Internet Working Group                                       Y. Jiang
                                                              L. Yong
Internet Draft                                                 Huawei

Intended status: Standards Track                              M. Paul
                                                     Deutsche Telekom

                                                            F. Jounay
                                                            Orange CH

                                                             F. Balus
                                                        W. Henderickx
                                                       Alcatel-Lucent

                                                           A. Sajassi
                                                                Cisco

Expires: August 2012                                February 29, 2012



                 E-Tree Support in VPLS with BGP Signaling
                     draft-jiang-l2vpn-etree-bgp-00.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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2012.





Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              E-Tree in BGP                February 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Abstract

   This document describes the extension to BGP signaling for the E-Tree
   support in BGP VPLS when the dual-VLAN model is used as in [Vpls-
   etree]. The BGP VPLS messages and their procedures remain almost the
   same as in [RFC4761], only a new extended community for E-Tree is
   proposed.

Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction .............................................. 2
   2.   Conventions used in this document ......................... 3
   3.   Terminology ............................................... 3
   4.   BGP Extensions for E-Tree Support ......................... 3
   5.   Security Considerations ................................... 5
   6.   IANA Considerations ....................................... 5
   7.   References ................................................ 5
      7.1. Normative References ................................... 5
   8.   Acknowledgments ........................................... 6
   Authors' Addresses ............................................. 7



1. Introduction

   Dual-VLAN can be used to support generic E-Tree services both in the
   Ethernet and in the VPLS. The solution proposed in [Vpls-etree] is
   fully compatible with the IEEE bridge architecture and the IETF PWE3
   technology, and VPLS scalability and simplicity is also well kept.
   With this mechanism, it is also convenient to deploy a converged E-
   Tree service across both Ethernet and MPLS networks.

   LDP signaling of E-Tree support in a PW is specified in Section 6 of
   [Vpls-etree], it can also be used together with BGP auto-discovery
   [RFC6074].


Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              E-Tree in BGP                February 2012


   This document further describes the BGP signaling extension to BGP
   VPLS for the E-Tree support and its processing procedures.



2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].



3. Terminology

   E-Tree: a Rooted-Multipoint EVC service according to the definition
   in MEF

   Root VLAN, a VLAN ID used to indicate all the frames that are
   originated at a root AC

   Leaf VLAN, a VLAN ID used to indicate all the frames that are
   originated at a leaf AC



4. BGP Extensions for E-Tree Support

   In the dual-VLAN VPLS PE model per [Vpls-etree], the PEs need to
   exchange their local VLANs when PW is set up by automatic signaling.
   A new E-Tree extended community is proposed for E-Tree signaling in
   BGP VPLS:

                   +------------------------------------+
                   | Extended community type (2 octets) |
                   +------------------------------------+
                   |  Root VLAN (2 octets)              |
                   +------------------------------------+
                   |  Leaf VLAN (2 octets)              |
                   +------------------------------------+
                   |  Reserved                        |P|
                   +------------------------------------+


                     Figure 1 E-Tree Extended Community




Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              E-Tree in BGP                February 2012



   Where:

   o Root VLAN ID is the value of the local root VLAN.

   o Leaf VLAN ID is the value of the local leaf VLAN.

   o Reserved, 15 bits MUST be set to zero on transmit and be ignored
      on receive.

   o P is a Leaf-only bit, it is set to 1 to indicate that the PE is
      attached with only leaves, and set to 0 otherwise.

   The PEs attached with both leaves and roots must support BGP E-Tree
   signaling as described in this document, and must support VLAN
   mapping in their data planes. The traditional PE attached with only
   roots may also participate in an E-Tree.

   In BGP VPLS signaling, besides attaching a Layer2 Info Extended
   Community as detailed in [RFC4761], an E-Tree Extended Community MUST
   be further attached if a PE wishes to set up an E-Tree service. The
   PE MUST include its local root VLAN ID and leaf VLAN ID in the E-Tree
   Extended Community. A PE attached with only leaves of an E-Tree
   SHOULD set the P bit in the E-Tree Extended Community to 1.

   A PE that receives a BGP UPDATE message with an E-Tree Extended
   Community from its peer PE must process it as follows (a PE which
   does not recognize this attribute will silently ignore it):

   1) if the root and leaf VLAN ID in the E-Tree Extended Community
      match the local root and leaf VLAN ID, then continue to 3);

   2) else {

          if the bit V is cleared, then it MUST set VLAN-Mapping-Mode to
          TRUE;

          else the PE with the minimum IP address MUST set VLAN-Mapping-
          Mode to TRUE;

      }

   3) If the P bit is set, then the PE SHOULD set the Optimized-Mode to
      TRUE.





Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              E-Tree in BGP                February 2012


   If a PE has sent an E-Tree Extended Community but does not receive
   any E-Tree Extended Community from its peer, then set the Compatible-
   Mode to TRUE for the corresponding PW to the peer.

   Data plane in the VPLS is the same as described in Section 4.2 of
   [RFC4761], and data plane processing for a PW is the same as
   described in the end of Section 6 of [Vpls-etree].

5. Security Considerations

   Besides security considerations as described in [RFC4448] and
   [RFC4761], this solution prevents leaf to leaf communication in the
   data plane of VPLS when its PEs are interconnected with PWs. In this
   regard, security can be enhanced for customers with this solution.

6. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a value for E-Tree in the registry of
   BGP Extended Community.

   Parameter ID   Length       Description
   =======================================
   TBD            16            E-Tree


7. References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997

   [RFC4448] Martini, L., and et al, "Encapsulation Methods for
             Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", RFC 4448, April
             2006

   [RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
             (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
             4761, January 2007

   [RFC6074] Rosen, E., et al, "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and
             Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)",
             RFC 6074, January 2011

   [Vpls-etree] Jiang, et al., "VPLS PE Model for E-Tree Support",
             draft-jiang-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-05 (work in progress),
             October 2011


Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              E-Tree in BGP                February 2012




8. Acknowledgments

   TBD.











































Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              E-Tree in BGP                February 2012


 Authors' Addresses

   Yuanlong Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   Bantian, Longgang district
   Shenzhen 518129, China
   Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com

   Lucy Yong
   Huawei USA
   1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
   Plano, TX 75075, USA
   Email: lucyyong@huawei.com

   Manuel Paul
   Deutsche Telekom
   Goslarer Ufer 35
   10589 Berlin, Germany
   Email: manuel.paul@telekom.de

   Frederic Jounay
   Orange CH
   4 rue caudray 1020 Renens, SwitzerlandEmail:
   frederic.jounay@orange.ch

   Florin Balus
   Alcatel-Lucent
   701 E. Middlefield Road
   Mountain View, CA, USA 94043
   Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com

   Wim Henderickx
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Copernicuslaan 50
   2018 Antwerp, Belgium
   Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com

   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134, USA
   Email: sajassi@cisco.com







Jiang, et al           Expires August 29, 2012                [Page 7]