Network Working Group E. Rosen
Internet-Draft W. Luo
Expires: February 19, 2006 B. Davie
Cisco Systems, Inc.
V. Radoaca
August 18, 2005
Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs
draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
There are a number of different kinds of "Provider Provisioned Layer
2 VPNs" (L2VPNs). The different kinds of L2VPN may have different
"provisioning models", i.e., different models for what information
needs to be configured in what entities. Once configured, the
provisioning information is distributed by a "discovery process".
When the discovery process is complete, a signaling protocol is
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
automatically invoked. The signaling protocol sets up the mesh of
Pseudowires (PWs) that form the (virtual) backbone of the L2VPN. Any
PW signaling protocol needs to have a method which allows each PW
endpoint to identify the other; thus a PW signaling protocol will
have the notion of an endpoint identifier. The semantics of the
endpoint identifiers which the signaling protocol uses for a
particular type of L2VPN are determined by the provisioning model.
This document specifies a number of L2VPN provisioning models, and
further specifies the semantic structure of the endpoint identifiers
required by each provisioning model. It discusses the way in which
the endpoint identifiers are distributed by the discovery process,
especially when the discovery process is based upon the Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP). It then specifies how the endpoint
identifiers are carried in the two signaling protocols that are used
to set up PWs, the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Layer 2
Tunneling Protocol (L2TPv3).
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Signaling Protocol Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Endpoint Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Creating a Single Bidirectional Pseudowire . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Attachment Identifiers and Forwarders . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Individual Point-to-Point Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1. Provisioning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1.1. Double Sided Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1.2. Single Sided Provisioning with Discovery . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Virtual Private LAN Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.2. Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.2.1. BGP-based auto-discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.3. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.4. Pseudowires as VPLS Attachment Circuits . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Colored Pools: Full Mesh of Point-to-Point Pseudowires . . 16
3.3.1. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.2. Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.2.1. BGP-based auto-discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.3. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4. Colored Pools: Partial Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5. Distributed VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5.1. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.5.2. Provisioning and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.5.3. Non-distributed VPLS as a sub-case . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5.4. Splicing and the Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Inter-AS Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1. Multihop EBGP redistribution of L2VPN NLRIs . . . . . . . 25
4.2. EBGP redistribution of L2VPN NLRIs with Pseudowire
Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3. Inter-Provider Application of Dist. VPLS Signaling . . . . 27
4.4. RT and RD Assignment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 35
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
1. Introduction
[L2VPN-FW] describes a number of different ways in which sets of
pseudowires may be combined together into "Provider Provisioned Layer
2 VPNs" (L2 PPVPNs, or L2VPNs), resulting in a number of different
kinds of L2VPN. Different kinds of L2VPN may have different
"provisioning models", i.e., different models for what information
needs to be configured in what entities. Once configured, the
provisioning information is distributed by a "discovery process", and
once the information is discovered, the signaling protocol is
automatically invoked to set up the required pseudowires. The
semantics of the endpoint identifiers which the signaling protocol
uses for a particular type of L2VPN are determined by the
provisioning model. That is, different kinds of L2VPN, with
different provisioning models, require different kinds of endpoint
identifiers. This document specifies a number of PPVPN provisioning
models, and specifies the semantic structure of the endpoint
identifiers required for each provisioning model.
Either LDP (as specified in [LDP] and extended in [PWE3-CONTROL]) or
L2TP version 3 (as specified in [L2TP-BASE] and extended in [L2TP-
L2VPN]) can be used as signaling protocols to set up and maintain
pseudowires (PWs) [PWE3-ARCH]. Any protocol which sets up
connections must provide a way for each endpoint of the connection to
identify the other; each PW signaling protocol thus provides a way to
identify the PW endpoints. Since each signaling protocol needs to
support all the different kinds of L2VPN and provisioning models, the
signaling protocol must have a very general way of representing
endpoint identifiers, and it is necessary to specify rules for
encoding each particular kind of endpoint identifier into the
relevant fields of each signaling protocol. This document specifies
how to encode the endpoint identifiers of each provisioning model
into the LDP and L2TPv3 signaling protocols.
We make free use of terminology from [L2VPN-FW], [L2VPN-TERM], and
[PWE3-ARCH], in particular the terms "Attachment Circuit",
"pseudowire", "PE", "CE".
Section 2 provides an overview of the relevant aspects of [PWE3-
CONTROL] and [L2TP-L2VPN].
Section 3 details various provisioning models and relates them to the
signaling process and to the discovery process. The way in which the
signaling mechanisms can be integrated with BGP-based auto-discovery
is covered in some detail.
Section 4 explains how the procedures for discovery and signaling can
be applied in a multi-AS environment and outlines several options for
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
the establishment of multi-AS L2VPNs.
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
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
2. Signaling Protocol Framework
2.1. Endpoint Identification
Per [L2VPN-FW], a pseudowire can be thought of as a relationship
between a pair of "Forwarders". In simple instances of VPWS, a
Forwarder binds a pseudowire to a single Attachment Circuit, such
that frames received on the one are sent on the other, and vice
versa. In VPLS, a Forwarder binds a set of pseudowires to a set of
Attachment Circuits; when a frame is received from any member of that
set, a MAC address table is consulted (and various 802.1d procedures
executed) to determine the member or members of that set on which the
frame is to be transmitted. In more complex scenarios, Forwarders
may bind PWs to PWs, thereby "splicing" two PWs together; this is
needed, e.g., to support distributed VPLS and some inter-AS
scenarios.
In simple VPWS, where a Forwarder binds exactly one PW to exactly one
Attachment Circuit, a Forwarder can be identified by identifying its
Attachment Circuit. In simple VPLS, a Forwarder can be identified by
identifying its PE device and its VPN.
To set up a PW between a pair of Forwarders, the signaling protocol
must allow the Forwarder at one endpoint to identify the Forwarder at
the other. In [PWE3-CONTROL], the term "Attachment Identifier", or
"AI", is used to refer to a quantity whose purpose is to identify a
Forwarder. In [L2TP-L2VPN], the term "Forwarder Identifier" is used
for the same purpose. In the context of this document, "Attachment
Identifier" and "Forwarder Identifier" are used interchangeably.
[PWE3-CONTROL] specifies two FEC elements that can be used when
setting up pseudowires, the PWid FEC element, and the Generalized Id
FEC element. The PWid FEC element carries only one Forwarder
identifier; it can be thus be used only when both forwarders have the
same identifier, and when that identifier can be coded as a 32-bit
quantity. The Generalized Id FEC element carries two Forwarder
identifiers, one for each of the two Forwarders being connected.
Each identifier is known as an Attachment Identifier, and a signaling
message carries both a "Source Attachment Identifier" (SAI) and a
"Target Attachment Identifier" (TAI).
The Generalized ID FEC element also provides some additional
structuring of the identifiers. It is assumed that the SAI and TAI
will sometimes have a common part, called the "Attachment Group
Identifier" (AGI), such that the SAI and TAI can each be thought of
as the concatenation of the AGI with an "Attachment Individual
Identifier" (AII). So the pair of identifiers is encoded into three
fields: AGI, Source AII (SAII), and Target AII (TAII). The SAI is
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
the concatenation of the AGI and the SAII, while the TAI is the
concatenation of the AGI and the TAII.
Similarly, [L2TP-L2VPN] allows using one or two Forwarder Identifiers
to set up pseudowires. If only the target Forwarder Identifier is
used in L2TP signaling messages, both the source and target
Forwarders are assumed to have the same value. If both the source
and target Forwarder Identifiers are carried in L2TP signaling
messages, each Forwarder uses a locally significant identifier value.
The Forwarder Identifier in [L2TP-L2VPN] is an equivalent term as
Attachment Identifier in [PWE3-CONTROL]. A Forwarder Identifier also
consists of an Attachment Group Identifier and an Attachment
Individual Identifier. Unlike the Generalized ID FEC element, the
AGI and AII are carried in distinct L2TP Attribute-Value-Pairs
(AVPs). The AGI is encoded in the AGI AVP, and the SAII and TAII are
encoded in the Local End ID AVP and the Remote End ID AVP
respectively. The source Forwarder Identifier is the concatenation
of the AGI and SAII, while the target Forwarder Identifier is the
concatenation of the AGI and TAII.
In applications that group sets of PWs into "Layer 2 Virtual Private
Networks", the AGI can be thought of as a "VPN Identifier".
It should be noted that while different forwarders support different
applications, the type of application (e.g., VPLS vs. VPWS) cannot
necessarily be inferred from the forwarders' identifiers. A router
receiving a signaling message with a particular TAI will have to be
able to determine which of its local forwarders is identified by that
TAI, and to determine the application provided by that forwarder.
But other nodes may not be able to infer the application simply by
inspection of the signaling messages.
In this document some further structure of the AGI and AII is
proposed for certain L2VPN applications. We note that [PWE3-CONTROL]
defines a TLV structure for AGI and AII fields. Thus, an operator
who chooses to use the AII structure defined here could also make use
of different AGI or AII types if he also wanted to use a different
structure for these identifiers for some other application. For
example, the long prefix type of [AII-TYPES] could be used to enable
the communication of administrative information, perhaps combined
with information learned during autodiscovery.
2.2. Creating a Single Bidirectional Pseudowire
In any form of LDP-based signaling, each PW endpoint must initiate
the creation of a unidirectional LSP. A PW is a pair of such LSPs.
In most of the PPVPN provisioning models, the two endpoints of a
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
given PW can simultaneously initiate the signaling for it. They must
therefore have some way of determining when a given pair of LSPs are
intended to be associated together as a single PW.
The way in which this association is done is different for the
various different L2VPN services and provisioning models. The
details appear in later sections.
L2TP signaling inherently establishes a bidirectional session that
carries a PW between two PW endpoints. The two endpoints can also
simultaneously initiate the signaling for a given PW. It is possible
that two PWs can be established for a pair of Forwarders.
In order to avoid setting up duplicated pseudowires between two
Forwarders, each PE must be able to independently detect such a
pseudowire tie. The procedures of detecting a pseudowire tie is
described in [L2TP-L2VPN]
2.3. Attachment Identifiers and Forwarders
Every Forwarder in a PE must be associated with an Attachment
Identifier (AI), either through configuration or through some
algorithm. The Attachment Identifier must be unique in the context
of the PE router in which the Forwarder resides. The combination <PE
router, AI> must be globally unique.
As specified in [PWE3-CONTROL], the Attachment Identifier may consist
of an Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) plus an Attachment Individual
Identifier (AII). In the context of this document, an AGI may be
thought of as a VPN-id, or a VLAN identifier, some attribute which is
shared by all the Attachment Circuits which are allowed to be
connected.
It is sometimes helpful to consider a set of attachment circuits at a
single PE to belong to a common "pool". For example a set of
attachment circuits that connect a single CE to a given PE may be
considered a pool. The use of pools is described in detail in
Section 3.3.
The details for how to construct the AGI and AII fields identifying
the pseudowire endpoints in particular provisioning models are
discussed later in this paper.
We can now consider an LSP for one direction of a pseudowire to be
identified by:
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
o <PE1, <AGI, AII1>, PE2, <AGI, AII2>>
and the LSP in the opposite direction of the pseudowire will be
identified by:
o <PE2, <AGI, AII2>, PE1, <AGI, AII1>>
A pseudowire is a pair of such LSPs. In the case of using L2TP
signaling, these refer to the two directions of an L2TP session.
When a signaling message is sent from PE1 to PE2, and PE1 needs to
refer to an Attachment Identifier which has been configured on one of
its own Attachment Circuits (or pools), the Attachment Identifier is
called a "Source Attachment Identifier". If PE1 needs to refer to an
Attachment Identifier which has been configured on one of PE2's
Attachment Circuits (or pools), the Attachment Identifier is called a
"Target Attachment Identifier". (So an SAI at one endpoint is a TAI
at the remote endpoint, and vice versa.)
In the signaling protocol, we define encodings for the following
three fields:
o Attachment Group Identifier (AGI)
o Source Attachment Individual Identifier (SAII)
o Target Attachment Individual Identifier (TAII)
If the AGI is non-null, then the SAI consists of the AGI together
with the SAII, and the TAI consists of the TAII together with the
AGI. If the AGI is null, then the SAII and TAII are the SAI and TAI
respectively.
The intention is that the PE which receives an LDP Label Mapping
message or an L2TP Incoming Call Request (ICRQ) message containing a
TAI will be able to map that TAI uniquely to one of its Attachment
Circuits (or pools). The way in which a PE maps a TAI to an
Attachment Circuit (or pool) should be a local matter (including the
choice of whether to use some or all of the bytes in the TAI for the
mapping). So as far as the signaling procedures are concerned, the
TAI is really just an arbitrary string of bytes, a "cookie".
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
3. Applications
In this section, we specify the way in which the pseudowire signaling
using the notion of source and target Forwarder is applied for a
number of different applications. For some of the applications, we
specify the way in which different provisioning models can be used.
However, this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the
applications, or an exhaustive list of the provisioning models that
can be applied to each application.
3.1. Individual Point-to-Point Pseudowires
The signaling specified in this document can be used to set up
individually provisioned point-to-point pseudowires. In this
application, each Forwarder binds a single PW to a single Attachment
Circuit. Each PE must be provisioned with the necessary set of
Attachment Circuits, and then certain parameters must be provisioned
for each Attachment Circuit.
3.1.1. Provisioning Models
3.1.1.1. Double Sided Provisioning
In this model, the Attachment Circuit must be provisioned with a
local name, a remote PE address, and a remote name. During
signaling, the local name is sent as the SAII, the remote name as the
TAII, and the AGI is null. If two Attachment Circuits are to be
connected by a PW, the local name of each must be the remote name of
the other.
Note that if the local name and the remote name are the same, the
PWid FEC element can be used instead of the Generalized ID FEC
element in the LDP based signaling.
With L2TP signaling, the local name is sent in Local End ID AVP, the
remote name in Remote End ID AVP. The AGI AVP is optional. If
present, it contains a zero-length AGI value. If the local name and
the remote name are the same, Local End ID AVP can be omitted from
L2TP signaling messages.
3.1.1.2. Single Sided Provisioning with Discovery
In this model, each Attachment Circuit must be provisioned with a
local name. The local name consists of a VPN-id (signaled as the
AGI) and an Attachment Individual Identifier which is unique relative
to the AGI. If two Attachment circuits are to be connected by a PW,
only one of them needs to be provisioned with a remote name (which of
course is the local name of the other Attachment Circuit). Neither
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
needs to be provisioned with the address of the remote PE, but both
must have the same VPN-id.
As part of an auto-discovery procedure, each PE advertises its
<VPN-id, local AII> pairs. Each PE compares its local <VPN-id,
remote AII> pairs with the <VPN-id, local AII> pairs advertised by
the other PEs. If PE1 has a local <VPN-id, remote AII> pair with
value <V, fred>, and PE2 has a local <VPN-id, local AII> pair with
value <V, fred>, PE1 will thus be able to discover that it needs to
connect to PE2. When signaling, it will use "fred" as the TAII, and
will use V as the AGI. PE1's local name for the Attachment Circuit
is sent as the SAII.
The primary benefit of this provisioning model when compared to
Double Sided Provisioning is that it enables one to move an
Attachment Circuit from one PE to another without having to
reconfigure the remote endpoint. However, compared to the approach
described in Section 3.3 below, it imposes a greater burden on the
discovery mechanism, because each attachment circuit's name must be
advertised individually (i.e. there is no aggregation of AC names in
this simple scheme).
3.1.2. Signaling
The LDP-based signaling follows the procedures specified in [PWE3-
CONTROL]. That is, one PE (PE1) sends a Label Mapping Message to
another PE (PE2) to establish an LSP in one direction. If that
message is processed successfully, and there is not yet an LSP for
the pseudowire in the opposite (PE1->PE2) direction, then PE2 sends a
Label Mapping Message to PE1.
In addition to the procedures of [PWE3-CONTROL], when a PE receives a
Label Mapping Message, and the TAI identifies a particular Attachment
Circuit which is configured to be bound to a point-to-point PW, then
the following checks must be made.
If the Attachment Circuit is already bound to a pseudowire (including
the case where only one of the two LSPs currently exists), and the
remote endpoint is not PE1, then PE2 sends a Label Release message to
PE1, with a Status Code meaning "Attachment Circuit bound to
different PE", and the processing of the Mapping message is complete.
If the Attachment Circuit is already bound to a pseudowire (including
the case where only one of the two LSPs currently exists), but the AI
at PE1 is different than that specified in the AGI/SAII fields of the
Mapping message then PE2 sends a Label Release message to PE1, with a
Status Code meaning "Attachment Circuit bound to different remote
Attachment Circuit", and the processing of the Mapping message is
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
complete.
Similarly with the L2TP-based signaling, when a PE receives an ICRQ
message, and the TAI identifies a particular Attachment Circuit which
is configured to be bound to a point-to-point PW, it performs the
following checks.
If the Attachment Circuit is already bound to a pseudowire, and the
remote endpoint is not PE1, then PE2 sends a Call Disconnect Notify
(CDN) message to PE1, with a Status Code meaning "Attachment Circuit
bound to different PE", and the processing of the ICRQ message is
complete.
If the Attachment Circuit is already bound to a pseudowire, but the
pseudowire is bound to a Forwarder on PE1 with the AI different than
that specified in the SAI fields of the ICRQ message, then PE2 sends
a CDN message to PE1, with a Status Code meaning "Attachment Circuit
bound to different remote Attachment Circuit", and the processing of
the ICRQ message is complete.
These errors could occur as the result of misconfigurations.
3.2. Virtual Private LAN Service
In the VPLS application [L2VPN-REQ, VPLS], the Attachment Circuits
can be though of as LAN interfaces which attach to "virtual LAN
switches", or, in the terminology of [L2VPN-FW], "Virtual Switching
Instances" (VSIs). Each Forwarder is a VSI that attaches to a number
of PWs and a number of Attachment Circuits. The VPLS service [L2VPN-
REQ, VPLS] requires that a single pseudowire be created between each
pair of VSIs that are in the same VPLS. Each PE device may have a
multiple VSIs, where each VSI belongs to a different VPLS.
3.2.1. Provisioning
Each VPLS must have a globally unique identifier, which we call a
VPN-id. Every VSI must be configured with the VPN-id of the VPLS to
which it belongs.
Each VSI must also have a unique identifier, which we call a VSI-ID.
This can be formed automatically by concatenating its VPN-id with an
IP address of its PE router. (Note that the PE address here is used
only as a form of unique identifier; a service provider could choose
to use some other numbering scheme if that was desired. See
Section 4 for a discussion of VSI-ID assignment in the case of
multiple providers.)
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
3.2.2. Auto-Discovery
3.2.2.1. BGP-based auto-discovery
The framework for BGP-based auto-discovery for a generic L2VPN
service is as described in [BGP-AUTO], section 3.2.
The AFI/SAFI used would be:
o An AFI specified by IANA for L2VPN. (This is the same for all
L2VPN schemes.)
o A SAFI specified by IANA specifically for an L2VPN service whose
pseudowires are set up using the procedures described in the
current document.
See Section 6 for further discussion of AFI/SAFI assignment.
In order to use BGP-based auto-discovery as specified in [BGP-AUTO],
the globally unique identifier associated with a VPLS must be
encodable as an 8-byte Route Distinguisher (RD). If the globally
unique identifier for a VPLS is an RFC2685 VPN-id, it can be encoded
as an RD as specified in [BGP-AUTO]. However, any other method of
assigning a unique identifier to a VPLS and encoding it as an RD
(using the encoding techniques of [RFC2547bis]) will do.
Each VSI needs to have a unique identifier, which can be encoded as a
BGP NLRI. This is formed by prepending the RD (from the previous
paragraph) to an IP address of the PE containing the VSI. Note that
the role of this address is simply as a readily available unique
identifier for the VSIs within a VPN; it does not need to be globally
routable. An alternate numbering scheme (e.g. numbering the VSIs of
a single VPN from 1 to n) could be used if desired.
(Note also that it is not strictly necessary for all the VSIs in the
same VPLS to have the same RD, all that is really necessary is that
the NLRI uniquely identify a VSI.)
Each VSI needs to be associated with one or more Route Target (RT)
Extended Communities, as discussed in [BGP-AUTO]. These control the
distribution of the NLRI, and hence will control the formation of the
overlay topology of pseudowires that constitutes a particular VPLS.
Auto-discovery proceeds by having each PE distribute, via BGP, the
NLRI for each of its VSIs, with itself as the BGP next hop, and with
the appropriate RT for each such NLRI. Typically, each PE would be a
client of a small set of BGP route reflectors, which would
redistribute this information to the other clients.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
If a PE has a VSI with a particular RT, it can then import all the
NLRI which have that same RT, and from the BGP next hop attribute of
these NLRI it will learn the IP addresses of the other PE routers
which have VSIs with the same RT. The considerations of [RFC2547bis]
section 4.3.3 on the use of route reflectors apply.
If a particular VPLS is meant to be a single fully connected LAN, all
its VSIs will have the same RT, in which case the RT could be (though
it need not be) an encoding of the VPN-id. If a particular VPLS
consists of multiple VLANs, each VLAN must have its own unique RT. A
VSI can be placed in multiple VLANS (or even in multiple VPLSes) by
assigning it multiple RTs.
Note that hierarchical VPLS can be set up by assigning multiple RTs
to some of the VSIs; the RT mechanism allows one to have complete
control over the pseudowire overlay which constitutes the VPLS
topology.
If Distributed VPLS (described in Section 3.5) is deployed, only the
N-PEs participate in BGP-based autodiscovery. This means that an
N-PE would need to advertise reachability to each of the VSIs that it
supports, including those located in U-PEs to which it is connected.
To create a unique identifier for each such VSI, an IP address of
each U-PE combined with the RD for the VPLS instance could be used.
In summary, the BGP advertisement for a particular VSI at a given PE
will contain:
o an NLRI of AFI = L2VPN, SAFI = TBD, encoded as RD:PE_addr
o a BGP next hop equal to the loopback address of the PE
o an extended community attribute containing one or more RTs.
Note that this advertisement is quite similar to the NLRI format
defined in [BGP-VPLS], the main difference being that [BGP-VPLS] also
includes a label block in the NLRI. Interoperability between the
VPLS scheme defined here and that defined in [BGP-VPLS] is beyond the
scope of this document.
3.2.3. Signaling
It is necessary to create Attachment Identifiers which identify the
VSIs. In the preceding section, a VSI-ID was encoded as RD:PE_addr
for the purposes of autodiscovery. For signaling purposes, the same
information is carried but is encoded slightly differently. Noting
that the RD is effectively a VPN identifier, we therefore encode the
RD in the AGI field, and place the PE_addr (or, more generally, the
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
VSI-ID that was advertised in BGP, minus the RD) in the TAII field.
The combination of AGI and TAII is sufficient to fully specify the
VSI to which this pseudowire is to be connected, in both single AS
and inter-AS environments. The SAII SHOULD be null.
The structure of the AGI and AII fields for the Generalized ID FEC in
LDP is defined in [PWE3-CONTROL]. The AGI field in this case
consists of a Type of 1, a length field of value 8, and the 8 bytes
of the RD. The TAII consists of a Type of 1, a length field of value
4, followed by the 4-byte PE address (or other 4-byte identifier).
See Section 6 for discussion of the AGI and AII Type assignment.
The encoding of the AGI and AII in L2TP is specified in [L2TP-L2VPN].
Note that it is not possible using this technique to set up more than
one PW per pair of VSIs.
3.2.4. Pseudowires as VPLS Attachment Circuits
It is also possible using this technique to set up a PW which
attaches at one endpoint to a VSI, but at the other endpoint only to
an Attachment Circuit. However, in this case there may be more than
one PW terminating on a given VSI, which must somehow be
distinguished, so that the SAIIs cannot be null in this case.
Rather, each such PW must have an SAII which is unique relative to
the VSI-ID.
3.3. Colored Pools: Full Mesh of Point-to-Point Pseudowires
The "Colored Pools" model of operation provides an automated way to
deliver Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS). In this model, each PE
may contain several pools of Attachment Circuits, each pool
associated with a particular VPN. A PE may contain multiple pools
per VPN, as each pool may correspond to a particular CE device. It
may be desired to create one pseudowire between each pair of pools
that are in the same VPN; the result would be to create a full mesh
of CE-CE VCs for each VPN.
3.3.1. Provisioning
Each pool is configured, and associated with:
o a set of Attachment Circuits;
o a "color", which can be thought of as a VPN-id of some sort;
o a relative pool identifier, which is unique relative to the color.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
[Note: depending on the technology used for Attachment Circuits, it
may or may not be necessary to provision these circuits as well. For
example, if the ACs are frame relay circuits, there may be some
separate provisioning system to set up such circuits. Alternatively,
"provisioning" an AC may be as simple as allocating an unused VLAN ID
on an interface, and communicating the choice to the customer. These
issues are independent of the procedures described in this document.]
The pool identifier, and color, taken together, constitute a globally
unique identifier for the pool. Thus if there are n pools of a given
color, their pool identifiers can be (though they do not need to be)
the numbers 1-n.
The semantics are that a pseudowire will be created between every
pair of pools that have the same color, where each such pseudowire
will be bound to one Attachment Circuit from each of the two pools.
If each pool is a set of Attachment Circuits leading to a single CE
device, then the layer 2 connectivity among the CEs is controlled by
the way the colors are assigned to the pools. To create a full mesh,
the "color" would just be a VPN-id.
Optionally, a particular Attachment Circuit may be configured with
the relative pool identifier of a remote pool. Then that Attachment
Circuit would be bound to a particular pseudowire only if that
pseudowire's remote endpoint is the pool with that relative pool
identifier. With this option, the same pairs of Attachment Circuits
will always be bound via pseudowires.
3.3.2. Auto-Discovery
3.3.2.1. BGP-based auto-discovery
The framework for BGP-based auto-discovery for a generic L2VPN
service is described in [BGP-AUTO], section 3.2.
The AFI/SAFI used would be:
o An AFI specified by IANA for L2VPN. (This is the same for all
L2VPN schemes.)
o A SAFI specified by IANA specifically for an L2VPN service whose
pseudowires are set up using the procedures described in the
current document.
See Section 6 for further discussion of AFI/SAFI assignment.
In order to use BGP-based auto-discovery, the color associated with a
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
colored pool must be encodable as both an RT (Route Target) and an RD
(Route Distinguisher). The globally unique identifier of a pool must
be encodable as NLRI; the color would be encoded as the RD and the
pool identifier as a four-byte quantity which is appended to the RD
to create the NLRI.
Auto-discovery procedures by having each PE distribute, via BGP, the
NLRI for each of its pools, with itself as the BGP next hop, and with
the RT that encodes the pool's color. If a given PE has a pool with
a particular color (RT), it must receive, via BGP, all NLRI with that
same color (RT). Typically, each PE would be a client of a small set
of BGP route reflectors, which would redistribute this information to
the other clients.
If a PE has a pool with a particular color, it can then receive all
the NLRI which have that same color, and from the BGP next hop
attribute of these NLRI will learn the IP addresses of the other PE
routers which have pools switches with the same color. It also
learns the unique identifier of each such remote pool, as this is
encoded in the NLRI. The remote pool's relative identifier can be
extracted from the NLRI and used in the signaling, as specified
below.
In summary, the BGP advertisement for a particular pool of attachment
circuits at a given PE will contain:
o an NLRI of AFI = L2VPN, SAFI = TBD, encoded as RD:pool_num;
o a BGP next hop equal to the loopback address of the PE;
o an extended community attribute containing one or more RTs.
3.3.3. Signaling
The LDP-based signaling follows the procedures specified in [PWE3-
CONTROL]. That is, one PE (PE1) sends a Label Mapping Message to
another PE (PE2) to establish an LSP in one direction. The address
of PE2 is the next-hop address learned via BGP as described above.
If the message is processed successfully, and there is not yet an LSP
for the pseudowire in the opposite (PE1->PE2) direction, then PE2
sends a Label Mapping Message to PE1. Similarly, the L2TPv3-based
signaling follows the procedures of [L2TP-BASE]. Additional details
on the use of these signaling protocols follow.
When a PE sends a Label Mapping message or an ICRQ message to set up
a PW between two pools, it encodes the color as the AGI, the local
pool's relative identifier as the SAII, and the remote pool's
relative identifier as the TAII.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
The structure of the AGI and AII fields for the Generalized ID FEC in
LDP is defined in [PWE3-CONTROL]. The AGI field in this case
consists of a Type of 1, a length field of value 8, and the 8 bytes
of the RD. The TAII consists of a Type of 1, a length field of value
4, followed by the 4-byte remote pool number. The SAII consists of a
Type of 1, a length field of value 4, followed by the 4-byte local
pool number. See Section 6 for discussion of the AGI and AII Type
assignment. Note that the VPLS and VPWS procedures defined in this
document can make use of the same AGI Type (1) and the same AII Type
(1).
The encoding of the AGI and AII in L2TP is specified in [L2TP-L2VPN].
When PE2 receives a Label Mapping message or an ICRQ message from
PE1, and the TAI identifies to a pool, and there is already an
pseudowire connecting an Attachment Circuit in that pool to an
Attachment Circuit at PE1, and the AI at PE1 of that pseudowire is
the same as the SAI of the Label Mapping or ICRQ message, then PE2
sends a Label Release or CDN message to PE1, with a Status Code
meaning "Attachment Circuit already bound to remote Attachment
Circuit". This prevents the creation of multiple pseudowires between
a given pair of pools.
Note that the signaling itself only identifies the remote pool to
which the pseudowire is to lead, not the remote Attachment Circuit
which is to be bound to the the pseudowire. However, the remote PE
may examine the SAII field to determine which Attachment Circuit
should be bound to the pseudowire.
3.4. Colored Pools: Partial Mesh
The procedures for creating a partial mesh of pseudowires among a set
of colored pools are substantially the same as those for creating a
full mesh, with the following exceptions:
o Each pool is optionally configured with a set of "import RTs" and
"export RTs";
o During BGP-based auto-discovery, the pool color is still encoded
in the RD, but if the pool is configured with a set of "export
RTs", these are are encoded in the RTs of the BGP Update messages,
INSTEAD of the color;
o If a pool has a particular "import RT" value X, it will create a
PW to every other pool which has X as one of its "export RTs".
The signaling messages and procedures themselves are as in section
3.3.3.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
As a simple example, consider the task of building a hub-and-spoke
topology with a single hub. One pool, the "hub" pool, is configured
with an export RT of RT_hub and an import RT of RT_spoke. All other
pools (the spokes) are configured with an export RT of RT_spoke and
an import RT of RT_hub. Thus the Hub pool will connect to the
spokes, and vice-versa, but the spoke pools will not connect to each
other. More complex examples are presented in section 4.2.2 of [BGP-
AUTO].
3.5. Distributed VPLS
In Distributed VPLS ([L2VPN-FW], [DTLS], [LPE]), the VPLS
functionality of a PE router is divided among two systems: a U-PE and
an N-PE. The U-PE sits between the user and the N-PE. VSI
functionality (e.g., MAC address learning and bridging) is performed
on the U-PE. A number of U-PEs attach to an N-PE. For each VPLS
supported by a U-PE, the U-PE maintains a pseudowire to each other
U-PE in the same VPLS. However, the U-PEs do not maintain signaling
control connections with each other. Rather, each U-PE has only a
single signaling connection, to its N-PE. In essence, each U-PE-to-
U-PE pseudowire is composed of three pseudowires spliced together:
one from U-PE to N-PE, one from N-PE to N-PE, and one from N-PE to
U-PE.
Consider for example the following topology:
U-PE A-----| |----U-PE C
| |
| |
N-PE E--------N-PE F
| |
| |
U-PE B-----| |-----U-PE D
where the four U-PEs are in a common VPLS. We now illustrate how PWs
get spliced together in the above topology in order to establish the
necessary PWs from U-PE A to the other U-PEs.
There are three PWs from A to E. Call these A-E/1, A-E/2, and A-E/3.
In order to connect A properly to the other U-PEs, there must be two
PWs from E to F (call these E-F/1 and E-F/2), one PW from E to B
(E-B/1), one from F to C (F-C/1), and one from F to D (F-D/1).
The N-PEs must then splice these pseudowires together to get the
equivalent of what the non-distributed VPLS signaling mechanism would
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
provide:
o PW from A to B: A-E/1 gets spliced to E-B/1.
o PW from A to C: A-E/2 gets spliced to E-F/1 gets spliced to F-C/1.
o PW from A to D: A-E/3 gets spliced to E-F/2 gets spliced to F-D/1.
It doesn't matter which PWs get spliced together, as long as the
result is one from A to each of B, C, and D.
Similarly, there are additional PWs which must get spliced together
to properly interconnect U-PE B with U-PEs C and D, and to
interconnect U-PE C with U-PE D.
The following figure illustrates the PWs from A to C and from B to D.
For clarity of the figure, the other four PWs are not shown.
splicing points
| |
V V
A-C PW <-----><-----------><------>
U-PE A-----| |----U-PE C
| |
| |
N-PE E--------N-PE F
| |
| |
U-PE B-----| |-----U-PE D
B-D PW <-----><-----------><------>
^ ^
| |
splicing points
One can see that distributed VPLS does not reduce the number of
pseudowires per U-PE, but it does reduce the number of control
connections per U-PE. Whether this is worthwhile depends, of course,
on what the bottleneck is.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
3.5.1. Signaling
The signaling to support Distributed VPLS can be done with the
mechanisms described in this paper. However, the procedures for VPLS
(section 3.2.3) need some additional machinery to ensure that the
appropriate number of PWs are established between the various N-PEs
and U-PEs, and among the N-PEs.
At a given N-PE, the directly attached U-PEs in a given VPLS can be
numbered from 1 to n. This number identifies the U-PE relative to a
particular VPN-id and a particular N-PE. (That is, to uniquely
identify the U-PE, the N-PE, the VPN-id, and the U-PE number must be
known.)
As a result of configuration/discovery, each U-PE must be given a
list of <j, IP address> pairs. Each element in this list tells the
U-PE to set up j PWs to the specified IP address. When the U-PE
signals to the N-PE, it sets the AGI to the proper-VPN-id, and sets
the SAII to the PW number, and sets the TAII to null.
In the above example, U-PE A would be told <3, E>, telling it to set
up 3 PWs to E. When signaling, A would set the AGI to the proper
VPN-id, and would set the SAII to 1, 2, or 3, depending on which of
the three PWs it is signaling.
As a result of configuration/discovery, each N-PE must be given the
following information for each VPLS:
o A "Local" list: {<j, IP address>}, where each element tells it to
set up j PWs to the locally attached U-PE at the specified
address. The number of elements in this list will be n, the
number of locally attached U-PEs in this VPLS. In the above
example, E would be given the local list: {<3, A>, <3, B>},
telling it to set up 3 PWs to A and 3 to B.
o A local numbering, relative to the particular VPLS and the
particular N-PE, of its U-PEs. In the above example, E could be
told that U-PE A is 1, and U-PE B is 2.
o A "Remote" list: {<IP address, k>}, telling it to set up k PWs,
for each U-PE, to the specified IP address. Each of these IP
addresses identifies a N-PE, and k specifies the number of U-PEs
at that N-PE which are in the VPLS. In the above example, E would
be given the remote list: {<2, F>}. Since N-PE E has two U-PEs,
this tells it to set up 4 PWs to N-PE F, 2 for each of its E's
U-PEs.
The signaling of a PW from N-PE to U-PE is based on the local list
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
and the local numbering of U-PEs. When signaling a particular PW
from an N-PE to a U-PE, the AGI is set to the proper VPN-id, and SAII
is set to null, and the TAII is set to the PW number (relative to
that particular VPLS and U-PE). In the above example, when E signals
to A, it would set the TAII to be 1, 2, or 3, respectively, for the
three PWs it must set up to A. It would similarly signal three PWs to
B.
The LSP signaled from U-PE to N-PE is associated with an LSP from
N-PE to U-PE in the usual manner. A PW between a U-PE and an N-PE is
known as a "U-PW".
The signaling of the appropriate set of PWs from N-PE to N-PE is
based on the remote list. The PWs between the N-PEs can all be
considered equivalent. As long as the correct total number of PWs
are established, the N-PEs can splice these PWs to appropriate U-PWs.
The signaling of the correct number of PWs from N-PE to N-PE is based
on the remote list. The remote list specifies the number of PWs to
set up, per local U-PE, to a particular remote N-PE.
When signaling a particular PW from an N-PE to an N-PE, the AGI is
set to the appropriate VPN-id. The TAII identifies the remote N-PE,
as in the non-distributed case, i.e. it contains an IP address of the
remote N-PE. If there are n such PWs, they are distinguished by the
setting of the SAII, which will be a number from 1 to n inclusive. A
PW between two N-PEs is known as an "N-PW".
Each U-PW must be "spliced" to an N-PW. This is based on the remote
list. If the remote list contains an element <i, F>, then i U-PWs
from each local U-PE must be spliced to i N-PWs from the remote N-PE
F. It does not matter which U-PWs are spliced to which N-PWs, as long
as this constraint is met.
If an N-PE has more than one local U-PE for a given VPLS, it must
also ensure that a U-PW from each such U-PE is spliced to a U-PW from
each of the other U-PEs.
3.5.2. Provisioning and Discovery
Every N-PE must be provisioned with the set of VPLS instances it
supports, a VPN-id for each one, and a list of local U-PEs for each
such VPLS. As part of the discovery procedure, the N-PE advertises
the number of U-PEs for each VPLS. See Section 3.2.2 for details.
Auto-discovery (e.g., BGP-based) can be used to discover all the
other N-PEs in the VPLS, and for each, the number of U-PEs local to
that N-PE. From this, one can compute the total number of U-PEs in
the VPLS. This information is sufficient to enable one to compute
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
the local list and the remote list for each N-PE.
3.5.3. Non-distributed VPLS as a sub-case
A PE which is providing "non-distributed VPLS" (i.e., a PE which
performs both the U-PE and N-PE functions) can interoperate with
N-PE/U-PE pairs that are providing distributed VPLS. The "non-
distributed PE" simply advertises, in the discovery procedure, that
it has one local U-PE per VPLS. And of course, the non-distributed
PE does no splicing.
If every PE in a VPLS is providing non-distributed VPLS, and thus
every PE advertises itself as an N-PE with one local U-PE, the
resultant signaling is exactly the same as that specified in
Section 3.2.3 above, except that an SAII value of 1 is used instead
of null. (A PE providing non-distributed VPLS should therefore treat
SAII values of 1 the same as it treats SAII values of null.)
3.5.4. Splicing and the Data Plane
Splicing two PWs together is quite straightforward in the MPLS data
plane, as moving a packet from one PW directly to another is just a
label replace operation on the PW label. When a PW consists of two
or more PWs spliced together, it is assumed that the data will go to
the node where the splicing is being done, i.e., that the data path
will pass through the nodes that participate in PW signaling.
Further details on splicing are discussed in [PW-SWITCH].
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
4. Inter-AS Operation
The provisioning, autodiscovery and signaling mechanisms described
above can all be applied in an inter-AS environment. As in [2547bis]
there are a number of options for inter-AS operation.
4.1. Multihop EBGP redistribution of L2VPN NLRIs
This option is most like option (c) in [2547bis]. That is, we use
multihop EBGP redistribution of L2VPN NLRIs between source and
destination ASes, with EBGP redistribution of labeled IPv4 routes
from AS to neighboring AS.
An ASBR must maintain labeled IPv4 /32 routes to the PE routers
within its AS. It uses EBGP to distribute these routes to other
ASes, and sets itself as the BGP next hop for these routes. ASBRs in
any transit ASes will also have to use EBGP to pass along the labeled
/32 routes. This results in the creation of a set of label switched
paths from all ingress PE routers to all egress PE routers. Now PE
routers in different ASes can establish multi-hop EBGP connections to
each other, and can exchange L2VPN NLRIs over those connections.
Following such exchanges a pair of PEs in different ASes could
establish an LDP session to signal PWs between each other.
For VPLS, the BGP advertisement and PW signaling are exactly as
described in Section 3.2. As a result of the multihop EBGP session
that exists between source and destination AS, the PEs in one AS that
have VSIs of a certain VPLS will discover the PEs in another AS that
have VSIs of the same VPLS. These PEs will then be able to establish
the appropriate PW signaling protocol session and establish the full
mesh of VSI-VSI pseudowires to build the VPLS as described in Section
3.2.3.
For VPWS, the BGP advertisement and PW signaling are exactly as
described in Section 3.3. As a result of the multihop EBGP session
that exists between source and destination AS, the PEs in one AS that
have pools of a certain color (VPN) will discover PEs in another AS
that have pools of the same color. These PEs will then be able to
establish the appropriate PW signaling protocol session and establish
the full mesh of pseudowires as described in Section 3.2.3. A
partial mesh can similarly be established using the procedures of
Section 3.4.
As in layer 3 VPNs, building an L2VPN that spans the networks of more
than one provider requires some co-ordination in the use of RTs and
RDs. This subject is discussed in more detail in Section 4.4.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
4.2. EBGP redistribution of L2VPN NLRIs with Pseudowire Switching
A possible drawback of the approach of the previous section is that
it creates PW signaling sessions among all the PEs of a given L2VPN
(VPLS or VPWS). This means a potentially large number of LDP or
L2TPv3 sessions will cross the AS boundary and that these session
connect to many devices within an AS. In the case were the ASes
belong to different providers, one might imagine that providers would
like to have fewer signaling sessions crossing the AS boundary and
that the entities that terminate the sessions could be restricted to
a smaller set of devices. Furthermore, by forcing the LDP or L2TPv3
signaling sessions to terminate on a small set of ASBRs, a provider
could use standard authentication procedures on a small set of inter-
provider sessions. These concerns motivate the approach described
here.
[PW-SWITCH] describes an approach to "switching" packets from one
pseudowire to another at a particular node. This approach allows an
end-to-end pseudowire to be constructed out of several pseudowire
segments, without maintaining an end-to-end control connection. We
can use this approach to produce an inter-AS solution that more
closely resembles option (b) in [2547bis].
In this model, we use EBGP redistribution of L2VPN NLRI from AS to
neighboring AS. First, the PE routers use IBGP to redistribute L2VPN
NLRI either to an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR), or to a
route reflector of which an ASBR is a client. The ASBR then uses
EBGP to redistribute those L2VPN NLRI to an ASBR in another AS, which
in turn distributes them to the PE routers in that AS, or perhaps to
another ASBR which in turn distributes them, and so on.
In this case, a PE can learn the address of an ASBR through which it
could reach another PE to which it wishes to establish a PW. That
is, a local PE will receive a BGP advertisement containing L2VPN NLRI
corresponding to an L2VPN instance in which the local PE has some
attached members. The BGP next-hop for that L2VPN NLRI will be an
ASBR of the local AS. Then, rather than building a control
connection all the way to the remote PE, it builds one only to the
ASBR. A pseudowire segment can now be established from the PE to the
ASBR. The ASBR in turn can establish a PW to the ASBR of the next
AS, and splice that PW to the PW from the PE as described in
Section 3.5.4 and [PW-SWITCH]. Repeating the process at each ASBR
leads to a sequence of PW segments that, when spliced together,
connect the two PEs.
Note that in the approach just described, the local PE may never
learn the IP address of the remote PE. It learns the L2VPN NLRI
advertised by the remote PE, which need not contain the remote PE
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
address, and it learns the IP address of the ASBR that is the BGP
next hop for that NLRI.
When this approach is used for VPLS, or for full-mesh VPWS, it leads
to a full mesh of pseudowires among the PEs, just as in the previous
section, but it does not require a full mesh of control connections
(LDP or L2TPv3 sessions). Instead the control connections within a
single AS run among all the PEs of that AS and the ASBRs of the AS.
A single control connection between the ASBRs of adjacent ASes can be
used to support however many AS-to-AS pseudowire segments are needed.
Note that the procedures described here will result in the splicing
points being co-located with the ASBRs. It is of course possible to
have multiple ASBR-ASBR connections between a given pair of ASes. In
this case a given PE could choose among the available ASBRs based on
a range of criteria, such as IGP metric, local configuration, etc.,
analogous to choosing an exit point in normal IP routing. The use of
multiple ASBRs would lead to greater resiliency (at the timescale of
BGP routing convergence) since a PE could select a new ASBR in the
event of the failure of the one currently in use.
As in layer 3 VPNs, building an L2VPN that spans the networks of more
than one provider requires some co-ordination in the use of RTs and
RDs. This subject is discussed in more detail in Section 4.4.
4.3. Inter-Provider Application of Dist. VPLS Signaling
An alternative approach to inter-provider VPLS can be derived from
the Distributed VPLS approach described above. Consider the
following topology:
PE A --- Network 1 ----- Border ----- Border ----- Network 2 --- PE B
Router 12 Router 21 |
|
PE C
where A, B, and C are PEs in a common VPLS, but Networks 1 and 2 are
networks of different Service Providers. Border Router 12 is Network
1's border router to network 2, and Border Router 21 is Network 2's
border router to Network 1. We suppose further that the PEs are not
"distributed", i.e, that each provides both the U-PE and N-PE
functions.
In this topology, one needs two inter-provider pseudowires: A-B and
A-C.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
Suppose a Service Provider decides, for whatever reason, that it does
not want each of its PEs to have a control connection to any PEs in
the other network. Rather, it wants the inter-provider control
connections to run only between the two border routers.
This can be achieved using the techniques of section 3.5, where the
PEs behave like U-PEs, and the BRs behave like N-PEs. In the example
topology, PE A would behave like a U-PE which is locally attached to
BR12; PEs B and C would be have like U-PEs which are locally attached
to BR21; and the two BRs would behave like N-PEs.
As a result, the PW from A to B would consist of three segments:
A-BR12, BR12-BR21, and BR21-B. The border routers would have to
splice the corresponding segments together.
This requires the PEs within a VPLS to be numbered from 1-n (relative
to that VPLS) within a given network.
4.4. RT and RD Assignment Considerations
We note that, in order for any of the inter-AS procedures described
above to work correctly, the two ASes must use RTs and RDs
consistently, just as in layer 3 VPNs [RFC2547bis]. The structure of
RTs and RDs is such that there is not a great risk of accidental
collisions. The main challenge is that it is necessary for the
operator of one AS to know what RT or RTs have been chosen in another
AS for any VPN that has sites in both ASes. As in layer 3 VPNs,
there are many ways to make this work, but all require some co-
operation among the providers. For example, provider A may tag all
the NLRI for a given VPN with a single RT, say RT_A, and provider B
can then configure the PEs that connect to sites of that VPN to
import NLRI that contains that RT. Provider B can choose a different
RT, RT_B, tag all NLRI for this VPN with that RT, and then provider A
can import NLRI with that RT at the appropriate PEs. However this
does require both providers to communicate their choice of RTs for
each VPN. Alternatively both providers could agree to use a common
RT for a given VPN. In any case communication of RTs between the
providers is essential. As in layer 3 VPNs, providers may configure
RT filtering to ensure that only coordinated RT values are allowed
across the AS boundary.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
5. Security Considerations
This document describes a number of different L2VPN provisioning
models, and specifies the endpoint identifiers that are required to
support each of the provisioning models. It also specifies how those
endpoint identifiers are mapped into fields of auto-discovery
protocols and signaling protocols.
The security considerations related to the signaling and auto-
discovery protocols are discussed in the relevant protocol
specifications ([BGP-AUTO], [L2TP-BASE], [L2TP-L2VPN], [LDP], [PWE3-
CONTROL]).
The security considerations related to the particular kind of L2VPN
service being supported are discussed in [L2VPN-REQS], [L2VPN-FW],
and [VPLS].
The security consideration of inter-AS operation are similar to those
for inter-AS L3VPNs [2547bis].
The way in which endpoint identifiers are mapped into protocol fields
does not create any additional security issues.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires the assignment of an AFI and a SAFI for L2VPN
NLRI. Both AFI and SAFI may be the same as the values assigned for
[BGP-VPLS].
[PWE3-IANA] defines registries for AGI types and AII types. This
document defines a specific format for the AGI and the AII, and
proposes the assignment of one value in each registry. The value 1
is assigned in each case, representing the first available value in
the IETF Consensus Range.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dan Tappan, Ted Qian, Ali Sajassi, Skip Booth, Luca
Martini, Dave McDysan and Francois LeFaucheur for their comments,
criticisms, and helpful suggestions.
Thanks to Tissa Senevirathne, Hamid Ould-Brahim and Yakov Rekhter for
discussing the auto-discovery issues.
Thanks to Vach Kompella for a continuing discussion of the proper
semantics of the generalized identifiers.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
8. Normative References
[BRADNER] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MP-BGP] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R. and D. Katz,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000.
[EXT-COMM] Sangli, S., Tappan, D. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-09, July 2005.
[L2TP-BASE] Lau et. al., "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version 3)",
RFC 3931, March 2005.
[LDP] Anderson et al., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, Jan 2001.
[PWE3-CONTROL] "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using LDP", Martini,
et. al., draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-17.txt, June 2005.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
9. Informative References
[BGP-AUTO] "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for Network-
based VPNs", Ould-Brahim et. al.,
draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt, February 2005
[L2TP-L2VPN] "L2VPN Extensions for L2TP", Luo,
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2vpn-05.txt, June 2005
[L2VPN-FW] "L2VPN Framework", Andersson et. al.,
draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05.txt, June 2004
[L2VPN-REQ] "Service Requirements for Layer 2 Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Network Services", Augustyn, Serbest, et. al.,
draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-04.txt, February 2005
[L2VPN-TERM] Andersson, Madsen, "PPVPN Terminology", RFC 4026, March
2005.
[PWE3-ARCH] Bryant, Pate, et. al., "PWE3 Architecture", RFC 3985,
March 2005.
[PW-SWITCH] "Pseudo Wire Switching", Martini, et. al.,
draft-martini-pwe3-pw-switching-03.txt, April 2005
[PWE3-IANA] "IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation
(PWE3)", Martini, draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-11.txt, June 2005
[RFC2547bis], "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", Rosen, Rekhter, et. al.,
draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt, October 2004
[RFC2685] "Virtual Private Networks Identifier", Fox, Gleeson,
September 1999
[VPLS] "Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS", Laserre, et. al.,
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-06.txt, February 2005
[BGP-VPLS] "Virtual Private LAN Service", Kompella et al.,
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-05.txt, April 2005
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
Authors' Addresses
Eric Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Mass. Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: erosen@cisco.com
Wei Luo
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: luo@cisco.com
Bruce Davie
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Mass. Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: bsd@cisco.com
Vasile Radoaca
Email: radoaca@hotmail.com
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft L2VPN Signaling August 2005
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 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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rosen, et al. Expires February 19, 2006 [Page 35]
