Network Working Group                               Siva Sivabalan (Ed.)
Internet Draft                                        Sami Boutros (Ed.)
Intended status: Standards Track                            Luca Martini
Expires: September 11, 2012                                Cisco Systems

Frederic Jounay                                   Maciek Konstantynowicz
Philippe Niger                                                   Juniper
France Telecom
                                                      Gianni Del Vecchio
Thomas D. Nadeau                                                Swisscom
CA Technologies
                                                             Yuji Kamite
Simon Delord                                          NTT Communications
                                                             Lizhong Jin
Laurent Ciavaglia                                                    ZTE
Martin Vigoureux
                                                          March 11, 2012

     Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP

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-

   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 Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2012.

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012


   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. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Terminology....................................................4
   3. Signaling P2MP PW..............................................5
      3.1. PW ingress to egress incompatibility issues...............6
      3.2. P2MP PW FEC...............................................7
      3.3. Typed Wildcard FEC Format for new FEC....................12
      3.4. Group ID usage...........................................13
      3.5. Generic Label TLV........................................13
   4. LDP Capability Negotiation....................................13
   5. P2MP PW Status................................................15
   6. Security Considerations.......................................15
   7. IANA Considerations...........................................16
      7.1. FEC Type Name Space......................................16
      7.2. LDP TLV Type.............................................16
      7.3. mLDP Opaque Value Element TLV Type.......................16
      7.4. Selective Tree Interface Parameter sub-TLV Type..........16
      7.5. WildCard PMSI tunnel type................................17
   8. Acknowledgment................................................17
   9. References....................................................17
      9.1. Normative References.....................................17
      9.2. Informative References...................................18
   Author's Addresses...............................................19
   Full Copyright Statement.........................................21
   Intellectual Property Statement..................................21

1. 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

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   is intended for both unidirectional, and 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 [RFC6388]) 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.

                |<--------------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

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   [RFC4447]. In this document, we specify a method to signal P2MP PW
   using LDP. In particular, we define new FEC, TLVs, parameters, and
   status codes to facilitate LDP to signal and maintain P2MP PWs.

   As outlined in [P2MP-PW-REQ], even though the traffic flow from a
   Root-PE (R-PE) to Leaf-PE(s) (L-PEs) is P2MP in nature, it may be
   desirable for any L-PE to send unidirectional P2P traffic destined
   only to the R-PE. The proposed mechanism takes such option into

   The P2MP PW requires an MPLS LSP to carry the PW traffic, and the
   MPLS packets carried over the PW will be encapsulated according to
   the methods described in [RFC5332].

   Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 Error!
   Reference source not found..

2. Terminology

   FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class

   LDP: Label Distribution Protocol

   mLDP: Label Distribution Protocol for P2MP/MP2MP LSP

   LSP: Label Switching Path

   MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire

   P2P: Point to Point

   P2MP: Point to Multipoint

   PE: Provider Edge

   PSN: Packet Switched Network

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   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.

3. Signaling 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].

   R-PE and each L-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
   R-PE and L-PE(s). Note that the procedure to set up the P2MP PSN LSP
   is different depending on the signaling protocol used (RSVP-TE or

   In case of mLDP, a Leaf-PE can decide to join the P2MP LSP at any
   time; whereas in the case of RSVP-TE, the P2MP LSP is set up by the
   R-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 L-PE(s) from the tree. In any case, the PW
   setup can ignore these differences, and simply assume that the P2MP
   PSN LSP is available when needed.

   A P2MP PW signaling is initiated by the R-PE simply by sending a
   P2MP-PW LDP label mapping message to the L-PE(s) belonging to that
   P2MP PW. This label mapping message will contain the following:

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

          1. A FEC TLV containing P2MP PW Upstream FEC element that
             includes Transport LSP sub TLV.
          2. An Interface Parameters TLV, as described in [RFC4447].
          3. A PW Grouping TLV, as described in [RFC4447].
          4. A label TLV for the upstream-assigned label used by R-PE
             for the traffic going from R-PE to L-PE(s).

   The R-PE imposes the upstream-assigned label on the outbound packets
   sent over the P2MP-PW, and using this label an L-PE identifies the
   inbound packets arriving over the P2MP PW.

   Additionally, the R-PE MAY send label mapping message(s) to one or
   more L-PE(s) to signal unidirectional P2P PW(s). The L-PE(s) can use
   such PW(s) to send traffic to the R-PE. This optional label mapping
   message will contain the following:

          1. P2P PW Downstream FEC element.
          2. A label TLV for the down-stream assigned label used by the
            corresponding L-PE to send traffic to the R-PE.

   The LDP liberal label retention mode is used, and per requirements
   specified in [RFC5036], the Label Request message MUST also be

   The upstream-assigned label is allocated according to the rules in

   When an L-PE receives a PW Label Mapping Message, it MUST verify the
   associated P2MP PSN LSP is in place. If the associated P2MP PSN LSP
   is not in place, and its type is LDP P2MP LSP, the L-PE SHOULD
   attempt to join the P2MP LSP associated with the P2MP PW. If the
   associated P2MP PSN LSP is not in place, and its type is RSVP-TE
   P2MP LSP, the L-PE SHOULD wait till the P2MP transport LSP is

3.1. PW ingress to egress incompatibility issues

   If an R-PE signals a PW with a pw type, CW mode, or interface
   parameters that a particular L-PE cannot accept, then the L-PE must

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   not enable the PW, and notify the user. In this case, a PW status
   message with status code 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.

3.2. P2MP PW FEC

  [RFC4447] specifies two types of LDP FEC elements called "PWid FEC
   Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC Element" used to signal P2P PWs.
   We define two new types of FEC elements called "P2MP PW Upstream FEC
   Element" and "P2P PW Downstream FEC Element". These FEC elements are
   associated with a mandatory upstream assigned label and an optional
   downstream assigned label respectively.

   FEC type of the P2MP PW Upstream FEC Element is 0x82 (pending IANA
   allocation) and is encoded as follows:

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

    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
   | P2MP PW Up    |C|           PW Type           | PW Info Length|
   |    AGI Type   |     Length    |         AGI Value             |
   ~                       AGI Value (contd.)                      ~
   |                                                               |
   |    AII Type   |     Length    |         SAII Value            |
   ~                       SAII Value (contd.)                     ~
   |                                                               |
   |PMSI Tunnel typ|     Length    |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   +                                                               +
   ~                   Transport LSP ID                            ~
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                       Optional Parameters                     |
   ~                                                               ~

                Figure 2: P2MP PW Upstream 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.

     * PW Info Length:

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

      Sum of the lengths of AGI, SAII, PMSI Tunnel info, 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 neither other FEC element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.)
      present, nor any interface parameters TLVs. Alternatively, we can
      use typed WC FEC described in section 3.3 to achieve the same or
      to have better filtering.

     * 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 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.

     * PMSI Tunnel Type and Transport LSP ID:

      A P2MP PW MUST be associated with a transport LSP which can be
   established using RSVP-TE or mLDP.

     * PMSI Tunnel Type:

      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 [RFC6388]. A new mLDP Opaque
      Value Element type for L2VPN-MCAST application needs to be

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

     * Transport LSP ID:
       This is the Tunnel Identifier which is defined in [L3VPN-MCAST].

      An R-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 that transport LSP.
      Similarly, an R-PE does not withdraw the labels when the
      corresponding transport LSP goes down.  Furthermore, an L-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 PWs and all P2MP PWs will be sharing the same R-PE and L-PE(s).

   In the case of LDP P2MP LSP, when an L-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 R-PE initiates the
   signaling of P2MP LSP.

     * 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 proposed mechanism uses two such TLVs: 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 in a
     label message. 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 a R-
     PE, each L-PE must check if its configured value(s) is less than
     or equal to the threshold value provided by the R-PE (e.g. MTU
     size (Ethernet), max number of concatenated ATM cells, etc)). For

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

     other interface parameters like CEP/TDM Payload bytes (TDM), the
     value MUST exactly match the values signaled by the R-PE.

     Multicast traffic stream associated with a P2MP PW can be
     selective or inclusive. To support the former, this document
     defines a new optional Selective Tree Interface Parameter sub-TLV
     (type is pending IANA allocation) according to the format
     described in [RFC4447]. The value of the sub-TLV contains the
     source and the group for a given multicast tree as shown in Figure
     3. Also, if a P2MP PW is associated with multiple selective trees,
     the corresponding label mapping message will carry more than one
     instance of this Sub-TLV. Furthermore, in the absence of this sub-
     TLV, the P2MP PW is associated with all multicast traffic stream
     originating from the root.

                   +----------------------------------------- +
                   | Multicast Source Length (1 Octet)        |
                   +----------------------------------------- +
                   | Multicast Source (variable length)       |
                   +----------------------------------------- +
                   | Multicast Group Length (1 Octet)         |
                   +----------------------------------------- +
                   | Multicast Group (variable length)        |
                   +----------------------------------------- +

           Figure 3: Selective Tree Interface Parameter Sub-TLV Value

   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

   The type of optional P2P PW Downstream FEC Element is 0x83 (pending
   IANA allocation), and is encoded as follows:

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

    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
   | P2P PW Down   |C|           PW Type           | PW Info Length|
   |    AGI Type   |     Length    |         AGI Value             |
   ~                       AGI Value (contd.)                      ~
   |                                                               |
   |    AII Type   |     Length    |         SAII Value            |
   ~                       SAII Value (contd.)                     ~
   |                                                               |

               Figure 4: P2P PW Downstream FEC Element

   The definition of the fields in the P2P PW Downstream FEC Element is
   the same as those of P2MP PW Upstream FEC Element.

3.3. Typed Wildcard FEC Format for new FEC

   [RFC5918] defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard" FEC
   Element, and requires FEC designer to specify a typed wildcard FEC
   element for newly defined FEC element types. This document defines
   two new FEC elements, "P2MP PW Upstream" and "P2P PW Downstream" FEC
   element, and hence requires us to define their Typed Wildcard

   [PW-TWC-FEC] defines Typed Wildcard FEC element format for other PW
   FEC Element types (PWid and Gen. PWid FEC Element) in section 2 as
    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
   |Typed Wcard=0x5|Type=PW FEC|   Len = 3    |R|   PW type   |
   |    . . .      | PMSI Tun Type |
         Figure 5: Typed Wildcard Format for P2MP PW FEC Elements

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   [PW-TWC-FEC] specifies that "Type" field can be either "PWid" (0x80)
   or "Generalized PWid" (0x81) FEC element type. This document reuses
   the existing typed wildcard format as specified in [PW-TWC-FEC] and
   illustrated in Figure 5. We extend the definition of "Type" field to
   also include "P2MP PW Upstream" and "P2P PW Downstream" FEC element
   types, as well as add an additional field "PMSI Tun Type". We
   reserve PMSI tunnel Type 0xFF to mean "wildcard" transport tunnel
   type. This "wildcard" transport tunnel type can be used in a typed
   wildcard p2mp FEC for further filtering. This field only applies to
   Typed wildcard P2MP PW Upstream FEC and MUST be set to "wildcard"
   for "P2P PW Downstream FEC" typed wildcard element.

3.4. 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].

3.5. Generic Label TLV

   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]. For a given P2MP PW, a single
   upstream-assigned label is allocated by the R-PE, and is advertised
   to all L-PEs using the Generic Label TLV in label mapping message
   containing the P2MP PW Upstream FEC element.

   The R-PE can also allocate a unique label for each L-PE from which
   it intends to receive P2P traffic. Such a label is advertised to the
   L-PE using Generic Label TLV and P2P PW Downstream FEC in label
   mapping message.

4. 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

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   advertising the LDP "P2MP PW 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 supports dynamic capability
   advertisement, then the P2MP PW Capability TLV MUST be included in
   the LDP Initialization message during the session establishment. An
   LSR having P2MP PW capability MUST recognize both P2MP PW Upstream
   FEC Element and P2P PW Downstream FEC Element in LDP label messages.

   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| P2MP PW Capability (0x703)|            Length             |
   |S| Reserved    |    Reserved   |

                  Figure 7: LDP P2MP PW 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).

     * P2MP PW Capability TLV Code Point:

      The TLV type, which identifies a specific capability. The P2MP PW
      capability code point is requested in the IANA allocation section

     * S-bit:

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

       The State Bit indicates whether the sender is advertising or
       withdrawing the P2MP PW capability. The State bit is used as
             1 - The TLV is advertising the capability specified by the
                 TLV Code Point.

             0 - The TLV is withdrawing the capability specified by the
                 TLV Code Point.

      * Length:
         MUST be set to 2 (octet).

5. 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 an L-PE successfully processes 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 code of Success (0x00000000), pw status message is
   not necessary). PW status message sent from any L-PE to R-PE
   contains P2P PW Downstream FEC to identify the PW.

   An R-PE also sends PW status to L-PE(s) to reflect its view of a
   P2MP PW state. Such PW status message contains P2MP PW Upstream FEC
   to identify the PW.

   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].

6. Security Considerations

   The security measures described in [RFC4447] is adequate for the
   proposed mechanism.

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

7. IANA Considerations

7.1. FEC Type Name Space

   This document uses two new FEC element types, number 0x82 and 0x83
   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 Upstream FEC Element       RFCxxxx
    131     0x83   P2P PW Downstream FEC Element      RFCxxxx

7.2. 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:

      0x0703   P2MP PW Capability TLV

7.3. 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

   The following value is suggested for assignment:

      TLV type  Description
      0x3       L2VPN-MCAST application TLV

7.4. Selective Tree Interface Parameter sub-TLV Type

   This document requires allocation of a sub-TLV from the registry
   "Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV Type".

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   The following value is suggested for assignment:

      TLV type  Description
      0x0D      Selective Tree Interface Parameter.

7.5. WildCard PMSI tunnel type.

   This document requires the allocation of PMSI tunnel Type 0xFF to
   mean wildcard transport tunnel type

8. Acknowledgment

   Authors would like thank Andre Pelletier and Parag Jain for their
   valuable suggestions.

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., RFC 4447, 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", RFC 5331, August 2008.

   [RFC5332] T. Eckert, E. Rosen, Ed.,R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
   Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.

   [RFC6388] I. Minei, K. Kompella, I. Wijnands, B. Thomas, "Label
   Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November

   [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).",
   RFC 4875, 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", RFC 5561, July 2009.

   [RFC5918] R. Asati, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP Typed Wildcard
   Forwarding Equivalence Class", RFC 5918, August 2010.

   [PW-TWC-FEC] K. Raza, S. Boutros, and C. Pignataro, "LDP Typed
   Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements",
   draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-types-wc-fec-03.txt, work in progress,
   February 2012.

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.

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

Author's Addresses

   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8

   Sami Boutros
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way
   San Jose, California 95134

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

   Maciek Konstantynowicz
   Juniper Networks

   Gianni Del Vecchio
   Swisscom (Schweiz) AG
   Zentweg 9
   CH-3006 Bern

   Thomas D. Nadeau
   CA Technologies
   273 Corporate Drive
   Portsmouth, NH 03801

   Frederic Jounay
   France Telecom

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex

   Philippe Niger
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex

   Yuji Kamite
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Tokyo Opera City Tower
   3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
   Tokyo  163-1421

   Lizhong Jin
   889 Bibo Road,
   Shanghai, 201203

   Martin Vigoureux
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay,   91620

   Laurent Ciavaglia
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay,   91620

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   Simon Delord

   Kamran Raza
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   ( 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.

   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided

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

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt          March 2012

   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.

   Copies of Intellectual Property 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
   any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document.  Please
   address the information to the IETF at

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
   those that are translated into other languages, should not be
   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the UETF Standards
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Sivabalan             Expires September 11, 2012              [Page 22]