Network Working Group                               Nabil Bitar (Editor)
Internet Draft                                                   Verizon
Expiration Date: April 2006

Luca Martini (Editor)                             Matthew Bocci (Editor)
Cisco Systems Inc.                                               Alcatel

                                                            October 2005

               Requirements for inter domain Pseudo-Wires


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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   This document describes the necessary requirements to allow a service
   provider to extend the reach of pseudo-wires across multiple domains.
   These domains can be autonomous systems under one provider
   administrative control, IGP areas in one autonomous system, different
   autonomous systems under the administrative control of two or more

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

   service providers, or administratively established pseudo-wire

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

Table of Contents

    1        Specification of Requirements  ........................   4
    2        Acknowledgments  ......................................   4
    3        Introduction  .........................................   4
    3.1      Scope  ................................................   4
    3.2      Architecture  .........................................   4
    4        Terminology  ..........................................   7
    5        Use Cases  ............................................   8
    5.1      Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Configurations  .............  10
    6        Multi-Segment Pseudo-Wire Requirements  ...............  11
    6.1      All Configurations  ...................................  11
    6.1.1    Architecture  .........................................  11
    6.1.2    Resiliency  ...........................................  12
    6.1.3    Quality Of Service  ...................................  12
    6.2      Generic Requirements for MS-PW Setup Mechanisms  ......  13
    6.2.1    Routing  ..............................................  14
    6.3      Statically configured MS-PWs  .........................  15
    6.3.1    Architecture  .........................................  15
    6.3.2    MPLS-PWs  .............................................  15
    6.3.3    Resiliency  ...........................................  15
    6.3.4    Quality of service  ...................................  15
    6.4      Signaled PW-segments  .................................  15
    6.4.1    Architecture  .........................................  16
    6.4.2    Resiliency  ...........................................  16
    6.4.3    Quality of Service  ...................................  16
    6.4.4    Routing  ..............................................  17
    6.5      Signaled PW / Dynamic Route  ..........................  18
    6.5.1    Architecture  .........................................  18
    6.5.2    Resiliency  ...........................................  18
    6.5.3    Quality  ..............................................  18
    6.5.4    Routing  ..............................................  18
    7        Operations and Maintenance (OAM)  .....................  19
    8        Security Considerations  ..............................  20
    8.1      Data-plane Security Requirements  .....................  20
    8.2      Control-plane Security Requirements  ..................  21
    9        Full Copyright Statement  .............................  22
   10        Intellectual Property Statement  ......................  23
   11        IANA Considerations  ..................................  23
   12        Normative References  .................................  23
   13        Informative References  ...............................  23
   14        Author Information  ...................................  24

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

1. Specification of Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119

2. Acknowledgments

   The editors gratefully acknowledge the following contributors:
   Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel), Peter Busschbach (Lucent), Sasha
   Vainshtein (Axerra), Richard Spencer (British Telecom), Simon Delord
   (France Telecom), Deborah Brungard (AT&T), David McDyson, Rahul
   Aggawal (Juniper), Du Ke (ZTE), Cagatay Buyukkoc (ZTE).

3. Introduction

3.1. Scope

   This document specifies requirements for extending pseudo-wires
   across more than one packet switched network (PSN) domain and more
   than one PSN tunnel.  These pseudo-wires are called multi-segment
   pseudo-wires (MS-PW).  Requirements for single-segment pseudo wires
   (SS-PW) that extend edge to edge across only one PSN domain are
   specified in [PWE3-REQ].

   This document specifies additional requirements that apply to MS-PWs.
   These requirements do not apply to PSNs that only support SS-PWs.

3.2. Architecture

   The following three figures describe the reference models which are
   derived from [PWE3-ARCH] to support PW emulated services.

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

         |<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
         |                                                  |
         |          |<------- Pseudo Wire ------>|          |
         |          |                            |          |
         |          |    |<-- PSN Tunnel -->|    |          |
         | PW End   V    V                  V    V  PW End  |
         V Service  +----+                  +----+  Service V
   +-----+    |     | PE1|==================| PE2|     |    +-----+
   |     |----------|............PW1.............|----------|     |
   | CE1 |    |     |    |                  |    |     |    | CE2 |
   |     |----------|............PW2.............|----------|     |
   +-----+  ^ |     |    |==================|    |     | ^  +-----+
         ^  |       +----+                  +----+     | |  ^
         |  |   Provider Edge 1         Provider Edge 2  |  |
         |  |                                            |  |
   Customer |                                            | Customer
   Edge 1   |                                            | Edge 2
            |                                            |
            |                                            |
    Attachment Circuit (AC)                    Attachment Circuit (AC)
      Native service                              Native service

                Figure 1: PWE3 Reference Configuration

   Figure 1 shows the PWE3 reference architecture [PWE3-ARCH]. This
   architecture applies to the case where a PSN tunnel extends between
   two edges of a single PSN domain to transport a PW with endpoints at
   these edges.

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

           Native  |<-----------Pseudo Wire----------->|  Native
           Service |                                   |  Service
            (AC)   |    |<-PSN1-->|     |<--PSN2->|    |   (AC)
             |     V    V         V     V         V    V     |
             |     +----+         +-----+         +----+     |
   +----+    |     | PE1|=========| PE2 |=========| PE3|     |    +----+
   |    |----------|........PW1.........|...PW3........|----------|    |
   | CE1|    |     |    |         |     |         |    |     |    |CE2 |
   |    |----------|........PW2.........|...PW4........|----------|    |
   +----+    |     |    |=========|     |=========|    |     |    +----+
        ^          +----+         +-----+         +----+          ^
        |      Provider Edge 1       ^        Provider Edge 3     |
        |                            |                            |
        |                            |                            |
        |                    PW switching point                   |
        |                                                         |
        |                                                         |
        |<------------------- Emulated Service ------------------>|

                 Figure 2: PW switching Reference Model

   Figure 2 extends this architecture to show a multi-segment case. PE1
   and PE3 provide PWE3 service to CE1 and CE2. These PEs reside in
   different PSN domains, PSN1 and PSN2, respectively. A PSN tunnel
   extends from PE1 to PE2 across PSN1, and a second PSN tunnel extends
   from PE2 to PE3 across PSN2.  PWs are used to connect the Attachment
   circuits (ACs) attached to PE1 to the corresponding ACs attached to
   PE3. Each PW on the tunnel across PSN1 is stitched to a PW in the
   tunnel across PSN2 at PE2 to complete the multi-segment PW (MS-PW)
   between PE1 and PE3. PE2 is therefore the PW switching point and will
   be referred to as the PW switching provider edge (S-PE). PW1 and PW3
   are segments of the same MS-PW while PW2 and PW4 are segments of
   another pseudo-wire. PW segments of the same MS-PW (e.g., PW1 and
   PW3) MAY be of the same PW type or different type, and PSN tunnels
   (e.g., PSN1 and PSN2) can be the same or different technology. This
   document requires support for MS-PWs with segments of the same type.
   An S-PE switches an MS-PW from one segment to another based on the PW
   identifiers (e.g., PW label in case of MPLS PWs).

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 6]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

                |<--------------Pseudo Wire----------->|
                |       Provider         Provider      |
            AC  |    |<----1---->|     |<----2--->|    |  AC
            |   V    V           V     V          V    V  |
            |   +----+     +-----+     +----+     +----+  |
   +----+   |   |    |=====|     |=====|    |=====|    |  |    +----+
   |    |-------|.....PW1..........PW2.........PW3.....|-------|    |
   | CE1|   |   |    |     |     |     |    |     |    |  |    |CE2 |
   +----+   |   |    |=====|     |=====|    |=====|    |  |    +----+
        ^       +----+     +-----+     +----+     +----+       ^
        |         PE1        PE2        PE3         PE4        |
        |                     ^          ^                     |
        |                     |          |                     |
        |                  PW switching points                 |
        |                                                      |
        |                                                      |
        |<------------------- Emulated Service --------------->|

         Figure 3: PW switching inter provider Reference Model

   Note that although Figure 2 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
   transit more than one S-PE along its path. For instance, in the
   multi-provider case shown in Figure 3, there can be an S-PE (PE2), at
   the border of one provider domain (Provider1) and another S-PE (PE3)
   at the border of the other provider domain (Provider2). A MS-PW that
   extends from the edge of one provider (PE1) to the edge of the other
   provider (PE4) is composed of three segments: (1) PW1, a segment in
   provider1 network, (2) PW2, a segment between the two border routers
   (PE2 and PE3) that are S-PEs, and (3) PWE3, a segment in provider2

4. Terminology

   RFC 3985 [PWE3-ARCH] provides terminology for PWE3. The following
   additional terminology is defined for multi-segment pseudo wires:

     - PW Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE).  A PE where the customer-
       facing attachment circuits (ACs) are bound to a PW forwarder. A
       Terminating PE is present in the first and last segments of a
       MS-PW. This incorporates the functionality of a PE as defined in
       RFC 3985.

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 7]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

     - Single-Segment Pseudo Wire (SS-PW). A PW setup directly between
       two T-PE devices. Each direction of a SS-PW traverses one PSN
       tunnel that connects the two T-PEs.

     - Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire (MS-PW).  A static or dynamically
       configured set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave
       and function as a single point-to-point PW. Each end of a MS-PW
       by definition MUST terminate on a T-PE.

     - PW Segment. A part of a single-segment or multi-segment PW, which
       is set up between two PE devices, T-PEs and/or S-PEs.

     - PW Switching Provider Edge (S-PE).  A PE capable of switching the
       control and data planes of the preceding and succeeding PW
       segments in a MS-PW. The S-PE terminates the PSN tunnels
       transporting the preceding and succeeding segments of the MS-PW.
       It is therefore a PW switching point for a MS-PW. A PW Switching
       Point is never the S-PE and the T-PE for the same MS-PW. A PW
       switching point runs necessary protocols to setup and manage PW
       segments with other PW switching points and terminating PEs.

5. Use Cases

   PWE3 defines the signaling and encapsulation techniques for
   establishing SS-PWs between a pair of terminating PEs (T-PEs) and in
   the vast majority of cases this will be sufficient. MS-PWs may be
   useful in the following situations:

        -i. Inter-Provider PWs:  An Inter-Provider PW is a PW that
            extends from a T-PE in one provider domain to a T-PE in
            another provider domain.

       -ii. It may not be possible, desirable or feasible to establish a
            direct PW control channel between the T-PEs, residing in
            different provider networks, to setup and maintain PWs. At
            minimum, a direct PW control channel establishment (e.g.,
            targeted LDP session) requires knowledge of and reachability
            to the remote T-PE IP address. The local T-PE may not have
            access to this information due to operational or security
            constraints.  Moreover, a SS-PW would require the existence
            of a PSN tunnel between the local T-PE and the remote T-PE.
            It may not be feasible or desirable to extend single,
            contiguous PSN tunnels between T-PEs in one domain and T-PEs
            in another domain for security and/or scalability reasons or
            for the fact that the two domains may be using different PSN

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 8]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

      -iii. MS-PW setup, maintenance and forwarding procedures must
            satisfy requirements placed by the constraints of a multi-
            provider environment. An example is the inter-AS L2VPN
            scenario where the T-PEs reside in different provider
            networks (ASs) and it is the practice to MD5-key all control
            traffic exchanged between two networks. An MS-PW allows the
            providers to confine MD5 key administration for the LDP
            session to just the PW switching points connecting the two

       -iv. PSN Internetworking: PWE3 signaling protocols and PSN types
            may differ in different provider networks. The terminating
            PEs may be connected to networks employing different PW
            signaling and /or PSN protocols. In this case it is not
            possible to use a SS-PW. A MS-PW with the appropriate
            interworking performed at the PW switching points can enable
            PW connectivity between the terminating PEs in this

        -v. Traffic Engineered PSN Tunnels and bandwidth-managed PWs:
            There is a requirement to deploy PWs edge to edge in large
            service provider networks. Such networks typically encompass
            hundreds or thousands of aggregation devices at the edge,
            each of which would be a PE. Furthermore, there is a
            requirement that these PWs have explicit bandwidth
            guarantees. To satisfy these requirements, the PWs will be
            tunneled over PSN TE-tunnels with bandwidth constraints. A
            single segment pseudo-wire architecture would require that a
            full mesh of PSN TE-tunnels be provisioned to allow PWs to
            be established between all PEs. Inter-provider PWs riding
            traffic engineered tunnels further add to the number of
            tunnels that would have to be supported by the PEs and the
            core network as the total number of PEs increases.

            In this environment, there is a requirement either to
            support a sparse mesh of PSN TE-tunnels and PW signaling
            adjacencies, or to partition the network into a number of
            smaller PWE3 domains. In either case, a PW would have to
            pass through more than one PSN tunnel hop along its path. An
            objective is to reduce the number of tunnels that must be
            supported, and thus the complexity and scalability problem
            that may arise.

       -vi. Pseudo-Wires in Access and Metro Networks: Service providers
            are looking to extend PWs to access and metro networks. The
            prime motive is cost reduction in capital and operation
            expenses. For instance, in metro networks, providers are
            looking into extending PWs to next generation SONET ADMs

Bitar, et al.                                                   [Page 9]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

            using MPLS mechanisms. The objective is to achieve
            statistical multiplexing of packets closer to the edge of
            the network, reducing the recurring costs of SONET circuits
            or maximizing the utilization of existing SONET
            infrastructure. In access and metro Ethernet networks,
            providers are looking to take advantage of MPLS mechanisms
            to setup point to point Ethernet virtual circuits with
            endpoints in the same or different access/metro networks.

            Using the MS-PW solution, access and metro network elements
            need only maintain PW signaling adjacencies with the PEs to
            which they directly connect. They do not need PW signaling
            adjacencies with every other access and metro network
            device. PEs in the PSN backbone in turn maintain PW
            signaling adjacencies among each other. In addition, a PSN
            tunnel is setup between an access element and the PE to
            which it connects. Another PSN tunnel needs to be
            established between every PE pair in the PSN backbone. A
            MS-PW may be setup from one access network element to
            another another access element with three segments: (1)
            access-element - PSN-PE, (2) PSN-PE to PSN-PE, and (3) PSN-
            PE to access element. In this MS-PW setup, access elements
            are T-PEs while PSN-PEs are S-PEs. It should be noted that
            the PSN backbone can be also segmented into PWE3 domains
            resulting in more segments per PW.

5.1. Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Configurations

   This requirements document assumes that the above use cases are
   realized using one or more of the following mechanisms:

        -i. Static Configuration: The switching points (S-PEs), in
            addition to the T-PEs, are manually provisioned for each

       -ii. Signaled PW / Static Route: The PW is established along a
            statically specified route using an end-to-end signaling
            protocol with automated stitching at the S-PEs.

      -iii. Signaled PW / Dynamic Route: The PW is established along a
            dynamically determined route using an end-to-end signaling
            protocol with automated stitching at the S-PEs. The route is
            selected with the aid of one or more dynamic routing

   Note that we define the PW route to be the set of S-PEs through which
   an MS-PW will pass between a given pair of T-PEs. PSN tunnels along

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 10]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

   that route can be explicitly specified or locally selected at the S-
   PEs. The routing of the PSN tunnels themselves is outside the scope
   of the requirements specified in this document.

6. Multi-Segment Pseudo-Wire Requirements

   The following sections detail the requirements that the above use
   cases put on the MS-PW setup mechanisms.

6.1. All Configurations

   The following generic requirements apply to the three MS-PW setup
   mechanisms defined in the previous section.

6.1.1. Architecture

        -i. If MS-PWs are tunneled, across a PSN that only supports SS-
            PWs, then only the requirements of [PWE3-REQ] apply to that
            PSN. The fact that the overlay is carrying MS-PWs MUST be
            transparent to the routers in the PSN.

       -ii. The PWs MUST remain transparent to the P-routers. A P-router
            is not an S-PE or an T-PE from the MS-PW architecture
            viewpoint. P-routers provide transparent PSN transport for
            PWs and MUST not have any knowledge of the PWs traversing

      -iii. The MS-PWs MUST use the same encapsulation modes specified
            for SS-PWs.

       -iv. A MS-PW MUST be able to pass across PSNs of all technologies
            specified by PWE3 for SS-PWs. When crossing from one PSN
            technology to another, an S-PE must provide the necessary
            PSN interworking functions in that case.

        -v. MS-PWs are composed of SS-PWs and SS-PWs are bi-directional.
            Therefore, both directions of a PW segment MUST terminate on
            the same S-PE/T-PE.

       -vi. S-PEs MAY only support switching PWs of the same PW type. In
            this case, the PW type is transparent to the S-PE in the
            forwarding plane, except for functions needed to provide for
            interworking between different PSN technologies.

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 11]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

6.1.2. Resiliency

   Mechanisms to protect an MS-PW when an element the existing path of a
   MS-PW fails MUST be provided. These mechanisms will depend on the
   MS-PW setup.  Following are the generic resiliency requirements that
   apply to all MS-PW setup mechanisms:

        -i. Configuration Mechanisms to perform a switchover from a
            primary PW to a backup PW upon failure detection SHOULD be

       -ii. The ability to configure an end-end backup PW path for a
            primary PW path SHOULD be supported. The primary and backup
            paths may be statically configured, statically specified for
            signaling or dynamically selected via dynamic routing
            depending on the MS-PW setup method. Backup and primary
            paths should have the ability to traverse separate S-PEs.
            The backup path MAY be signaled at configuration time or
            after failure.

      -iii. Automatic Mechanisms to perform a fast switchover from a
            primary PW to a backup PW upon failure detection SHOULD be

       -iv. A mechanism to automatically revert to a primary PW from a
            backup PW MAY be provided. When provided, it MUST be

6.1.3. Quality Of Service

   Pseudo-wires are intended to support emulated services (e.g., TDM and
   ATM) which may have strict per-connection quality of service
   requirements. This may include either absolute or relative guarantees
   on packet loss, delay, and jitter. These guarantees are in part
   delivered by reserving sufficient network resources (e.g. BW), and by
   providing appropriate per-packet treatment (e.g. scheduling priority
   and drop precedence) throughout the network.

   For SS-PWs, a traffic engineered PSN tunnel (i.e., MPLS-TE) may be
   used to ensure that sufficient resources are reserved in the P-
   routers to provide QoS to PWs on the tunnel. In this case, T-PEs must
   have the ability to automatically manage PSN tunnel resources in the
   traffic direction (e.g.  admission control of PWs onto the PSN tunnel
   and accounting for reserved bandwidth and available bandwidth on the
   tunnel). In cases where the tunnel supports multiple classes of
   service (CoS) (e.g., E-LSP), bandwidth management is required per

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 12]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

   For MS-PWs, each S-PE maps a PW segment to a PSN tunnel. Solutions
   must enable S-PEs and T-PEs to automatically bind a PW segment to a
   PSN-tunnel based on CoS and bandwidth requirements when these
   attributes are specified for a PW. Solutions should also provide the
   capability of binding a PW segment to a tunnel as a matter of policy
   configuration. S-PEs and T-PEs must be capable of automatically
   managing PSN-tunnel resources per CoS.

   S-PEs and T-PEs must be able to associate a CoS marking (e.g., EXP
   field value for MPLS PWs) with PW PDUs. CoS marking in the PW PDUs
   affects packet treatment. The CoS marking depends on the PSN
   technology. Thus, solutions must enable the configuration of
   necessary mapping for CoS marking when the MS-PW crosses from one PSN
   technology to another. Similarly, different administrative domains
   may use different CoS values to imply the same CoS treatment.
   Solutions must provide the ability to define CoS marking maps on S-
   PEs at administrative domain boundaries to translate from one CoS
   value to another as a a PW PDU crosses from one domain to the next.

6.2. Generic Requirements for MS-PW Setup Mechanisms

   The MS-PW setup mechanisms MUST accommodate Service Provider's
   practices, especially in relation to security, confidentiality and
   traffic engineering.  Security and confidentiality are especially
   important when the MS-PWs are setup across Autonomous Systems in
   different administrative domains.  Following are generic requirements
   that apply to the three MS-PW setup mechanisms defined earlier:

        -i. The ability to statically select S-PEs and PSN tunnels on a
            PW path MUST be provided. Static selection of S-PEs is by
            definition a requirement for the static configuration and
            signaled/static route setup mechanisms. This requirement
            satisfies the need for forcing an MS-PW to traverse specific
            S-PEs to enforce service provider security and
            administrative policies.

       -ii. Solutions SHOULD minimize the amount of configuration needed
            to setup an MS-PW.

      -iii. Solutions should support different PW setup mechanisms on
            the same T-PE, S-PE and PSN network.

       -iv. Solutions MUST support use of SS-PW signaling mechanisms as
            specified in [PW-control] as well as MS-PW signaling
            mechanisms on T-PEs.

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 13]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

        -v. Solutions MUST ensure that a MS-PW will be setup when a path
            that satisfies the PW constraints for bandwidth, CoS and
            other possible attributes does exist in the network.

       -vi. Solutions must clearly define the setup procedures for each
            mechanism so that a MS-PW setup on T-PEs can be interpreted
            as successful only when all PW segments are successfully

      -vii. Admission control to the PSN tunnel needs to be performed
            against available resources, when applicable. This process
            MUST be performed at each PW segment comprising the MS-PW.
            PW admission control into a PSN tunnel MUST be configurable.

     -viii. In case the PSN tunnel lacks the resources necessary to
            accommodate the new PW, an attempt to signal a new PSN
            tunnel, or increase the capacity of the existing PSN tunnel
            MAY be made. If the expanded PSN tunnel fails to setup the
            PW MUST fail to setup.

       -ix. The setup mechanisms must allow the setup of a PW segment
            between two directly connected S-PEs without the existence
            of a PSN tunnel. This requirement allows a PW segment to be
            setup between two (Autonomous System Border Routers (Asks)
            when the MS-PW crosses AS boundaries without the need for
            configuring and setting up a PSN tunnel. In this case,
            admission control must be done, when enabled, on the link
            between the S-PEs.

6.2.1. Routing

   An objective of MS-PWs is to provide support for the following

        -i. MS-PWs MUST be able to traverse multiple Service Provider
            administrative domains.

       -ii. MS-PWs MUST be able to traverse multiple autonomous systems
            within the same administrative domain.

      -iii. MS-PWs MUST be able to traverse multiple autonomous systems
            belonging to different administrative domains.

       -iv. MS-PWs MUST be able to support any hybrid combination of the
            aforementioned connectivity scenarios, including both PW
            transit , and terminationin a domain.

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 14]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

6.3. Statically configured MS-PWs

   When the MS-PW segments are statically configured the following
   requirements apply in addition to the generic requirements previously

6.3.1. Architecture

   There are no additional requirements on the architecture.

6.3.2. MPLS-PWs

   Solutions should allow for the static configuration of MPLS labels
   for MPLS-PW segments and the cross-connection of these labels to
   preceding and succeeding segments. This is especially useful when a
   MS-PW crosses provider boundaries and two providers do not want to
   run any PW signaling protocol between them. A T-PE or S-PE that
   allows the configuration of static labels for MS-PW segments should
   also simultaneously allow for dynamic label assignments for other
   MS-PW segments.

6.3.3. Resiliency

   The solution should allow for the protection of a PW-segment, a
   contiguous set of PW-segments, as well as the end-end path. The
   primary and protection segments paths must share the same segments

   Solutions should strive to minimize traffic loss between T-PEs.

6.3.4. Quality of service

   The CoS and bandwidth of the MS-PW must be configurable at T-PEs and

6.4. Signaled PW-segments

   When the MS-PW segments are dynamically signalled the following
   requirements apply in addition to the generic requirements previously

   These signaled MS-PW segments can be on the path of a statically
   configured MS-PW, signaled/static route MS-PW or signaled/dynamic

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 15]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

   route MS-PW.

   The following requirements for dynamically signaled MS-PW segments
   apply to a dynamically selected MS-PW path or a statically selected
   MS-PW path.

   There are four different SS-PW signaling protocols that are defined
   to signal PWs:

        -i. Static setup of the SS-PW (MPLS or L2TPv3).

       -ii. LDP using PWid FEC 128

      -iii. LDP using the generalized PW FEC 129

       -iv. L2TPv3

   The MS-PW setup mechanism MUST be able to support PW segments
   signaled with any of the above protocols, however the specification
   of which combinations of SS-PW signaling protocols is supported by a
   specific implementation is outside the scope of this document.

   For the signaled/static route and signaled/dynamic route MS-PW setup
   mechanisms the following requirements apply in addition to the
   generic requirements previously defined.

6.4.1. Architecture

   There are no additional requirements on the architecture.

6.4.2. Resiliency

   Solutions should allow for the signaling of a protection path for a
   PW segment, sequence of segments or end-end path. The protection and
   primary paths for the protected segment(s) share the same respective
   segments endpoints. When admission control is enabled, systems must
   be careful not to double account for bandwidth allocation at merged
   points (e.g., tunnels).

6.4.3. Quality of Service

   When the T-PE attempts to signal a MS-PW the following capability is

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 16]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

        -i. Signaling must be able to identify the CoS associated with a

       -ii. Signaling must be able to carry the traffic parameters for a
            MS-PW per CoS.  Traffic parameters should be based on
            existing Intserv definitions and must be used for admission
            control when admission control is enabled.

      -iii. The PW signaling MUST enable separate traffic parameter
            values to be specified for the forward and reverse
            directions of the PW.

       -iv. PW traffic parameter representations MUST be the same for
            all types of MS-PWs.

6.4.4. Routing

   See the requirements for "Resiliency" above.

   Following are further requirements on signaled MS-PW setup

        -i. The signaling procedures MUST be defined such that the setup
            of a MS-PW is considered successful if all segments of the
            MS-PW are successfully setup.

       -ii. The MS-PW path MUST have the ability to be dynamically setup
            between the T-PEs by provisioning only the T-PEs.

      -iii. Dynamic MS-PW setup requires that a unique identifier be
            associated with a PW and be carried in the signaling
            message. That identifier must contain sufficient information
            to determine the path to the remote T-PE through
            intermediate S-PEs.

       -iv. In a single-provider domain it is natural to have the T-PE
            identified by one of its IP addresses. This may also apply
            when a MS-PW is setup across multiple domains operated by
            the same provider. However, some service providers have
            security and confidentiality policies that prevent them from
            advertising reachability to routers in their networks to
            other providers (reachability to an ASBR is an exception).
            Thus, procedures MUST be provided to allow dynamic setup of
            MS-PWs under these conditions.

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 17]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

6.5. Signaled PW / Dynamic Route

   The following requirements apply, in addition to those in Section 6.1
   and Section 6.2, when both dynamic signaling and dynamic routing are

6.5.1. Architecture

   There are no additional architectural requirements.

6.5.2. Resiliency

   The PW Routing function MUST support dynamic re-routing around
   failure points when segments are setup using the dynamic setup

6.5.3. Quality

   There are no additional QoS requirements.

6.5.4. Routing

   Following are requirements associated with dynamic route selection
   for a MS-PW:

        -i. The MS-PW MUST have the ability to automatically select the
            S-PEs along the MS-PW path. Some of the S-PEs MAY be
            statically selected and carried in the signaling to
            constrain the route selection process.

       -ii. The PW Routing function MUST support re-routing around
            failures that occur between the statically configured
            segment endpoints. This may be done by choosing another PSN
            tunnel between the two segment endpoints or setting up an
            alternative tunnel.

      -iii. Routing protocols must be able to advertise reachability
            information to attachment circuit (AC) endpoints. This
            reachability information must be consistent with the AC
            identifiers carried in signaling.

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 18]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

7. Operations and Maintenance (OAM)

   OAM mechanisms for the attachment circuits are defined in the
   specifications for PW emulated specific technologies (e.g., ITU-T
   I.610 for ATM). These mechanisms enable, among other things, defects
   in the network to be detected, localized and diagnosed. They also
   enable communication of PW defect states on the PW attachment

   The interworking of OAM mechanisms for SS-PWs between ACs and PWs is
   defined in [PWE3-OAM]. These enable defect states to be propagated
   across a PWE3 network following the failure and recovery from faults.

   OAM mechanisms for MS-PWs MUST provide at least the same capabilities
   as those for SS-PWs.

   In addition, it should be possible to support both segment and end-
   to-end OAM mechanisms for both defect notifications and connectivity
   verification in order to allow defects to be localized in a multi-
   segment network. That is, PW OAM segments can be T-PE to T-PE, T-PE
   to S-PE, or S-PE to S-PE.

   The following requirements apply to OAM for MS-PWs:

        -i. Mechanisms for PW segment failure detection and notification
            to other segments of a MS-PW MUST be provided.

       -ii. MS-PW OAM SHOULD be supported end-to-end across the network.

      -iii. Single ended monitoring SHOULD be supported for both
            directions of the MS-PW.

       -iv. MS-PW OAM SHOULD support switch over between 1:1 protected
            LSPs end-to-end.

        -v. VCCV SHOULD be provided both end-to-end across the MS-PW,
            and on a segment (i.e. SS-PW) basis.

       -vi. All PE routers along the MS-PW MUST agree on a common PW OAM
            mechanism to use to the MS-PW.

      -vii. At the S-PE, defects on an PSN tunnel MUST be propagated to
            all PWs that utilize that particular PSN tunnel.

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 19]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

     -viii. The directionality of defect notifications MUST be
            maintained across the S-PE.

       -ix. The S-PE SHOULD be able to behave as a segment endpoint for
            PW OAM mechanisms.

        -x. The S-PE MUST be able to pass T-PE to T-PE PW OAM messages

8. Security Considerations

   This document specifies the requirements for MS-PWs that can be setup
   across domain boundaries administered by one ore more service
   providers. The security requirements for MS-PWs setup across domains
   administered by one service provider are the same as those described
   under security considerations in [PWE3_control]. These requirements
   also apply to interprovider MS-PWs. In this section, the focus is on
   the additional security requirements for interprovider operation of
   MS-PWs in both the control plane and data plane.

8.1. Data-plane Security Requirements

   MS-PWs that cross SP domain boundaries may connect one T-PE in one SP
   domain to a T-PE in another SP-domain. They may also transit other SP
   domains even if the two T-PEs are under the control of one SP. Under
   these scenarios, theere is a chance that one or more PDUs be falsely
   inserted into a MS-PW at any of the originating, terminating or
   transit domains. Such false injection can be the result of a
   malicious attack or fault in the MS-PW cross-connects.  Solutions MAY
   provide mechanisms for ensuring the end-end authenticity of MS-PW

   One of the crossed domains may decide to selectively mirror the PDUs
   of a MS-PW for eavesdropping purposes. It may also decide to
   selectively hijack the PDUs of a MS-PW by directing the PDUs away
   from their destination. In either case, the privacy of a MS-PDU can
   be violated. This document does not place any requirements on
   protecting the privacy of a MS-PW PDU via encryption for instance.
   Encryption may be performed at a higher layer in the protocol stack,
   based on the application or network requirements.

   The data plane of an S-PE at a domain boundary MUST be able to police
   an incoming MS-PW traffic to the MS-PW traffic parameters or to an

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 20]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

   administratively configured profile. The option to enable/disable
   policing MUST be provided to the network administrator. This is to
   ensure that a MS-PW or a group of MS-PWs do not grab more resources
   then they are allocated. In addition, the data plane of an S-PE MUST
   be able to police OAM messages to a pre-configured traffic profile or
   to filter out these messages upon administrative configuration.

   An ingress S-PE MUST ensure that an MS-PW receive the CoS treatment
   configured or signaled for that MS-PW at the S-PE. Specifically, an
   S-PE MUST guard against packets marked in the exp bits or IP-header
   DS field (depending on the PSN) for a better CoS than they should

   An ingress S-PE MUST be able to define per-interface or interface-
   group (a group may correspond to interfaces to a peer-provider) label
   space for MPLS-PWs. An S-PE MUST be configurable not to accept
   labeled packets from another provider unless the bottom label is a
   PW-label assigned by the S-PE on the interface on which the packet

8.2. Control-plane Security Requirements

   A MS-PW connects two attachment circuits. It is important to make
   sure that PW connections are not arbitrarily accepted from anywhere,
   or else a local attachment circuit might get connected to an
   arbitrary remote attachment circuit. The fault in the connection can
   start at a remote T-PE or an S-PE.

   An incoming MS-PW request/reply MUST NOT be accepted unless its IP
   source address is known to be the source of an "eligible" peer. If a
   peering adjacency has to be established prior to exchanging setup
   requests/responses, peering MUST only be done with eligible peers.
   The set of eligible peers could be pre-configured (either as a list
   of IP addresses, or as a list of address/mask combinations).
   Furthermore, the restriction of peering sessions to specific
   interfaces SHOULD also be provided. The S-PE and T-PE SHOULD drop the
   unaccepted signaling messages in the data path to avoid a DoS attack
   on the control plane.

   Even if a connection request appears to come from an eligible peer,
   its source address may have been spoofed. So some means of preventing
   source address spoofing must be in place. For example, if eligible
   peers are in the same network, source address filtering at the border
   routers of that network could eliminate the possibility of source
   address spoofing.

   For a greater degree of security, an authentication mechanism that is

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 21]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

   suitable to the associated protocol MUST be available. Furthermore
   authentication using a signature for each individual MS-PW setup
   messages MUST be available, in addition to an overall control
   protocol session authentication , and message validation.

   Peer authentication protects against IP address spoofing but does not
   prevent one peer (S-PE or T-PE) from connecting to the wrong
   attachment circuit. Under a single administrative authority, this may
   be the result of a misconfiguration. When the MS-PW crosses multiple
   provider domains, this may be the result of a malicious act by a
   service provider or a security hole in that provider network. Static
   manual configuration of MS-PWs at S-PEs and T-PEs provide a greater
   degree of security. If an identification of both ends of a MS-PW is
   configured and carried in the signaling message, an S-PE can verify
   the signaling message against the configuration. To support dynamic
   signaling of MS-PWs, whereby only endpoints are provisioned and S-PEs
   are dynamically discovered, mechanisms SHOULD be provided to
   configure such information on a server and to use that information
   during a connection attempt for validation.

   S-PEs that connect one provider domain to another provider domain
   MUST have the capability to rate-limit signaling traffic in order to
   prevent DoS attacks on the control plane. Furthermore, detection and
   disposition of malformed packets and defense against various forms of
   attacks that can be protocol-specific MUST be provided.

9. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 22]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

10. 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

   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-

11. IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA Actions.

12. Normative References

   [PWE3-ARCH] "PWE3 Architecture" Bryant, et al., RFC3985.

   [PWE3-OAM] "Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping" Nadeau et al.,
        draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt (work in progress),
        February 2005

13. Informative References

   [ITUQ] ITU-T Recommendation Q.933, and Q.922 Specification for
        Frame Mode Basic call control, ITU Geneva 1995

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 23]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt    October 2005

14. Author Information

   Nabil Bitar
   40 Sylvan Road
   Waltham, MA 02145

   Matthew Bocci
   Alcatel Telecom Ltd,
   Voyager Place
   Shoppenhangers Road
   Berks, UK

   Luca Martini
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
   Englewood, CO, 80112

Bitar, et al.                                                  [Page 24]