Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed.
Internet-Draft Y. Rekhter, Ed.
Expires: December 19, 2006 Juniper Networks
June 17, 2006
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and
Signaling
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-07
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 December 19, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 offers a Layer 2 Virtual
Private Network (VPN); however, in the case of VPLS, the customers in
the VPN are connected by a multipoint Ethernet Local Area Network
(LAN), in contrast to the usual Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-
point in nature.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
This document describes the functions required to offer VPLS, a
mechanism for signaling a VPLS, and rules for forwarding VPLS frames
across a packet switched network.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Scope of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Changes from version 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Changes from version 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5. Changes from version 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Functional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Autodiscovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1. Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.2. PW Setup and Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.3. Signaling PE Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. BGP VPLS Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4. Multi-AS VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1. a) VPLS-to-VPLS connections at the ASBRs. . . . . . . 18
3.4.2. b) EBGP redistribution of VPLS information between
ASBRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.3. c) Multi-hop EBGP redistribution of VPLS
information between ASes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.4. Allocation of VE IDs Across Multiple ASes . . . . . . 20
3.5. Multi-homing and Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6. Hierarchical BGP VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.1. MAC address learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.2. Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.3. "Split Horizon" Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 34
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
1. Introduction
Virtual Private LAN (Local Area Network) 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 an Ethernet 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 together several individual LANs
across a packet-switched network to appear and function as a single
LAN ([9]).
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: [14], which allows one to build a
Layer 2 VPN with Ethernet as the interconnect; and [13]), 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
[10].
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 options.
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 in this document uses Multiprotocol BGP
[4] 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 instance. Section 3 focuses on this, and
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 [14], [6] and [11]): what is
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
described here is based on the mechanisms proposed in [6].
The forwarding plane and the actions that a participating Provider
Edge router offering the VPLS service 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 Provider Edge routers is
described. Decoupling allows for more flexible deployment of VPLS.
1.2. 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]).
1.3. Changes from version 06 to 07
[NOTE to RFC Editor: this section is to be removed before
publication.]
Note: the DISCUSSes below are referred to by id; they can be accessed
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/
pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=[ID]
Updated title of doc to reflect use of BGP. (Fenner's DISCUSS id
44901).
Addressed Russ Housley's DISCUSSes on Figure 6 and Section 6 (ids
44778 and 44779).
Addressed Sam Hartman's DISCUSS on the Security Considerations (id
48432).
Resolution of Kessens' DISCUSS (id 44870):
1. Reference to RFC 4364 has been made normative. There is no
normative text in ref draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn -- any such text
has long since been incorporated directly into this document.
2. Description and IANA section updated.
3. Expanded section (b) of Section 3.4 to clarify the data plane
operation for option b.
4. Updated Section 3.5 to clarify that a VPLS customer can run STP
independent of whether the SP uses multi-homing or not.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
5. P bit text deleted (left over from an earlier edit.)
6. Addressed (hopefully) by Sam's DISCUSS.
7. Updated Security Considerations to incorporate the techniques
described in RFC 4364 for inter-AS VPNs. Also, added a paragraph
stating that misconfiguration could cause inter-VPLS connections,
just as can happen with RFC 4364.
Updated references; added reference to RFC 4023.
1.4. Changes from version 04 to 05
[NOTE to RFC Editor: this section is to be removed before
publication.]
Updated IANA section to reflect agreement with authors of [11] that
the two docs should use the same AFI for L2VPN information.
Addressed comments received from Alex Zinin. No technical changes,
but a more complete description to cover the issues that Alex raised:
1. encoding of BGP NEXT_HOP for the new AFI/SAFI is not described
2. VE ID, Block offset, Block size, Label base are not described
anywhere
3. no information on how the receiving PE choose the PW label
4. section 3.2.2 talks about PE capabilities all of a sudden and
introduces a L2 Info Community, whose fields and use are not
described
Changes to address these:
1. Broke up section 3.2.1 into "Concepts" and "PW Setup".
2. Expanded section on "Signaling PE Capabilities".
3. Added a new section 3.3 "BGP VPLS Operation".
4. Minor tweaking, e.g. to fix section number references.
1.5. Changes from version 03 to 04
[NOTE to RFC Editor: this section is to be removed before
publication.]
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Incorporated IDR review comments from Eric Ji, Chaitanya Kodeboyina,
and Mike Loomis. Most changes are clarifications and rewording for
better readability. The substantive changes are to remove several
flags from the control field.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
2. Functional Model
This will be described with reference to the following figure.
-----
/ A1 \
---- ____CE1 |
/ \ -------- -------- / | |
| A2 CE2- / \ / PE1 \ /
\ / \ / \___/ | \ -----
---- ---PE2 | \
| | \ -----
| Service Provider Network | \ / \
| | CE5 A5 |
| ___ | / \ /
|----| \ / \ PE4_/ -----
|u-PE|--PE3 / \ /
|----| -------- -------
---- / | ----
/ \/ \ / \ CE = Customer Edge Device
| A3 CE3 --CE4 A4 | PE = Provider Edge Router
\ / \ / u-PE = Layer 2 Aggregation
---- ---- A<n> = Customer site n
Figure 1: Example of a VPLS
2.1. Terminology
Terminology similar to that in [6] is used: a Service Provider (SP)
network with P (Provider-only) and PE (Provider Edge) routers, and
customers with CE (Customer Edge) devices. Here, however, there is
an additional concept, that of a "u-PE", a Layer 2 PE device used for
Layer 2 aggregation. The notion of u-PE is described further in
Section 5. PE and u-PE devices are "VPLS-aware", which means that
they know that a VPLS service is being offered. We will call these
VPLS edge devices, which could be either a PE or an u-PE, 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 a u-PE 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, a u-PE may be connected to a PE via Layer 2 and Layer 3
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
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) fully 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
with pseudowires specific to that VPLS, i.e., every (ingress) PE can
send a VPLS packet to the egress PE(s) directly, without the need for
an intermediate PE (see Section 4.2.3.) This places a stringent
requirement on VPLS signaling (see Section 3.6.)
2.3. Interactions
VPLS is a "LAN Service" in that CE devices that belong to VPLS V can
interact through the SP network as if they were connected by a LAN.
VPLS is "private" in that CE devices that belong to different VPLSs
cannot interact. VPLS is "virtual" in that 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, and to exchange demultiplexors. These interactions
are control-driven, not data-driven.
u-PEs interact with PEs to establish connections with remote PEs or
u-PEs in the same VPLS. This interaction is control-driven.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
PE devices can participate simultaneously in both VPLS and IP VPNs
([6]). These are independent services, and the information exchanged
for each type of service is kept separate as the Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI) used for this exchange have different
Address Family Identifiers (AFI) and Subsequent Address Family
Identifiers (SAFI). Consequently, an implementation MUST maintain a
separate routing storage for each service. However, multiple
services can use the same underlying tunnels; the VPLS or VPN label
is used to demultiplex the packets belonging to different services.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
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. Section 3.1 and
Section 3.2 describe these functions. Both of these functions are
accomplished with a single BGP Update advertisement; Section 3.3
describes how this is done by detailing BGP protocol operation for
VPLS. Section 3.4 describes the setting up of pseudowires that span
Autonomous Systems. Section 3.5 describes how multi-homing is
handled.
3.1. Autodiscovery
Discovery 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 use
some protocol to discover the other PEs. The latter is called
autodiscovery.
The former approach is fairly configuration-intensive, especially
since it is required that the PEs participating in a given VPLS are
fully meshed (i.e., that every PE in a given VPLS establish
pseudowires to every other PE in that VPLS). 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 instance established on this PE, not the identity of
every other PE in that VPLS instance -- that is auto-discovered.
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.
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.
U-PE 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 a u-PE is connected gives the u-PE an abstraction of the
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
VPLS; this is described in section 5.
3.1.2. Protocol Specification
The specific mechanism for autodiscovery described here is based on
[14] and [6]; it uses BGP extended communities [5] to identify
members of a VPLS, in particular, the Route Target community, whose
format is described in [5]. The semantics of the use of Route
Targets is described in [6]; 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 transmit certain characteristics of the
pseudowires that a PE sets up for 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. However, note that the PE-to-PE tunnels need not be MPLS
tunnels.
Using a distinct BGP Update message to send a demultiplexor to each
remote PE would require the originating PE to send N such messages
for N remote PEs. The solution described in this document allows a
PE to send a single (common) Update message that contains
demultiplexors for all the remote PEs, instead of N individual
messages. Doing this reduces the control plane load both on the
originating PE as well as on the BGP Route Reflectors that may be
involved in distributing this Update to other PEs.
To accomplish this, we introduce the notion of "label blocks". A
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
label block, defined by a label base LB and a block size VBS, is a
contiguous set of labels {LB, LB+1, ..., LB+VBS-1}. Here's how label
blocks work. All PEs within a given VPLS are assigned unique VE IDs
as part of their configuration. A PE X wishing to send a VPLS update
sends the same label block information to all other PEs. Each
receiving PE infers the label intended for PE X by adding their
(unique) VE ID to the label base. In this manner, each receiving PE
gets a unique demultiplexor for PE X for that VPLS.
This simple notion is enhanced with the concept of a block offset
VBO. A label block defined by <LB, VBO, VBS> is the set {LB+VBO, LB+
VBO+1, ..., LB+VBO+VBS-1}. Thus, instead of a single large label
block to cover all VE IDs in a VPLS, one can have several label
blocks, each with a different label base. This makes label block
management easier, and also allows PE X to cater gracefully to a PE
joining a VPLS with a VE ID that is not covered by the set of label
blocks that that PE X has already advertised.
When a PE starts up, or is configured with a new VPLS instance, the
BGP process may wish to wait to receive several advertisements for
that VPLS instance from other PEs to improve the efficiency of label
block allocation.
3.2.1. Concepts
The VPLS BGP NLRI described below, with a new AFI and SAFI (see [4])
is used to exchange VPLS membership and demultiplexors.
A VPLS BGP NLRI has the following information elements: a VE ID, a VE
Block Offset, a VE Block Size and a label base. The exact format is
given below.
A PE participating in a VPLS must have at least one VE ID. If the PE
is the VE, it typically has one VE ID. If the PE is connected to
several u-PEs, it has a distinct VE ID for each u-PE. It may
additionally have a VE ID for itself, if it itself acts as a VE for
that VPLS. In what follows, we will call the PE announcing the VPLS
NLRI PE-a, and we will assume that PE-a owns VE ID V (either
belonging to PE-a itself, or to a u-PE connected to PE-a).
VE IDs are typically assigned by the network administrator. Their
scope is local to a VPLS. A given VE ID should belong to only one
PE, unless a CE is multi-homed (see Section 3.5).
A label block is a set of demultiplexor labels used to reach a given
VE ID. A VPLS BGP NLRI with VE ID V, VE Block Offset VBO, VE Block
Size VBS and label base LB implicitly announces
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
label block for V: labels from LB to (LB + VBS - 1), and
remote VE set for V: from VBO to (VBO + VBS - 1).
There is a one-to-one correspondance between the remote VE set and
the label block: VE ID (VBO + n) corresponds to label (LB + n).
3.2.2. PW Setup and Teardown
Suppose PE-a is part of VPLS foo, and makes an announcement with VE
ID V, VE Block Offset VBO, VE Block Size VBS and label base LB. If
PE-b is also part of VPLS foo, and has VE ID W, PE-b does the
following:
1. is W part of PE-a's 'remote VE set': if VBO <= W < VBO + VBS,
then W is part of PE-a's remote VE set. If not, PE-b ignores
this message, and skips the rest of this procedure.
2. set up a PW to PE-a: the demultiplexor label to send traffic from
PE-b to PE-a is computed as (LB + W - VBO).
3. is V part of any 'remote VE set' that PE-b announced: PE-b checks
if V belongs to some remote VE set that PE-b announced, say with
VE Block Offset VBO', VE Block Size VBS' and label base LB'. If
not, PE-b MUST make a new announcement as described in
Section 3.3.
4. set up a PW from PE-a: the demultiplexor label over which PE-b
should expect traffic from PE-a is computed as: (LB' + V - VBO').
If Y withdraws an NLRI for V that X was using, then X MUST tear down
its ends of the pseudowire between X and Y.
The format of the VPLS NLRI is given below. The AFI is the L2VPN AFI
(to be assigned by IANA), and the SAFI is the VPLS SAFI (65). The
Length field is in octets.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
+------------------------------------+
| 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) |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 2: BGP NLRI for VPLS Information
3.2.3. Signaling PE Capabilities
The following extended attribute, the "Layer2 Info Extended
Community", is used to signal control information about the
pseudowires to be setup for a given VPLS. The extended community
value is to be allocated by IANA (currently used value is 0x800A).
This information includes the Encaps Type (type of encapsulation on
the pseudowires), Control Flags (control information regarding the
pseudowires) and the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) to be used on
the pseudowires.
The Encaps Type for VPLS is 19.
+------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Layer2 Info Extended Community
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |C|S| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Control Flags Bit Vector
With reference to Figure 4, the following bits in the Control Flags
are defined; the remaining bits, designated MBZ, MUST be set to zero
when sending and MUST be ignored when receiving this community.
Name Meaning
C If set to 1 (0), Control word MUST (NOT) be present when
sending VPLS packets to this PE [10].
S If set to 1 (0), Sequenced delivery of frames is (not)
required when sending VPLS packets to this PE.
3.3. BGP VPLS Operation
To create a new VPLS, say VPLS foo, a network administrator must pick
a RT for VPLS foo, say RT-foo. This will be used by all PEs that
serve VPLS foo. To configure a given PE, say PE-a, to be part of
VPLS foo, the network administrator only has to choose a VE ID V for
PE-a. (If PE-a is connected to u-PEs, PE-a may be configured with
more than one VE ID; in that case, the following is done for each VE
ID). The PE may also be configured with a Route Distinguisher (RD);
if not, it generates a unique RD for VPLS foo. Say the RD is
RD-foo-a. PE-a then generates an initial label block and a remote VE
set for V, defined by VE Block Offset VBO, VE Block Size VBS and
label base LB. These may be empty.
PE-a then creates a VPLS BGP NLRI with RD RD-foo-a, VE ID V, VE Block
Offset VBO, VE Block Size VBS and label base LB. To this, it
attaches a Layer2 Info Extended Community and a RT, RT-foo. It sets
the BGP Next Hop for this NLRI as itself, and announces this NLRI to
its peers. The Network Layer protocol associated with the Network
Address of the Next Hop for the combination <AFI=L2VPN AFI, SAFI=VPLS
SAFI> is IP; this association is required by [4], Section 5. If the
value of the Length of the Next Hop field is 4, then the Next Hop
contains an IPv4 address. If this value is 16, then the Next Hop
contains an IPv6 address.
If PE-a hears from another PE, say PE-b, a VPLS BGP announcement with
RT-foo and VE ID W, then PE-a knows that PE-b is a member of the same
VPLS (auto-discovery). PE-a then has to set up its part of a VPLS
pseudowire between PE-a and PE-b, using the mechanisms in
Section 3.2. Similarly, PE-b will have discovered that PE-a is in
the same VPLS, and PE-b must set up its part of the VPLS pseudowire.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Thus, signaling and pseudowire setup is also achieved with the same
Update message.
If W is not in any remote VE set that PE-a announced for VE ID V in
VPLS foo, PE-b will not be able to set up its part of the pseudowire
to PE-a. To address this, PE-a can choose to withdraw the old
announcement(s) it made for VPLS foo, and announce a new Update with
a larger remote VE set and corresponding label block that covers all
VE IDs that are in VPLS foo. This however, may cause some service
disruption. An alternative for PE-a is to create a new remote VE set
and corresponding label block, and announce them in a new Update,
without withdrawing previous announcements.
If PE-a's configuration is changed to remove VE ID V from VPLS foo,
then PE-a MUST withdraw all its announcements for VPLS foo that
contain VE ID V. If all of PE-a's links to its CEs in VPLS foo go
down, then PE-a SHOULD either withdraw all its NLRIs for VPLS foo, or
let other PEs in the VPLS foo know in some way that PE-a is no longer
connected to its CEs.
3.4. Multi-AS VPLS
As in [14] and [6], 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 [6], Section 10. Three methods are
suggested to address issue (1); all these methods have analogs in
multi-AS VPLS.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Here is a diagram for reference:
__________ ____________ ____________ __________
/ \ / \ / \ / \
\___/ AS 1 \ / AS 2 \___/
\ /
+-----+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-----+
| PE1 | ---...--- | ASBR1 | ======= | ASBR2 | ---...--- | PE2 |
+-----+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-----+
___ / \ ___
/ \ / \ / \
\__________/ \____________/ \____________/ \__________/
Figure 6: Inter-AS VPLS
As in the above reference, three methods for signaling inter-provider
VPLS are given; these are presented in order of increasing
scalability. Method (a) is the easiest to understand conceptually,
and the easiest to deploy; however, it requires an Ethernet
interconnect between the ASes, and both VPLS control and data plane
state on the AS border routers (ASBRs). Method (b) requires VPLS
control plane state on the ASBRs and MPLS on the AS-AS interconnect.
Method (c) requires MPLS on the AS-AS interconnect, but no VPLS state
of any kind on the ASBRs.
3.4.1. a) VPLS-to-VPLS connections at the ASBRs.
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 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 (STP) ([15]), or some other means of loop detection and
prevention, 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
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
these devices would need to run a loop detection algorithm for each
such VPLS. How this may be achieved is outside the scope of this
document.
3.4.2. 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.
Correspondingly, there are three tunnels: T1 from PE1 to ASBR1, T2
from ASBR1 to ASBR2, and T3 from ASBR2 to PE2. Within each tunnel,
the VPLS label to be used is determined by the receiving device;
e.g., the VPLS label within T1 is a label from the label block that
ASBR1 sent to PE1. The ASBRs are responsible for receiving VPLS
packets encapsulated in a tunnel, and performing the appropriate
label swap operations described next so that the next receiving
device can correctly identify and forward the packet.
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 the label from
PE1, and pushes a tunnel label to reach PE1.
In this method, one needs MPLS on the ASBR1-ASBR2 interface, but
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
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).
3.4.3. 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 [6], 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.
3.4.4. Allocation of VE IDs Across Multiple ASes
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 be no
overlap between VE ID ranges among ASes. The exception to this rule
is multi-homing, which is dealt with below.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
3.5. 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. How this can be accomplished is outside the
scope of this document; however, the rest of this section will
describe in some detail the former case. Note that multi-homing by
the SP and STP on the CEs can co-exist; thus it is recommended that
the VPLS customer run STP if the CEs are able to.
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 SHOULD
announce the same VE Block Size for a given VE Offset.
3.6. Hierarchical BGP VPLS
This section discusses how one can scale the VPLS control plane when
using BGP. There are at least three aspects of scaling the control
plane:
1. alleviating the full mesh connectivity requirement among VPLS BGP
speakers;
2. limiting BGP VPLS message passing to just the interested speakers
rather than all BGP speakers; and
3. simplifying the addition and deletion of BGP speakers, whether
for VPLS or other applications.
Fortunately, the use of BGP for Internet routing as well as for IP
VPNs has yielded several good solutions for all these problems. The
basic technique is hierarchy, using BGP Route Reflectors (RRs) ([8]).
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
The idea is to designate a small set of Route Reflectors which are
themselves fully meshed, and then establish a BGP session between
each BGP speaker and one or more RRs. In this way, there is no need
of direct full-mesh connectivity among all the BGP speakers. If the
particular scaling needs of a provider requires a large number of
RRs, then this technique can be applied recursively: the full mesh
connectivity among the RRs can be brokered by yet another level of
RRs. The use of RRs solves problems 1 and 3 above.
It is important to note that RRs, as used for VPLS and VPNs, are
purely a control plane technique. The use of RRs introduces no data
plane state and no data plane forwarding requirements on the RRs, and
does not in any way change the forwarding path of VPLS traffic. This
is in contrast to the technique of Hierarchical VPLS defined in [10].
The problem of limiting BGP VPLS message passing to just the
interested BGP speakers is addressed by the use of Route Target
Filtering, described in [12]. This technique is orthogonal to the
use of RRs, but works well in conjunction with RRs.
It is not required that a given set of RRs handle all BGP messages.
One can define several sets of RRs, for example a set to handle VPLS,
another to handle IP VPNs and another for Internet routing. Another
partitioning could be to have one subset of VPLSs and IP VPNs handled
by one set of RRs, and another subset of VPLSs and IP VPNs handled by
another set of RRs; this can be accomplished by the use of Route
Target Filtering.
It is worth mentioning an aspect of the control plane that is often a
source of confusion. No MAC addresses are exchanged via BGP. All
MAC address learning and aging is done in the data plane individually
by each PE. The only task of BGP VPLS message exchange is auto-
discovery and label exchange. This means that once a PE joins a VPLS
and sends an update indicating this (and the labels to use), that PE
sends no more BGP updates for that VPLS until either the PE leaves
that VPLS, or a fairly serious event (such as a PE-CE link going
down) occurs.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
4. Data Plane
This section discusses two aspects of the data plane for PEs and
u-PEs 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 [7].
4.2. Forwarding
VPLS packets are classified as belonging to a given service instance
and associated forwarding table based on the interface over which the
packet is received. Packets are forwarded in the context of the
service instance based on the destination MAC address. The former
mapping is determined by configuration. The latter is the focus of
this section.
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 customer ports on all of the VE on a given
service. 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 (logical) ports on which they arrive; this association is 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 (logical) 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.
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
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
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
further flooding of the frame to its u-PE. If PE3 was connected to 2
u-PEs, it would announce that it has two u-PEs. PE3 could either
announce that it is incapable of flooding, in which case it would
receive two frames, one for each u-PE, 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 u-PEs.
4.2.3. "Split Horizon" Forwarding
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" forwarding, and is a consequence of the PEs
being logically fully meshed -- if a broadcast frame is received from
PEx, then PEx would have sent a copy to all other PEs.
Split horizon forwarding rules also apply to multicast frames (i.e.,
those with a multicast destination MAC address). In this case, when
a PE receives a multicast frame from another PE, the frame is
replicated and sent to the relevant subset of attached CEs; however,
it MUST NOT be sent to other PEs.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
5. Deployment Options
In deploying a network that supports VPLS, the SP must decide what
functions the VPLS-aware device closest to the customer (the VE)
supports. 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
a device that does all the Layer 2 functions (such as MAC address
learning and flooding), and a limited set of Layer 3 functions (such
as communicating to its PE), but, for example, doesn't do full-
fledged discovery and PE-to-PE signaling. Such a device is called a
"u-PE".
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. For example, in a given provider network, one PE
may be directly connected to CE devices; another may be connected to
u-PEs that are connected to CEs; and a third may be connected
directly to a customer over some interfaces and to u-PEs over others.
All these PEs perform discovery and signaling in the same manner.
How they do learning and forwarding depends on whether or not there
is a u-PE; however, this is a local matter, and is not signaled.
However, the details of the operation of a u-PE and its interactions
with PEs and other u-PEs is beyond the scope of this document.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
6. 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 confidentiality, integrity, 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 [2] 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.
One can also use the techniques described in section 10 (b) and (c)
of [6], both for the control plane and the data plane. Note that [2]
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.
There can also be misconfiguration leading to unintentional
connection of CEs in different VPLSs. This can be caused, for
example, by associating the wrong Route Target with a VPLS instance.
This problem, shared by [6], is for further study.
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.
MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE tunneling are specified in [3]. If it is
desired to use such tunnels to carry VPLS packets, then the security
considerations described in Section 8 of that document must be fully
understood. Any implementation of VPLS that allows VPLS packets to
be tunneled as described in that document MUST contain an
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
implementation of IPsec that can be used as therein described. If
the tunnel is not secured by IPsec, then the technique of IP address
filtering at the border routers, described in Section 8.2 of that
document, is the only means of ensuring that a packet that exits the
tunnel at a particular egress PE was actually placed in the tunnel by
the proper tunnel head node (i.e., that the packet does not have a
spoofed source address). Since border routers frequently filter only
source addresses, packet filtering may not be effective unless the
egress PE can check the IP source address of any tunneled packet it
receives, and compare it to a list of IP addresses that are valid
tunnel head addresses. Any implementation that allows MPLS-in-IP
and/or MPLS-in-GRE tunneling to be used without IPsec MUST allow the
egress PE to validate in this manner the IP source address of any
tunneled packet that it receives.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to allocate an AFI for L2VPN information (suggested
value: 25). This should be the same as the AFI requested by [11].
IANA is asked to allocate an extended community value for the Layer2
Info Extended Community (suggested value: 0x800a).
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
[3] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating MPLS in
IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 4023,
March 2005.
[4] Bates, T., "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4",
draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-10 (work in progress), March 2006.
[5] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[6] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[7] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[8] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An
Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.
[9] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05
(work in progress), June 2004.
[10] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Services
Using LDP", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-09 (work in progress),
June 2006.
[11] Ould-Brahim, H., "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for
VR-based Layer-3 VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-07 (work
in progress), April 2006.
[12] Marques, P., "Constrained VPN Route Distribution",
draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-02 (work in progress), June 2005.
[13] Martini, L., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Distribution Protocol", draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-17
(work in progress), June 2005.
[14] Kompella, K., "Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels",
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-01 (work in progress), January 2006.
[15] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Information
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Common
specifications - Part 3: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges:
Revision. This is a revision of ISO/IEC 10038: 1993, 802.1j-
1992 and 802.6k-1992. It incorporates P802.11c, P802.1p and
P802.12e. ISO/IEC 15802-3: 1998.", IEEE Standard 802.1D,
July 1998.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Appendix A. Contributors
The following contributed to this document:
Javier Achirica, Telefonica
Loa Andersson, Acreo
Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Juniper
Giles Heron, Tellabs
Sunil Khandekar, Alcatel
Vach Kompella, Alcatel
Marc Lasserre, Riverstone
Pierre Lin
Pascal Menezes
Ashwin Moranganti, Appian
Hamid Ould-Brahim, Nortel
Seo Yeong-il, Korea Tel
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Joe Regan and Alfred Nothaft for their contributions. Many
thanks too to Eric Ji, Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Mike Loomis and Elwyn
Davies for their detailed reviews.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella (editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter (editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: yakov@juniper.net
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft BGP Autodiscovery and Signaling for VPLS June 2006
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 (2006). 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.
Kompella & Rekhter Expires December 19, 2006 [Page 34]
