Network Working Group K. Kompella (Editor)
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Editor)
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: July 2004 January 2004
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt
Virtual Private LAN Service
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN
Service, and Virtual Private Switched Network service, is a useful
Service Provider offering. The service offered is a Layer 2 Virtual
Private Network (VPN); however, in the case of VPLS, the customers in
the VPN are connected by a multipoint network, in contrast to the
usual Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-point in nature.
This document describes the functions required to offer VPLS, and
describes a mechanism for signaling a VPLS, as well as for forwarding
VPLS frames across a packet switched network.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
Conventions used in this document
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 [1].
1. Introduction
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN
Service, and Virtual Private Switched Network service, is a useful
service offering. A Virtual Private LAN appears in (almost) all
respects as a LAN to customers of a Service Provider. However, in a
VPLS, the customers are not all connected to a single LAN; the
customers may be spread across a metro or wide area. In essence, a
VPLS glues several individual LANs across a packet-switched network
to appear and function as a single LAN [2].
This document describes the functions needed to offer VPLS, and goes
on to describe a mechanism for signaling a VPLS, as well as a
mechanism for transport of VPLS frames over tunnels across a packet
switched network. The signaling mechanism uses BGP as the control
plane protocol. This document also briefly discusses deployment
options, in particular, the notion of decoupling functions across
devices.
Alternative approaches include: [3], which allows one to build a
Layer 2 VPN with Ethernet as the interconnect; and [4], which allows
one to set up an Ethernet connection across a packet-switched
network. Both of these, however, offer point-to-point Ethernet
services. What distinguishes VPLS from the above two is that a VPLS
offers a multipoint service. A mechanism for setting up pseudowires
for VPLS using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is defined in
[5].
1.1. Scope of this Document
This document has four major parts: defining a VPLS functional model;
defining a control plane for setting up VPLS; defining the data plane
for VPLS (encapsulation and forwarding of data); and defining various
deployment scenarios.
The functional model underlying VPLS is laid out in section 2. This
describes the service being offered, the network components that
interact to provide the service, and at a high level their
interactions.
The control plane described here (section 3) uses Multiprotocol BGP
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
[6] to establish VPLS service, i.e., for the autodiscovery of VPLS
members and for the setup and teardown of the pseudowires that
constitute a given VPLS. Section 3 also describes how a VPLS that
spans Autonomous System boundaries is set up, as well as how
multi-homing is handled. Using BGP as the control plane for VPNs is
not new (see [3], [7] and [8]): what is described here is based on
the mechanisms proposed in [7].
The forwarding plane and the actions that a participating PE must
take is described in section 4.
In section 5, the notion of 'decoupled' operation is defined, and the
interaction of decoupled and non-decoupled PEs is described.
Decoupling allows for more flexible deployment of VPLS.
2. Functional Model
This will be described with reference to Figure 1.
Figure 1: Example of a VPLS
-----
/ A1 \
---- ____CE1 |
/ \ -------- -------- / | |
| A2 CE2- / \ / PE1 \ /
\ / \ / \___/ | \ -----
---- ---PE2 | \
| | \ -----
| Service Provider Network | \ / \
| | CE5 A5 |
| ___ | / \ /
|----| \ / \ PE4_/ -----
|L2PE|--PE3 / \ /
|----| -------- -------
---- / | ----
/ \/ \ / \ CE = Customer Edge Device
| A3 CE3 --CE4 A4 | PE = Provider Edge Router
\ / \ / L2PE = Layer 2 Aggregation
---- ----
2.1. Terminology
Terminology similar to that in [7] is used, with the addition of
"L2PE", a Layer 2 PE device used for Layer 2 aggregation. An L2PE is
owned and operated by the Service Provider (as is the PE). PE and
L2PE devices are "VPLS-aware", which means that they know that a VPLS
service is being offered. We will call these VPLS edge devices,
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
which could be either a PE or an L2PE, a VE.
In contrast, the CE device (which may be owned and operated by either
the SP or the customer) is VPLS-unaware; as far as the CE is
concerned, it is connected to the other CEs in the VPLS via a Layer 2
switched network. This means that there should be no changes to a CE
device, either to the hardware or the software, in order to offer
VPLS.
A CE device may be connected to a PE or an L2PE via Layer 2 switches
that are VPLS-unaware. From a VPLS point of view, such Layer 2
switches are invisible, and hence will not be discussed further.
Furthermore, an L2PE may be connected to a PE via Layer 2 and Layer 3
devices; this will be discussed further in a later section.
The term "demultiplexor" refers to an identifier in a data packet
that identifies both the VPLS to which the packet belongs as well as
the ingress PE. In this document, the demultiplexor is an MPLS
label.
The term "VPLS" will refer to the service as well as a particular
instantiation of the service (i.e., an emulated LAN); it should be
clear from the context which usage is intended.
2.2. Assumptions
The Service Provider Network is a packet switched network. The PEs
are assumed to be (logically) full-meshed with tunnels over which
packets that belong to a service (such as VPLS) are encapsulated and
forwarded. These tunnels can be IP tunnels, such as GRE, or MPLS
tunnels, established by RSVP-TE or LDP. These tunnels are
established independently of the services offered over them; the
signaling and establishment of these tunnels are not discussed in
this document.
"Flooding" and MAC address "learning" (see section 4) are an integral
part of VPLS. However, these activities are private to an SP device,
i.e., in the VPLS described below, no SP device requests another SP
device to flood packets or learn MAC addresses on its behalf.
All the PEs participating in a VPLS are assumed to be fully meshed,
i.e., every (ingress) PE can send a VPLS packet to the egress PE(s)
directly, without the need for an intermediate PE (see the section
below on "Split Horizon" Flooding). This assumption reduces (but
does not eliminate) the need to run Spanning Tree Protocol among the
PEs.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
2.3. Interactions
VPLS is a successful "LAN Service" if CE devices that belong to VPLS
V can interact through the SP network as if they were connected by a
LAN. VPLS is "private" if CE devices that belong to different VPLSs
cannot interact. VPLS is "virtual" if multiple VPLSs can be offered
over a common packet switched network.
PE devices interact to "discover" all the other PEs participating in
the same VPLS (i.e., that are attached to CE devices that belong to
the same VPLS), and to exchange demultiplexors. These interactions
are control-driven, not data-driven.
L2PEs interact with PEs to establish connections with remote PEs or
L2PEs in the same VPLS. Again, this interaction is control-driven.
3. Control Plane
There are two primary functions of the VPLS control plane:
autodiscovery, and setup and teardown of the pseudowires that
constitute the VPLS, often called signaling. The first two
subsections describe these functions. The next subsection describes
the setting up of pseudowires that span Autonomous Systems. The last
subsection details how multi-homing is handled.
3.1. Autodiscovery
Autodiscovery refers to the process of finding all the PEs that
participate in a given VPLS. A PE can either be configured with the
identities of all the other PEs in a given VPLS, or the PE can
autodiscover the other PEs.
The former approach is fairly configuration-intensive, especially
since it is required (in this and other VPLS approaches) that the PEs
participating in a given VPLS are fully meshed (i.e., every pair of
PEs in a given VPLS establish pseudowires to each other).
Furthermore, when the topology of a VPLS changes (i.e., a PE is added
to, or removed from the VPLS), the VPLS configuration on all PEs in
that VPLS must be changed.
In the autodiscovery approach, each PE "discovers" which other PEs
are part of a given VPLS by means of some protocol, in this case BGP.
This allows each PE's configuration to consist only of the identity
of the VPLS that each customer belongs to, not the identity of every
other PE in that VPLS. Moreover, when the topology of a VPLS
changes, only the affected PE's configuration changes; other PEs
automatically find out about the change and adapt.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
3.1.1. Functions
A PE that participates in a given VPLS V must be able to tell all
other PEs in VPLS V that it is also a member of V. A PE must also
have a means of declaring that it no longer participates in a VPLS.
To do both of these, the PE must have a means of identifying a VPLS
and a means by which to communicate to all other PEs.
L2PE devices also need to know what constitutes a given VPLS;
however, they don't need the same level of detail. The PE (or PEs)
to which an L2PE is connected gives the L2PE an abstraction of the
VPLS; this is described in section 5.
3.1.2. Protocol Specification
The specific mechanism for autodiscovery described here is based on
[3] and [7]; it uses BGP extended communities [9] to identify members
of a VPLS. A more generic autodiscovery mechanism is described in
[8]. The specific extended community used is the Route Target, whose
format is described in [9]. The semantics of the use of Route
Targets is described in [7]; their use in VPLS is identical.
As it has been assumed that VPLSs are fully meshed, a single Route
Target RT suffices for a given VPLS V, and in effect that RT is the
identifier for VPLS V.
A PE announces (typically via I-BGP) that it belongs to VPLS V by
annotating its NLRIs for V (see next subsection) with Route Target
RT, and acts on this by accepting NLRIs from other PEs that have
Route Target RT. A PE announces that it no longer participates in V
by withdrawing all NLRIs that it had advertised with Route Target RT.
3.2. Signaling
Once discovery is done, each pair of PEs in a VPLS must be able to
establish (and tear down) pseudowires to each other, i.e., exchange
(and withdraw) demultiplexors. This process is known as signaling.
Signaling is also used to initiate "relearning", and to transmit
certain characteristics of the PE regarding a given VPLS.
Recall that a demultiplexor is used to distinguish among several
different streams of traffic carried over a tunnel, each stream
possibly representing a different service. In the case of VPLS, the
demultiplexor not only says to which specific VPLS a packet belongs,
but also identifies the ingress PE. The former information is used
for forwarding the packet; the latter information is used for
learning MAC addresses. The demultiplexor described here is an MPLS
label, even though the PE-to-PE tunnels may not be MPLS tunnels.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
3.2.1. Setup and Teardown
The VPLS BGP NLRI described below, with a new AFI and SAFI (see [6])
is used to exchange demultiplexors.
A PE advertises a VPLS NLRI for each VPLS that it participates in.
If the PE is doing learning and flooding, i.e., it is the VE, it
announces a single set of VPLS NLRIs for each VPLS that it is in. If
the PE is connected to several L2PEs, it announces one set of VPLS
NLRIs for each L2PE. A hybrid scheme is also possible, where the PE
learns MAC addresses on some interfaces (over which it is directly
connected to CEs) and delegates learning on other interfaces (over
which it is connected to L2PEs). In this case, the PE would announce
one set of VPLS NLRIs for each L2PE that has customer ports in a
given VPLS, and one set for itself, if it has customer ports in that
VPLS.
Each set of NLRIs defines the demultiplexors for a range of other PEs
in the VPLS. Ideally, a single NLRI suffices to cover all PEs in a
VPLS; however, there are cases (such as a newly added PE) where the
pre-existing NLRI does not have enough labels. In such cases,
advertising an additional NLRI for the same VPLS serves to add labels
for the new PEs without disrupting service to the pre-existing PEs.
If service disruption is acceptable (or when the PE restarts its BGP
process), a PE MAY consider coalescing all NLRIs for a VPLS into a
single NLRI.
If a PE X is part of VPLS V, and X receives a VPLS NLRI for V from PE
Y that includes a demultiplexor that X can use, X sets up its ends of
a pair of pseudowires between X and Y. X may also have to advertise
a new NLRI for V that includes a demultiplexor that Y can use, if its
pre-existing NLRI for V did not include a demultiplexor for Y.
If Y's configuration is changed to remove it from VPLS V, or all its
links to CEs in V go down, then Y SHOULD withdraw all its NLRIs for
V.
If Y withdraws an NLRI for V that X was using, then X tears down its
ends of the pseudowires between X and Y.
The format of the VPLS NLRI is given below. The AFI and SAFI are the
same as for the L2 VPN NLRI [3].
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
Figure 2: BGP NLRI for VPLS Information
+------------------------------------+
| Length (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Route Distinguisher (8 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| VE ID (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| VE Block Offset (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| VE Block Size (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Label Base (3 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
3.2.2. Signaling PE Capabilities
The Encaps Type and Control Flags are encoded in an extended
attribute. The community type also is used in L2 VPNs [3].
There is a new Encaps Type for VPLS (TBD).
Figure 3: layer2-info extended community
+------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
There are three new control flags, Q, F and P defined for VPLS. Q
says whether qualified learning occurs (1) or not (0); F which says
whether the PE is capable of flooding (1) or not (0). P indicates
that the PE will strip the outermost VLAN from the layer 2 customer
frame on ingress, and push a VLAN on egress.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
Figure 4: Control Flags Bit Vector
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |P|Q|F|C|S| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.3. Multi-AS VPLS
As in [3] and [7], the above autodiscovery and signaling functions
are typically announced via I-BGP. This assumes that all the sites
in a VPLS are connected to PEs in a single Autonomous System (AS).
However, sites in a VPLS may connect to PEs in different ASes. This
leads to two issues: 1) there would not be an I-BGP connection
between those PEs, so some means of signaling across ASes may be
needed; and 2) there may not be PE-to-PE tunnels between the ASes.
A similar problem is solved in [7], Section 10. Three methods are
suggested to address issue (1); all these methods have analogs in
multi-AS VPLS.
Here is a diagram for reference:
__________ ____________ ____________ __________
/ \ / \ / \ / \
\___/ AS 1 \ / AS 2 \___/
\ /
+-----+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-----+
| PE1 | ---...--- | ASBR1 | ======= | ASBR2 | ---...--- | PE2 |
+-----+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-----+
___ / \ ___
/ \ / \ / \
\__________/ \____________/ \____________/ \__________/
a) VPLS-to-VPLS connections at the AS border routers.
In this method, an AS Border Router (ASBR1) acts as a PE for all
VPLSs that span AS1 and an AS to which ASBR1 is connected, such as
AS2 here. The ASBR on the neighboring AS (ASBR2) is viewed by
ASBR1 as a CE for the VPLSs that span AS1 and AS2; similarly,
ASBR2 acts as a PE for this VPLS from AS2's point of view, and
views ASBR1 as a CE.
This method does not require MPLS on the ASBR1-ASBR2 link, but
does require that this link carry Ethernet traffic, and that there
be a separate VLAN sub-interface for each VPLS traversing this
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
link. It further requires that ASBR1 does the PE operations
(discovery, signaling, MAC address learning, flooding,
encapsulation, etc.) for all VPLSs that traverse ASBR1. This
imposes a significant burden on ASBR1, both on the control plane
and the data plane, which limits the number of multi-AS VPLSs.
Note that in general, there will be multiple connections between a
pair of ASes, for redundancy. In this case, the Spanning Tree
Protocol must be run on each VPLS that spans these ASes, so that a
loop-free topology can be constructed in each VPLS. This imposes
a further burden on the ASBRs and PEs participating in those
VPLSs, as these devices would need to run the Spanning Tree
Protocol for each such VPLS..
b) EBGP redistribution of VPLS information between ASBRs.
This method requires I-BGP peerings between the PEs in AS1 and
ASBR1 in AS1 (perhaps via route reflectors), an E-BGP peering
between ASBR1 and ASBR2 in AS2, and I-BGP peerings between ASBR2
and the PEs in AS2. In the above example, PE1 sends a VPLS NLRI
to ASBR1 with a label block and itself as the BGP nexthop; ASBR1
sends the NLRI to ASBR2 with new labels and itself as the BGP
nexthop; and ASBR2 sends the NLRI to PE2 with new labels and
itself as the nexthop.
The VPLS NLRI that ASBR1 sends to ASBR2 (and the NLRI that ASBR2
sends to PE2) is identical to the VPLS NLRI that PE1 sends to
ASBR1, except for the label block. To be precise, the Length, the
Route Distinguisher, the VE ID, the VE Block Offset, and the VE
Block Size MUST be the same; the Label Base may be different.
Furthermore, ASBR1 must also update its forwarding path as
follows: if the Label Base sent by PE1 is L1, the Label-block Size
is N, the Label Base sent by ASBR1 is L2, and the tunnel label
from ASBR1 to PE1 is T, then ASBR1 must install the following in
the forwarding path:
swap L2 with L1 and push T,
swap L2+1 with L1+1 and push T,
...
swap L2+N-1 with L1+N-1 and push T.
ASBR2 must act similarly, except that it may not need a tunnel
label if it is directly connected with ASBR1.
When PE2 wants to send a VPLS packet to PE1, PE2 uses its VE ID to
get the right VPLS label from ASBR2's label block for PE1, and
uses a tunnel label to reach ASBR2. ASBR2 swaps the VPLS label
with the label from ASBR1; ASBR1 then swaps the VPLS label with
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
the label from PE1, and pushes a tunnel label to reach PE1.
In this method, one needs MPLS on the ASBR1-ASBR2 interface, but
there is no requirement that the link layer be Ethernet.
Furthermore, the ASBRs take part in distributing VPLS information.
However, the data plane requirements of the ASBRs is much simpler
than in method (a), being limited to label operations. Finally,
the construction of loop-free VPLS topologies is done by routing
decisions, viz. BGP path and nexthop selection, so there is no
need to run the Spanning Tree Protocol on a per-VPLS basis. Thus,
this method is considerably more scalable than method (a).
c) Multi-hop EBGP redistribution of VPLS information between ASes.
In this method, there is a multi-hop E-BGP peering between the PEs
(or preferably, a Route Reflector) in AS1 and the PEs (or Route
Reflector) in AS2. PE1 sends a VPLS NLRI with labels and nexthop
self to PE2; if this is via route reflectors, the BGP nexthop is
not changed. This requires that there be a tunnel LSP from PE1 to
PE2. This tunnel LSP can be created exactly as in [7], section 10
(c), for example using E-BGP to exchange labeled IPv4 routes for
the PE loopbacks.
When PE1 wants to send a VPLS packet to PE2, it pushes the VPLS
label corresponding to its own VE ID onto the packet. It then
pushes the tunnel label(s) to reach PE2.
This method requires no VPLS information (in either the control or
the data plane) on the ASBRs. The ASBRs only need to set up
PE-to-PE tunnel LSPs in the control plane, and do label operations
in the data plane. Again, as in the case of method (b), the
construction of loop-free VPLS topologies is done by routing
decisions, i.e., BGP path and nexthop selection, so there is no
need to run the Spanning Tree Protocol on a per-VPLS basis. This
option is likely to be the most scalable of the three methods
presented here.
In order to ease the allocation of VE IDs for a VPLS that spans
multiple ASes, one can allocate ranges for each AS. For example, AS1
uses VE IDs in the range 1 to 100, AS2 from 101 to 200, etc. If
there are 10 sites attached to AS1 and 20 to AS2, the allocated VE
IDs could be 1-10 and 101 to 120. This minimizes the number of VPLS
NLRIs that are exchanged while ensuring that VE IDs are kept unique.
In the above example, if AS1 needed more than 100 sites, then another
range can be allocated to AS1. The only caveat is that there is no
overlap between VE ID ranges among ASes. The exception to this rule
is multi-homing, which is dealt with below.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
3.4. Multi-homing and Path Selection
It is often desired to multi-home a VPLS site, i.e., to connect it to
multiple PEs, perhaps even in different ASes. In such a case, the
PEs connected to the same site can either be configured with the same
VE ID or with different VE IDs. In the latter case, it is mandatory
to run STP on the CE device, and possibly on the PEs, to construct a
loop-free VPLS topology.
In the case where the PEs connected to the same site are assigned the
same VE ID, a loop-free topology is constructed by routing
mechanisms, in particular, by BGP path selection. When a BGP speaker
receives two equivalent NLRIs (see below for the definition), it
applies standard path selection criteria such as Local Preference and
AS Path Length to determine which NLRI to choose; it MUST pick only
one. If the chosen NLRI is subsequently withdrawn, the BGP speaker
applies path selection to the remaining equivalent VPLS NLRIs to pick
another; if none remain, the forwarding information associated with
that NLRI is removed.
Two VPLS NLRIs are considered equivalent from a path selection point
of view if the Route Distinguisher, the VE ID and the VE Block Offset
are the same. If two PEs are assigned the same VE ID in a given
VPLS, they MUST use the same Route Distinguisher, and they MUST
announce the same VE Block Size for a given VE Offset.
4. Data Plane
This section discusses two aspects of the data plane for PEs and
L2PEs implementing VPLS: encapsulation and forwarding.
4.1. Encapsulation
Ethernet frames received from CE devices are encapsulated for
transmission over the packet switched network connecting the PEs.
The encapsulation is as in [10], with one change: a PE that sets the
P bit in the Control Flags strips the outermost VLAN from an Ethernet
frame received from a CE before encapsulating it, and pushes a VLAN
onto a decapsulated frame before sending it to a CE.
4.2. Forwarding
Forwarding of VPLS packets is based on the interface over which the
packet is received, which determines which VPLS the packet belongs
to, and the destination MAC address. The former mapping is
determined by configuration. The latter is the focus of this
section.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
4.2.1. MAC address learning
As was mentioned earlier, the key distinguishing feature of VPLS is
that it is a multipoint service. This means that the entire Service
Provider network should appear as a single logical learning bridge
for each VPLS that the SP network supports. The logical ports for
the SP "bridge" are the connections from the SP edge, be it a PE or
an L2PE, to the CE. Just as a learning bridge learns MAC addresses
on its ports, the SP bridge must learn MAC addresses at its VEs.
Learning consists of associating source MAC addresses of packets with
the ports on which they arrive; call this association the Forwarding
Information Base (FIB). The FIB is used for forwarding packets. For
example, suppose the bridge receives a packet with source MAC address
S on port P. If subsequently, the bridge receives a packet with
destination MAC address S, it knows that it should send the packet
out on port P.
There are two modes of learning: qualified and unqualified learning.
In qualified learning, the learning decisions at the VE are based on
the customer ethernet packet's MAC address and VLAN tag, if one
exists. If no VLAN tag exists, the default VLAN is assumed.
Effectively, within one VPLS, there are multiple logical FIBs, one
for each customer VLAN tag identified in a customer packet.
In unqualified learning, learning is based on a customer ethernet
packet's MAC address only. In other words, at any VE, there is only
one FIB per VPLS.
Every VE must have at least one FIB for each VPLS that it
participates in.
4.2.2. Flooding
When a bridge receives a packet to a destination that is not in its
FIB, it floods the packet on all the other ports. Similarly, a VE
will flood packets to an unknown destination to all other VEs in the
VPLS.
In Figure 1 above, if CE2 sent an Ethernet frame to PE2, and the
destination MAC address on the frame was not in PE2's FIB (for that
VPLS), then PE2 would be responsible for flooding that frame to every
other PE in the same VPLS. On receiving that frame, PE1 would be
responsible for further flooding the frame to CE1 and CE5 (unless PE1
knew which CE "owned" that MAC address).
On the other hand, if PE3 received the frame, it could delegate
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 13]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
further flooding of the frame to its L2PE. If PE3 was connected to 2
L2PEs, it would announce that it has two L2PEs. PE3 could either
announce that it is incapable of flooding, in which case it would
receive two frames, one for each L2PE, or it could announce that it
is capable of flooding, in which case it would receive one copy of
the frame, which it would then send to both L2PEs.
4.2.3. "Split Horizon" Flooding
When a PE capable of flooding receives a broadcast Ethernet frame, or
one with an unknown destination MAC address, it must flood the frame.
If the frame arrived from an attached CE, the PE must send a copy of
the frame to every other attached CE, as well as to all PEs
participating in the VPLS. If the frame arrived from another PE,
however, the PE must only send a copy of the packet to attached CEs.
The PE MUST NOT send the frame to other PEs. This notion has been
termed "split horizon" flooding, and is a consequence of the PEs
being logically full-meshed -- if a broadcast frame is received from
PEx, then PEx would have sent a copy to all other PEs.
5. Deployment Scenarios
In deploying a network that supports VPLS, the SP must decide whether
the VPLS-aware device closest to the customer (the VE) is an L2PE or
a PE. The default case described in this document is that the VE is
a PE. However, there are a number of reasons that the VE might be an
L2PE, i.e., a device that does layer 2 functions such as MAC address
learning and flooding, and some limited layer 3 functions such as
communicating to its PE, but doesn't do full-fledged discovery and
PE-to-PE signaling.
As both of these cases have benefits, one would like to be able to
"mix and match" these scenarios. The signaling mechanism presented
here allows this. PE1 may be directly connected to CE devices; PE2
may be connected to L2PEs that are connected to CEs; and PE3 may be
connected directly to a customer over some interfaces and to L2PEs
over others. All these PEs do discovery and signaling in the same
manner. How they do learning and forwarding depends on whether or
not there is an L2PE; however, this is a local matter, and is not
signaled.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 14]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
6. Normative References
[ 1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[ 6] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and Katz, D.,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000
[ 7] Rosen, E., and Rekhter, Y., Editors, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-
ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-01.txt, work in progress.
[ 9] Sangli, S., D. Tappan, and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities
Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-06.txt, work in
progress.
[10] Martini, L., et al, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of
Ethernet Frames Over IP/MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-
pwe3-ethernet-encap-05.txt, work in progress.
[11] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option," RFC 2385, August 1998
7. Informative References
[ 2] Augustyn, W. (Editor), "Requirements for Virtual Private LAN
Services (VPLS)", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-requirements-00.txt,
work in progress.
[ 3] Kompella, K., (Editor), "Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels", draft-
kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-00.txt, work in progress.
[ 4] Martini, L., et al, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using LDP"
draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt, work in progress.
[ 5] Kompella, V., et al, "Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS",
draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-ldp-01.txt, work in progress.
[ 8] Ould-Brahim, H. et al, "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism
for Network-based VPNs", work in progress.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
Security Considerations
The focus in Virtual Private LAN Service is the privacy of data,
i.e., that data in a VPLS is only distributed to other nodes in that
VPLS and not to any external agent or other VPLS. Note that VPLS
does not offer security or authentication: VPLS packets are sent in
the clear in the packet-switched network, and a man-in-the-middle can
eavesdrop, and may be able to inject packets into the data stream.
If security is desired, the PE-to-PE tunnels can be IPsec tunnels.
For more security, the end systems in the VPLS sites can use
appropriate means of encryption to secure their data even before it
enters the Service Provider network.
There are two aspects to achieving data privacy in a VPLS: securing
the control plane, and protecting the forwarding path. Compromise of
the control plane could result in a PE sending data belonging to some
VPLS to another VPLS, or blackholing VPLS data, or even sending it to
an eavesdropper, none of which are acceptable from a data privacy
point of view. Since all control plane exchanges are via BGP,
techniques such as in [11] help authenticate BGP messages, making it
harder to spoof updates (which can be used to divert VPLS traffic to
the wrong VPLS), or withdraws (denial of service attacks). In the
multi-AS options (b) and (c), this also means protecting the inter-AS
BGP sessions, between the ASBRs, the PEs or the Route Reflectors.
Note that [11] will not help in keeping VPLS labels private --
knowing the labels, one can eavesdrop on VPLS traffic. However, this
requires access to the data path within a Service Provider network.
Protecting the data plane requires ensuring that PE-to-PE tunnels are
well-behaved (this is outside the scope of this document), and that
VPLS labels are accepted only from valid interfaces. For a PE, valid
interfaces comprise links from P routers. For an ASBR, a valid
interface is a link from an ASBR in an AS that is part of a given
VPLS. It is especially important in the case of multi-AS VPLSs that
one accept VPLS packets only from valid interfaces.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to allocate an AFI for Layer 2 information (suggested
value: 25). IANA is also asked to register a SAFI for VPLS of 65
from the First-Come-First-Served space for SAFIs.
Contributors
The following contributed to this document:
Javier Achirica, Telefonica
Loa Andersson, TLA
Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Juniper
Giles Heron, Consultant
Sunil Khandekar, Alcatel
Vach Kompella, Alcatel
Marc Lasserre, Riverstone
Pierre Lin, Yipes
Pascal Menezes, Terabeam
Ashwin Moranganti, Appian
Hamid Ould-Brahim, Nortel
Seo Yeong-il, Korea Tel
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Joe Regan and Alfred Nothaft for their contributions.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
yakov@juniper.net
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 17]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
IPR Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 18]
Internet Draft Virtual Private LAN Service January 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kompella (Editor) Standards Track [Page 19]
