Internet Engineering Task Force Sami Boutros
Internet Draft Luca Martini
Expiration Date: September 2011 Siva Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Maciek Konstantynowicz
Juniper
Frederic Jounay Gianni Del Vecchio
Philippe Niger Swisscom
France Telecom
Thomas D. Nadeau Yuji Kamite
Huawei NTT Communications
Simon Delord Lizhong Jin
Telstra ZTE
Laurent Ciavaglia
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent
March 2, 2011
Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires using LDP
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
Boutros, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2010
Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism to signal Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) Pseudowires (PW) tree using LDP. Such a mechanism is suitable
for any Layer 2 VPN service requiring P2MP connectivity over an IP or
MPLS-enabled PSN. A P2MP PW established via the proposed mechanism is
root initiated.
Table of Contents
1 Specification of Requirements ........................ 3
2 Introduction ......................................... 3
3 Terminology .......................................... 4
4 Signaling the P2MP PW ................................ 5
4.1 PW ingress to egress incompatibility issues .......... 6
4.2 P2MP PW FEC Element .................................. 7
4.3 Group ID usage ....................................... 9
4.4 Generic Label TLV .................................... 9
4.5 Transport LSP TLV .................................... 10
5 LDP Capability Negotiation ........................... 12
6 P2MP PW status ....................................... 13
7 Security Considerations .............................. 13
8 IANA Considerations .................................. 13
8.1 FEC Type Name Space .................................. 13
8.2 LDP TLV TYPE ......................................... 14
8.3 mLDP Opaque Value Element TLV TYPE ................... 14
9 References ........................................... 14
9.1 Normative References ................................. 14
9.2 Informative References ............................... 15
10 Author's Addresses ................................... 16
Boutros, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
1. Specification of Requirements
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 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowire (PW) emulates the essential
attributes of a unidirectional P2MP Telecommunications service such
as P2MP ATM over PSN. A major difference between a Point-to-Point
(P2P) PW outlined in [RFC3985] and a P2MP PW is that the former is
intended for bidirectional service whereas the latter is intended for
both unidirectional, or optionally bidirectional service.
Requirements for P2MP PW are described in [P2MP-PW-REQ].
P2MP PW can be constructed as either Single Segment (P2MP SS-PW) or
Multi Segment (P2MP MS-PW) Pseudowires as mentioned in [P2MP-PW-REQ].
P2MP MS-PW is outside the scope of this document. A reference model
for P2MP PW is depicted in Figure 1 below. A transport LSP associated
with a P2MP SS-PW SHOULD be a P2MP MPLS LSP (i.e., P2MP TE tunnel
established via RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or P2MP LSP established via mLDP
[mLDP]) spanning from the Root-PE to the Leaf-PE(s) of the P2MP SS-PW
tree. For example, in Figure 1, PW1 can be associated with a P2MP TE
tunnel or P2MP LSP setup using [mLDP] originating from PE1 and
terminating at PE2 and PE3.
Boutros, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
|<--------------P2MP PW---------------->|
Native | | Native
Service | |<--PSN1->| |<--PSN2->| | Service
(AC) V V V V V V (AC)
| +-----+ +------+ +------+ |
| | | | P1 |=========|T-PE2 |AC3 | +---+
| | | | .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE3|
| |T-PE1|=========| . |=========| | | +---+
| | .......PW1........ | +------+ |
| | . |=========| . | +------+ |
| | . | | . |=========|T-PE3 |AC4 | +---+
+---+ |AC1 | . | | .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE4|
|CE1|------->|... | | |=========| | | +---+
+---+ | | . | +------+ +------+ |
| | . | +------+ +------+ |
| | . |=========| P2 |=========|T-PE4 |AC5 | +---+
| | .......PW1..............PW1.........>|-------->|CE5|
| | |=========| |=========| | | +---+
| +-----+ +------+ +------+ |
Figure 1: P2MP PW
Mechanisms for establishing P2P SS-PW using LDP are described in
[RFC4447]. In this document, we specify a method to signal P2MP PW
using LDP. In particular, we define new TLVs, parameters, and status
codes to facilitate LDP to signal and maintain P2MP PWs.
Note that even though the traffic flow from a Root-PE to Leaf-PE(s)
is P2MP in nature, it may be desirable for any Leaf-PE to send
unidirectional P2P traffic destined only to the Root-PE. The proposed
mechanism takes such an option into consideration.
The P2MP PW requires an MPLS LSP to carry the PW traffic. the PW MPLS
packet will be encapsulated according to the methods described in
[RFC5332].
3. Terminology
FEC: Forwarding Equivance Class
LDP: Label Distribution Protocol
mLDP: Label Distribution Protocol for P2MP LSP
LSP: Label Switching Path
Boutros, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire
P2P: Point to Point
P2MP: Point to Multipoint
PE: Provider Edge
PSN: Packet Switched Network
PW: Pseudowire
SS-PW: Single-Segment Pseudowire
S-PE: Switching Provider Edge Node of MS-PW
TE: Traffic Engineering
R-PE: Root-PE - ingress PE, PE initiating P2MP PW setup.
L-PE: Leaf-PE - egress PE.
4. Signaling the P2MP PW
In order to advertise labels as well as exchange PW related LDP
messages, PEs must establish LDP sessions among themselves using the
Extended Discovery Mechanisms. A PE discovers other PEs that are to
be connected via P2MP PWs either via manual configuration or
autodiscovery [RFC6074].
Root-PE and each Leaf-PE MUST be configured with the same FEC as
defined in the following section.
P2MP PW requires that there is an active P2MP PSN LSP set up between
Root-PE and Leaf-PE(s). Note that the procedure to set up the P2MP
PSN LSP is different depending on the protocol used: RSVP-TE or mLDP.
In case of mLDP a Leaf-PE can decide to join the P2MP LSP at any
time, while in case of RSVP-TE the P2MP LSP is set up by the Root-PE,
generally at the initial service provisioning time. It should be
noted that local policy can override any decision to join, add or
prune existing or new Leaf-PE(s) from the tree.
In any case the PW setup can ignore these differences, and simply
assume that the P2MP tunnel is available when needed.
The P2MP PW is initiated by the root (source) Provider Edge router
Boutros, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
(R-PE), by simply sending an P2MP-PW LDP label mapping message to all
the Leaf Provider Edge routers L-PEs. This label mapping message will
contain the following:
-i. P2MP PW FEC element.
-ii. an Interface Parameters TLV, as described in [RFC4447] sec
5.3.2.1
-iii. a PW Grouping TLV, as described in [RFC4447] sec 5.3.2.2
-iv. a Transport LSP TLV.
-v. a label TLV for the upstream-assigned label R-PE to L-PE
direction.
-vi. MAY contain a downstream-assigned label for the L-PE to R-PE
direction.
The LDP liberal label retention mode is used, and per [RFC5036]
requirement the label request message MUST also be supported.
The Upstream-assigned label is allocated according to the rules in
[RFC5331].
When a Leaf-PE receives a PW Label Mapping Message, it MUST verify
the associated P2MP transport LSP is in place.
If the associated transport P2MP LSP is not in place, and the
transport LSP TLV type is LDP P2MP LSP, a Leaf-PE SHOULD attempt to
join the P2MP transport associated with the P2MP PW.
If the associated transport P2MP LSP is not in place, and the
transport LSP TLV type is RSVP-TE P2MP LSP, a Leaf-PE SHOULD await
RSVP-TE P2MP LSP signaling from the Root-PE.
4.1. PW ingress to egress incompatibility issues
If a Root-PE signals a PW with a pw type, CW mode, or interface
parameters that a particular Leaf-PE cannot accept, then the L-PE
must simply not enable the PW, and notify the user. In this case a PW
status message of 0x00000001 - Pseudowire Not Forwarding MUST also be
sent to the R-PE.
Note that this procedure does not apply if the L-PE had not been
provisioned with this particular P2MP PW. In this case according to
the LDP liberal label retention rules, no action is taken.
Boutros, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
4.2. P2MP PW FEC Element
[RFC4447] specifies two types of LDP FEC elements called "PWid FEC
Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC Element" used to signal P2P PWs.
We define a new type of FEC element called "P2MP PW FEC Element"
whose type is 0x82 (Pending IANA Allocation) and is encoded as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|FEC Type = 0x82|C| PW Type | PW Info Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AGI Type | Length | AGI Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ AGI Value (contd.) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | Length | SAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SAII Value (contd.) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Transport LSP TLV (0x0971)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |PMSI Tunnel Typ| Transport LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Transport LSP ID (contd.) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Optional Parameters |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: P2MP PW FEC Element
* PW Type:
15-bit representation of PW type, and the assigned values are
assigned by IANA.
* C bit:
A value of 1 or 0 indicates whether control word is present or
absent for the P2MP PW.
Boutros, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
* PW Info Length:
Sum of the lengths of AGI, SAII and Optional Parameters field in
octets. If this value is 0, then it references all PWs using the
specified grouping ID. In this case, there are no other FEC
element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.) present, nor any interface
parameters TLVs.
* AGI:
Attachment Group Identifier can be used to uniquely identify VPN
or VPLS instance associated with the P2MP PW. This has the same
format as that of the Generalized PWid FEC element [RFC4447].
* SAII:
Source Attachment Individual Identifier is used to identify the
root of the P2MP PW. The root is represented using AII type 2
format specified in [RFC5003]. Note that the SAII can be omitted
by simply setting the length and type to zero.
P2MP PW is identified by the Source Attachment Identifier (SAI).
If the AGI is non-null, the SAI is the combination of the SAII
and the AGI, if the AGI is null, the SAI is the SAII.
* Transport LSP TLV:
A P2MP PW MUST be associated with a transport LSP. The Transport
LSP TLV contains the information required to identify the
transport LSP. Note that the Transport LSP TLV MUST immediately
follow the FEC , but is not part of the FEC, and SHOULD NOT be
used in other messages where the FEC is used.
* Optional Parameters:
The Optional Parameter field can contain some TLVs that are not
part of the FEC, but are necessary for the operation of the PW.
This document defines two such parameters: Interface Parameters
TLV, and Group ID TLV.
The Interface Parameters TLV and Group ID TLV specified in [RFC4447]
can also be used in conjunction with P2MP PW FEC. For Group ID TLV
the sender and receiver of these TLVs should follow the same rules
and procedures specified in [RFC4447]. For Interface Parameters TLV
the procedure differs from the one specified in [RFC4447] due to
specifics of P2MP connectivity. When the interface parameters are
signaled by the Root-PE, the Leaf-PE must check if its configured
value(s) is less than or equal to the threshold value provided by the
Boutros, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
Root-PE (e.g. MTU size (Ethernet), max number of concatenated ATM
cells, etc)). For other interface parameters like CEP/TDM Payload
bytes (TDM), the value MUST match exactly the the one signaled by the
Root-PE.
Note that since the LDP label mapping message is only sent by the R-
PE to all the L-PEs it is not possible to negotiate any interface
parameters.
4.3. Group ID usage
The Grouping TLV as defined in [RFC4447] contains a group ID capable
of indicating an arbitrary group membership of a P2MP-PW. This group
ID can be used in LDP "wild card" status, and withdraw label
messages, as described in [RFC4447].
4.4. Generic Label TLV
For a given P2MP PW, a single upstream-assigned label is allocated by
the Root-PE, and is advertised to all Leaf-PEs using the Generic
Label TLV in the label mapping message containing the P2MP PW FEC
element. The Root-PE imposes the upstream-assigned label on the
outbound packets sent over the P2MP-PW, and using this label a Leaf-
PE identifies the inbound packets arriving over the P2MP PW. Even
though the P2MP PW is unidirectional, it may be possible for a Root-
PE to receive traffic from any Leaf-PE using a unidirectional P2P PW
in the reverse direction as outlined in [P2MP-PW-REQ]. For this
purpose, the Root-PE can also allocate a unique downstream-assigned
label for each Leaf-PE from which it is intended to receive P2P
traffic. In other words, Label Mapping Message for a P2MP PW from a
Root-PE to a Leaf-PE MUST carry a upstream-assigned label and MAY
carry an OPTIONAL downstream-assigned label.
As in the case of P2P PW signaling, P2MP PW labels are carried within
Generic Label TLV contained in LDP Label Mapping Message. A Generic
Label TLV is formatted and processed as per the rules and procedures
specified in [RFC4447]. But, as mentioned above, a Label Mapping
Message for a P2MP PW can have up to two Generic Label TLVs; one for
upstream-assigned label (always) and another for downstream-assigned
label (optional). In the case of two Generic Label TLVs, the first
TLV (from the beginning of the message) carries upstream-assigned
label and the next generic label TLV carries the downstream-assigned
label as shown below:
Boutros, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Generic Label (0x0200) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upstream-assigned P2MP Label (mandatory) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Generic Label (0x0200) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream-assigned P2P Label (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Generic Label TLVs in P2MP PW Label Mapping Message
Note that other type of TLVs may appear between the above generic
label TLVs, however any other generic label TLV MUST NOT appear
between the upstream-assigned P2MP Label TLV, and downstream-assigned
P2P Label TLV.
4.5. Transport LSP TLV
A P2MP PW MUST be associated with a transport LSP which can be
established using RSVP-TE or mLDP. Thus, a Label Mapping Message MUST
contain the identity of the transport LSP. For this purpose, this
specification introduces a new TLV called "Transport LSP TLV" which
has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Transport LSP TLV (0x0971)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |PMSI Tunnel Typ| Tunnel Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Tunnel Identifier (contd.) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Transport LSP TLV
Note: TLV number pending IANA allocation.
Boutros, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
* Reserved Flags:
Reserved bits Must be set to 0 when transmitting the message, and
ignored on receiving the message.
* PMSI Tunnel Type:
The Transport LSP Type identifies the type of technology used to
establish a transport LSP. The PMSI tunnel type is defined in
[L3VPN-MCAST].
When the type is set to mLDP P2MP LSP, the Tunnel Identifier is a
P2MP FEC Element as defined in [mLDP]. A new mLDP Opaque Value
Element type for L2VPN-MCAST application needs to be allocated.
Editor Comment: The content of the Opaque Value Element TLV is a
TBD.
* Tunnel Identifier:
The Tunnel containing the Transport LSP is identified by the
Tunnel Identifier which is defined in [L3VPN-MCAST].
Transport LSP TLV MUST be present only in the Label Mapping Message.
An Root-PE sends Label Mapping Message as soon as the transport LSP
ID associated with the P2MP PW is known (e.g., via configuration)
regardless of the operational state of the transport LSP. Similarly,
a Root-PE does not withdraw the labels when the corresponding
transport LSP goes down. Furthermore, a Leaf-PE retains the P2MP PW
labels regardless of the operational status of the transport LSP.
Note that a given transport LSP can be associated with more than one
P2MP PW and all P2MP PWs will be sharing the same Root-PE and Leaf-
PE(s).
In the case of LDP P2MP LSP, when a Leaf-PE receives the Label
Mapping Message, it can initiate the process of joining the P2MP LSP
tree associated with the P2MP PW.
In the case of RSVP-TE P2MP LSP, only the Root-PE initiates the
signaling of P2MP LSP.
Boutros, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
5. LDP Capability Negotiation
The capability of supporting P2MP PW must be advertised to all LDP
peers. This is achieved by using the methods in [RFC5561] and
advertising the P2MP PW LDP capability TLV. If an LDP peer supports
the dynamic capability advertisement, this can be done by sending a
new capability message with the S bit set for the P2MP PW capability
TLV. If the peer does not support dynamic capability advertisement,
then the P2MP PW TLV MUST be included in the LDP initialization
procedures in the capability parameter [RFC5561].
In line with requirements listed in [RFC5561] the following TLV is
defined to indicate the P2MP PW capability:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| TLV Code Point=0x703 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: P2MP PW LDP Capability TLV
Note: TLV number pending IANA allocation.
* U-bit:
SHOULD be 1 (ignore if not understood).
* F-bit:
SHOULD be 0 (don't forward if not understood).
* TLV Code Point:
The TLV type, which identifies a specific capability. The P2MP PW
capability code point is requested in the IANA allocation section
below.
* S-bit:
The State Bit indicates whether the sender is advertising or
withdrawing the P2MP PW capability. The State bit is used as
follows:
1 - The TLV is advertising the capability specified by the
TLV Code Point.
Boutros, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
0 - The TLV is withdrawing the capability specified by the
TLV Code Point.
6. P2MP PW status
In order to support the proposed mechanism, a node MUST be capable of
handling PW status. As such, PW status negotiation procedure
described in [RFC4447] is not applicable to P2MP PW.
Once a Leaf-PE successfully process a Label Mapping Message for a
P2MP PW, it MUST send appropriate PW status according to the
procedure specified [RFC4447] to notify the PW status. If there is no
PW status notification required, then no PW status notification is
sent. (for example if the P2MP PW is established and operational with
a status 0f 0x00000000 no pw status message is necessary).
PW status message sent from any Leaf-PE to Root-PE contains P2MP PW
FEC to identify the PW. Finally, a Root-PE also sends PW status to
Leaf-PE(s) to reflect its view of a P2MP PW state.
Connectivity status of the underlying P2MP LSP that P2MP PW is
associated with, can be verified using LSP Ping and Traceroute
procedures described in [P2MP-LSP-PING].
7. Security Considerations
The security measures described in [RFC4447] is adequate for the
proposed mechanism.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. FEC Type Name Space
This document uses a new FEC element types, number 0x82 will be
requested as an allocation from the registry "FEC Type Name Space"
for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP RFC5036):
Value Hex Name Reference
------- ----- ----------------------------- ---------
130 0x82 P2MP PW FEC Element RFCxxxx
Boutros, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
8.2. LDP TLV TYPE
This document uses a new LDP TLV types, IANA already maintains a
registry of name "TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036. The
following values are suggested for assignment:
TLV type Description
0x0971 Transport LSP TLV
0x0703 P2MP PW Capability TLV
8.3. mLDP Opaque Value Element TLV TYPE
This document requires allocation of a new mLDP Opaque Value Element
Type from the LDP MP Opaque Value Element type name space defined in
[mLDP].
The following value is suggested for assignment:
TLV type Description
0x3 L2VPN-MCAST application TLV
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner. S, "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997.
[RFC4447] "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS", Martini, L.,
et al., rfc4447 April 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5003] C. Metz, L. Martini, F. Balus, J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC5003,
September 2007.
[RFC5331] R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream Label
Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", rfc5331,
August 2008.
[RFC5332] T. Eckert, E. Rosen, Ed.,R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter,
"MPLS Multicast Encapsulations", rfc5332, August 2008.
Boutros, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
[mLDP] I. Minei, K. Kompella, I. Wijnands, B. Thomas, "Label
Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-06, Work In Progress, April 2009.
[RFC4875]
R. Aggarwal, Ed., D. Papadimitriou, Ed., S. Yasukawa, Ed.,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs).", rfc4875, May 2007.
[L3VPN-MCAST] R. Aggarwal, E. Rosen, T. Morin, Y. Rekhter,
"BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp-08.txt,
Work in Progress, October 2009.
[RFC5561] B.Thomas, K.Raza, S.Aggarwal, R.Agarwal, JL. Le Roux,
"LDP Capabilities", rfc5561, July 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3985] Stewart Bryant, et al., "PWE3 Architecture",
RFC3985
[RFC6074] E. Rosen,W. Luo,B. Davie,V. Radoaca "Provisioning,
Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private
Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC6074, January 2011.
[P2MP-PW-REQ] F. Jounay, et. al, "Requirements for Point
to Multipoint Pseudowire",
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-03.txt, Work in Progress,
August 2010.
[P2MP-LSP-PING] A. Farrel, S. Yasukawa, "Detecting Data Plane
Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping",
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-15.txt, Work In Progress,
January 2011.
Boutros, et al. [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
10. Author's Addresses
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112
e-mail: lmartini@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: sboutros@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, ONTARIO K2K 3E8
CANADA
e-mail: msiva@cisco.com
Maciek Konstantynowicz
Juniper Networks
UNITED KINGDOM
e-mail: maciek@juniper.net
Gianni Del Vecchio
Swisscom (Schweiz) AG
Zentweg 9
CH-3006 Bern
Switzerland
e-mail: Gianni.DelVecchio@swisscom.com
Thomas D. Nadeau
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expy
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
e-mail: thomas.nadeau@huawei.com
Boutros, et al. [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
Frederic Jounay
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com
Philippe Niger
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower
3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421
Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Lizhong Jin
ZTE
889 Bibo Road,
Shanghai, 201203
P.R.China
Email: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Villejust
Nozay, 91620
France
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Laurent Ciavaglia
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Villejust
Nozay, 91620
France
Email: Laurent.Ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com
Boutros, et al. [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-02.txt March 2, 2011
Simon Delord
Alcatel-Lucent
E-mail: simon.a.delord@team.telstra.com
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Ali Sajassi.
Expiration Date: September 2011
Boutros, et al. [Page 18]
