.2 Data Plane Requirements
8.2.1  Encapsulation
   A L2VPN solution SHOULD utilize the encapsulation techniques defined
   by PWE3 ([PWE3_ARCH]), and SHOULD not impose any new requirements on
   these techniques.

8.2.2  Responsiveness to Congestion
   A L2VPN solution SHOULD utilize the congestion avoidance techniques
   defined by PWE3 ([PWE3_ARCH]).

8.2.3  Broadcast Domain
   A separate Broadcast Domain MUST be maintained for each VPLS.

   In addition to VPLS Broadcast Domains, a L2VPN service MAY honor
   customer VLAN Broadcast Domains, if customer VLANs are used as
   service delimiters.  In that case, the L2VPN solution SHOULD
   maintain a separate VLAN Broadcast Domain for each customer VLAN.

8.2.4  Virtual Switching Instance
   L2VPN PE devices MUST maintain a separate VSI per VPLS.  Each VSI
   MUST have capabilities to forward traffic based on customer's
   traffic parameters such as MAC addresses, VLAN tags (if supported),
   etc. as well as local policies.

   L2VPN PE devices MUST have capabilities to classify incoming
   customer traffic into the appropriate VSI.

   Each VSI MUST have flooding capabilities for its Broadcast Domain to
   facilitate proper forwarding of Broadcast, Multicast and Unknown
   Unicast customer traffic.


                                                             [Page 23]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004



8.2.5  MAC address learning
   A VPLS SHOULD derive all topology and forwarding information from
   packets originating at customer sites.  Typically, MAC address
   learning mechanisms are used for this purpose.  With IPLS, snooping
   of particular packets originating at customer sites and signaling
   might also be used.

   Dynamic population of the forwarding information base (e.g., via MAC
   address learning) MUST take place on a per VSI basis, i.e., in the
   context of a VPLS and, if supported, in the context of VLANs
   therein.

9 Security Considerations
   Security considerations occur at several levels and dimensions
   within L2VPNs, as detailed within this document.

   The requirements based on security concerns and potential security
   hazards are detailed in section 4.5..  Further details on security
   requirements are given from the customer and service provider
   perspectives in sections 5.5 and 6.7, respectively.  In an analogous
   manner, further detail on traffic and routing isolation requirements
   are given from the customer and service provider perspectives in
   sections 4.4 and 6.6, respectively.  Safeguards to protect network
   resources such as CPU, memory, and bandwidth are required in section
   6.13.

   IPSec can also be applied after tunneling Layer-2 traffic to provide
   additional security.

10 Acknowledgments
   The authors would like to acknowledge extensive comments and
   contributions provided by Loa Andersson, Joel Halpern, Eric Rosen,
   Ali Sajassi, Muneyoshi Suzuki, Ananth Nagarajan, Dinesh Mohan, Yakov
   Rekhter, Matt Squire, Norm Finn, Scott Bradner, and Francois Le
   Faucheur.  The authors, also, wish to extend their appreciation's to
   their respective employers and various other people who volunteered
   to review this work and provided feedback.  This work was done in
   consultation with the entire Layer-2 PPVPN design team.  A lot of
   the text was adapted from the Layer-3 VPN requirements document
   produced by Layer-3 VPN requirements design team.

11 References
11.1 Normative References
   [VPN_TERM]       Andersson, L, Madsen, T. "PPVPN Terminology", work
                    in progress

11.2 Informative References
   [L2VPN_FR]       Andersson, L, et al. "L2VPN Framework", work in
                    progress
   [IEEE_802.1Q]    IEEE Std 802.1Q-1998, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
                    Networks", 1998


                                                             [Page 24]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   [RFC3809]        Nagarajan, A., et al. "Generic Requirements for
                    Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks
                    (PPVPN)", RFC3809, June 2004.
   [RFC3270]        Le Faucheur, F., et al. "Multi-Protocol Label
                    Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
                    Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
   [RFC3308]        Calhoun, P., et al, "Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
                    (L2TP) Differentiated Services Extension", RFC
                    3308, November 2002.
   [RFC2205]        Braden, R., et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
                    (RSVP)", RFC 2205, September 1997.
   [L3VPN_REQTS]    Carugi, M., McDysan, D. et. al., "Service
                    Requirements for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned
                    Virtual Private Networks", work in progress
   [RFC2474]        Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black,
                    "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field
                    (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
                    December 1998.
   [IEEE_802.1D]    ISO/IEC 15802-3: 1998 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1998
                    Edition (Revision and redesignation of ISO/IEC
                    10038:98), "Part 3: Media Access Control (MAC)
                    Bridges", 1998.
   [IEEE_802.10]    IEEE Std 802.10-1998 Edition (Revision IEEE Std
                    802.10-1992, incorporating IEEE Std 802.10b-1992,
                    802.10e-1993, 802.10f-1993, 802.10g-1995, and
                    802.10h-1997), "Standard for Interoperable LAN/MAN
                    Security (SILS)", 1998.
   [IEEE_802.1s]    IEEE Std 802.1s-2002, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
                    Networks- Amendment 3: Multiple Spanning Trees",
                    2002.
   [RFC2685]        Fox B., et al, "Virtual Private Networks
                    Identifier", RFC 2685, September 1999.
   [ITU_Y.1311.1]   Carugi, M. (editor), "Network Based IP VPN over
                    MPLS architecture",Y.1311.1 ITU-T Recommendation,
                    May 2001.
   [PWE3_ARCH]      Bryant, S. "PWE3 Architecture", work in progress

12 Editors' Addresses

   Waldemar Augustyn
   Email: waldemar@nxp.com

   Yetik Serbest
   SBC Labs
   9505 Arboretum Blvd.
   Austin, TX 78759
   Email: yetik_serbest@labs.sbc.com

13 Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed


                                                             [Page 25]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-03.txt      October, 2004


   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

14 Full copyright statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.





















                                                             [Page 26]