Internet Draft Document                                Ali Sajassi
   Provider Provisioned VPN Working Group               Cisco Systems
   01.txt                                               Yetik Serbest
                                                    SBC Communications
                                                       Frank Brockners
                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                          Dinesh Mohan
   Expires: January 2006                                    July 2005
                   VPLS Interoperability with CE Bridges
   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-
   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
   Copyright Notice
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  All Rights Reserved.
   One of the main motivations behind VPLS is its ability to provide
   connectivity not only among customer routers and servers/hosts but
   also among customer bridges. If only connectivity among customer IP
   routers/hosts was desired, then IPLS solution [IPLS] could have been
   Sajassi, et. al.                                           [Page 1]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   used. The strength of the VPLS solution is that it can provide
   connectivity to both bridge and non-bridge types of CE devices. VPLS
   is expected to deliver the same level of service that current
   enterprise users are accustomed to from their own enterprise bridged
   networks today or the same level of service that they receive from
   their Ethernet Service Providers using IEEE 802.1ad-based networks
   [P802.1ad] (or its predecessor û QinQ-based network).
   When CE devices are IEEE bridges, then there are certain issues and
   challenges that need to be accounted for in a VPLS network. Majority
   of these issues have currently been addressed in IEEE 802.1ad
   standard for provider bridges and they need to be addressed for VPLS
   networks. This draft discusses these issues and wherever possible,
   the recommended solutions to these issues.
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
   Table of Contents
   1. Overview........................................................3
   2. Ethernet Service Instance.......................................3
   2.1. Attachment Circuits Mapping to an ESI.........................5
   3. VPLS-Capable PE Model...........................................7
   4. CE Bridge Protocol Handling.....................................9
   4.1. Customer Network Topology Changes............................10
   5. Partial-mesh of Pseudowires....................................12
   6. Redundancy.....................................................13
   7. MAC Address Learning...........................................14
   8. Multicast Traffic..............................................15
   9. Interoperability with 802.1ad Networks.........................16
   10. Acknowledgments...............................................17
   11. Security Considerations.......................................17
   12. Intellectual Property Considerations..........................17
   13. 9. Full Copyright Statement...................................17
   14. 10. IPR Notice................................................17
   15. References....................................................18
   16. Authors' Addresses............................................18
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 2]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   1.        Overview
   Virtual Private LAN Service is a LAN emulation service intended for
   providing connectivity between geographically dispersed customer
   sites across MAN/WAN (over MPLS/IP) network(s), as if they were
   connected using a LAN. One of the main motivations behind VPLS is
   its ability to provide connectivity not only among customer routers
   and servers/hosts but also among customer bridges. If only
   connectivity among customer IP routers/hosts was desired, then IPLS
   solution [IPLS] could have been used. The strength of the VPLS
   solution is that it can provide connectivity to both bridge and non-
   bridge types of CE devices. VPLS is expected to deliver the same
   level of service that current enterprise users are accustomed to
   from their own enterprise bridged networks [802.1D/802.1Q] today or
   the same level of service that they receive from their Ethernet
   Service Providers using IEEE 802.1ad-based networks [P802.1ad] (or
   its predecessor û QinQ-based network).
   When CE devices are IEEE bridges, then there are certain issues and
   challenges that need to be accounted for in a VPLS network. Majority
   of these issues have currently been addressed in IEEE 802.1ad
   standard for provider bridges and they need to be addressed for VPLS
   networks. This draft discusses these issues and wherever possible,
   the recommended solutions to these issues. It also discusses
   interoperability issues between VPLS and IEEE 802.1ad networks when
   the end-to-end service spans across both types of networks, as
   outlined in [VPLS-LDP].
   2.        Ethernet Service Instance
   Before starting the discussion of bridging issues, it is important
   to first clarify the Ethernet Service definition. The term VPLS has
   different meanings in different contexts. In general, VPLS is used
   in the following contexts [Eth-OAM]: a) as an end-to-end bridged-LAN
   service over one or more network (one of which being MPLS/IP
   network), b) as an MPLS/IP network supporting these bridged LAN
   services, and c) as (V)LAN emulation. For better clarity, we
   differentiate between its usage as network versus service by using
   the terms VPLS network and VPLS instance respectively. Furthermore,
   we confine VPLS (both network and service) to only the portion of
   the end-to-end network that spans across an MPLS/IP network. For an
   end-to-end service (among different sites of a given customer), we
   use the term ôEthernet Service Instanceö or ESI.
   [MFA-Ether] defines the Ethernet Service Instance (ESI) as an
   association of two or more Attachment Circuits (ACs) over which an
   Ethernet service is offered to a given customer. An AC can be either
   a UNI or a NNI; furthermore, it can be an Ethernet interface or a
   VLAN, it can be an ATM or FR VC, or it can be a PPP/HDLC interface.
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 3]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   If an ESI is associated with more than two ACs, then it is a
   multipoint ESI. In this document, where ever the keyword ESI is
   used, it means multipoint ESI, unless it is stated otherwise.
   An ESI can correspond to a VPLS instance if its associated ACs are
   only connected to a VPLS network or an ESI can correspond to a
   Service VLAN if its associated ACs are only connected to a Provider-
   Bridged network [P802.1ad]. Furthermore, an ESI can correspond to
   both a VPLS instance and a Service VLAN if its associated ACs are
   connected to both VPLS and Provider-Bridged networks. An ESI can
   span across different networks (e.g., IEEE 802.1ad and VPLS)
   belonging to the same or different administrative domains.
   [MEF-Ethernet] defines an Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) as an
   association of two or more UNIs, where the UNI is a standard
   Ethernet interface and point of demarcation between Customer
   Equipment and service providerÆs network. An EVC is either point-to-
   point or multipoint-to-multipoint. It should be noted that an ESI
   cannot be directly compare to an EVC per MEF definition since an ESI
   is associated with a set of ACs; whereas, an EVC is associated with
   a set of UNIs. However, if one limits the ACs associated with a
   given ESI to only UNIs, then for a multipoint connection, an ESI
   corresponds to a multipoint-to-multipoint EVC.
   An ESI (either for a point-to-point or multipoint connectivity) is
   associated with a forwarding path within the service providerÆs
   network and that is different from an Ethernet Class of Service
   (CoS) which is associated with the frame Quality-of-Service
   treatment by each node along the path defined by the ESI. An ESI can
   have one or more CoS associated with it.
   An ESI most often represents a customer or a specific service
   requested by a customer. Since traffic isolation among different
   customers (or their associated services) is of paramount importance
   in service provider networks, its realization shall be done such
   that it provides a separate MAC address domain and broadcast domain
   per ESI. A separate MAC address domain is provided by using a
   separate filtering database per ESI (for both VPLS and IEEE 802.1ad
   networks) and separate broadcast domain is provided by using a full-
   mesh of PWs per ESI over the IP/MPLS core in a VPLS network and a
   dedicated Service VLAN per ESI in an IEEE 802.1ad network.
   Different Ethernet AC types can be associated with an ESI. For
   example, an ESI can be associated with only physical Ethernet ports,
   VLANs, or a combination of two (e.g., one end of the service be
   associated with physical Ethernet ports and the other end be
   associated with VLANs). In the VPLS terminology, unqualified and
   qualified learning is used to refer to port-based and vlan-based
   operation respectively. Based on this VPLS definition, it is not
   clear how to classify a customer service where traffic from some of
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 4]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   its sites (that is untagged and port-based) needs to be mapped to a
   VLAN at another site. In general, the mapping of a customer port or
   VLAN to a given service instance is a local function performed by
   the local PE and the service provisioning shall accommodate it. In
   other words, there is no reason to restrict and limit an ESI to have
   only port-based ACs or to have only VLAN-based ACs. [P802.1ad]
   allows for each customer AC to be mapped independently to an ESI
   which provides better service offering to Enterprise customers. For
   better and more flexible service offerings and for interoperability
   purposes between VPLS and 802.1ad networks, it is imperative that
   both networks offer the same capabilities in terms of customer ACs
   mapping to the customer service instance.
   2.1.          Attachment Circuits Mapping to an ESI
   The following table lists possible mappings that can exist between
   customer ACs and its associated ESI û this table is extracted from
   [MFA-Ether]. As it can be seen, there are several possible ways to
   perform such mapping. In the first scenario, it is assumed that an
   Ethernet physical port only carries untagged traffic and all the
   traffic is mapped to the corresponding service instance or ESI. This
   is referred to as ôport-based w/ untagged trafficö. In the second
   scenario, it is assumed that an Ethernet physical port carries both
   tagged and untagged traffic and all that traffic is mapped to the
   corresponding service instance or ESI. This is referred to as ôport-
   based w/ tagged and untagged trafficö. In the third scenario, it is
   assumed that only a single VLAN is mapped to the corresponding
   service instance or ESI (referred to as VLAN mapping). Finally, in
   the fourth scenario, it is assumed that a group of VLANs from the
   Ethernet physical interface is mapped to the corresponding service
   instance or ESI.
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 5]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
               Ethernet I/F & Associated Service Instance(s)
              Port-based       port-based       VLAN          VLAN
              Untagged         tagged &         mapping       bundling
   Port-based    Y               N               Y(Note-1)    N
   Port-based    N               Y               Y(Note-2)    Y
   tagged &
   VLAN          Y(Note-1)       Y(Note-2)       Y            Y(Note-3)
   VLAN          N               Y               Y(Note-3)    Y
   Note-1: In this asymmetric mapping scenario, it is assumed that the
   CE device with ôVLAN mappingö AC is a device capable of supporting
   [802.1Q] frame format.
   Note-2: In this asymmetric mapping scenario, it is assumed that the
   CE device with ôVLAN mappingö AC is a device that can support
   [P802.1ad]  frame format because it will receive Ethernet frames
   with two tags; where the outer tag is S-VLAN and the inner tag is C-
   VLAN received from ôport-basedö AC. One application example for such
   CE device is in feature server for DSL aggregation over Metro
   Ethernet network.
   Noteû3: In this asymmetric mapping scenario, it is assumed that the
   CE device with ôVLAN mappingö AC can support the [P802.1ad]  frame
   format because it will receive Ethernet frames with two tags; where
   the outer tag is S-VLAN and the inner tag is C-VLAN received from
   ôVLAN bundlingö AC.
   If a PE uses an S-VLAN tag for a given ESI (either by adding an S-
   VLAN tag to customer traffic or by replacing a C-VLAN tag with a S-
   VLAN tag), then the frame format and EtherType for S-VLAN shall
   adhere to [P802.1ad].
   As mentioned before, the mapping function between the customer AC
   and its associated ESI is a local function and thus when the AC is a
   single customer VLAN, it is possible to map different customer VLANs
   at different sites to a single ESI û e.g., no coordination is
   required among different customer sites for that service instance
   and each customer site can independently identify the same service
   instance via a different VLAN pertinent to its local site.
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 6]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   When a port-based or a VLAN-bundling is used, then if the PE uses an
   additional S-VLAN tag to mark the customer traffic received over
   that AC as belonging to a given ESI, then that PE shall strip the S-
   VLAN tag before sending the customer frames over the same AC.
   However, when VLAN-mapping mode is used at an AC and if the PE uses
   S-VLAN tag locally, then if the Ethernet interface is a UNI, the
   tagged frames over this interface shall have a frame format based on
   [802.1Q] and the PE shall translate the customer tag (C-VLAN) into
   the provider tag (S-VLAN) upon receiving a frame from the customer.
   3.        VPLS-Capable PE Model
   [L2VPN-FRWK] defines three models for VPLS-capable PE (VPLS-PE)
   based on the bridging functionality that needs to be supported by
   the PE. If the CE devices can include both routers/hosts and IEEE
   bridges, then the second model is the most suitable and adequate one
   and it is consistent with IEEE standards for Provider Bridges
   [P802.1ad]. We briefly describe the second model and then elaborate
   upon this model to show its sub-components based on [P802.1ad]
   Provider Bridge model. Finally, we show how this model can be used
   to support all the different services and AC mapping (both symmetric
   and asymmetric) described in the previous section.
   As described in [L2VPN-FRWK], the second model for VPLS-PE contains
   a single bridge module supporting all the VPLS instances on that PE
   where each VPLS instance is represented by a unique VLAN inside that
   bridge module (also known as Service VLAN or S-VLAN). The bridge
   module has at least a single ôEmulated LANö interface over which
   each VPLS instance is represented by a unique S-VLAN tag. Each VPLS
   instance can consist of a set of PWs and its associated forwarder
   corresponding to a single Virtual LAN (VLAN) as depicted in the
   following figure. Thus, sometimes it is referred to as V-LAN
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 7]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
        |           VPLS-capable PE model        |
        |   +---------------+          +------+  |
        |   |               |          |VPLS-1|------------
        |   |               |==========|Fwdr  |------------ PWs
        |   |     Bridge    ------------      |------------
        |   |               | S-VLAN-1 +------+  |
        |   |     Module    |             o      |
        |   |               |             o      |
        |   |   (802.1ad    |             o      |
        |   |    bridge)    |             o      |
        |   |               |             o      |
        |   |               | S-VLAN-n +------+  |
        |   |               ------------VPLS-n|-------------
        |   |               |==========| Fwdr |------------- PWs
        |   |               |     ^    |      |-------------
        |   +---------------+     |    +------+  |
        |                         |              |
                         LAN emulation Interface
                      Figure 1. VPLS-capable PE Model
   Customer frames associated with a given ESI, carry the S-VLAN ID for
   that ESI over the LAN emulation interface. The S-VLAN ID is stripped
   before transmitting the frames over the set of PWs associated with
   that VPLS instance (assuming raw mode PW is used as specified in
   The bridge module can itself consist of one or two sub-components
   depending on the functionality that it needs to perform. The
   following figure depicts the model for bridge module based on
                   |  802.1ad Bridge Module Model  |
                   |                               |
        +---+      |  +------+      +-----------+  |
        |CE |---------|C-VLAN|------|           |  |
        +---+      |  |bridge|------|           |  |
                   |  +------+      |           |  |
                   |     o          |   S-VLAN  |  |
                   |     o          |           |  |
                   |     o          |   Bridge  |  |
        +---+      |  +------+      |           |  |
        |CE |---------|C-VLAN|------|           |  |
        +---+      |  |bridge|------|           |  |
                   |  +------+      +-----------+  |
               Figure 2. The Model of 802.1ad Bridge Module
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 8]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   The S-VLAN bridge component is always required and it is responsible
   for tagging customer frames with S-VLAN tags in the ingress
   direction (from customer UNIs) and removing S-VLAN tags in the
   egress direction (toward customer UNIs). It is also responsible for
   running the providerÆs bridge protocol such as RSTP, MSTP, GVRP,
   GMRP, etc. among provider bridges within a single administrative
   The C-VLAN bridge component is required when the customer Attachment
   Circuits are VLANs (aka C-VLANs). In such cases, the VPLS-capable PE
   needs to participate in some of the customerÆs bridging protocol
   such as RSTP and MSTP. The reason that such participation is
   required is because a customer VLAN (C-VLAN) at one site can be
   mapped into a different C-VLAN at a different site or in case of
   asymmetric mapping (as describe in the previous section), a customer
   Ethernet port at one site can be mapped into a customer VLAN (or
   group of C-VLANs) at a different site.
   In scenarios where C-VLAN bridge component is required, then there
   will be one such component per customer UNI port in order to avoid
   local switching within the C-VLAN bridge component and thus limiting
   local switching among different UNIs for the same customer to S-VLAN
   bridge component.
   The C-VLAN bridge component does service selection and
   identification based on C-VLAN tags. Each frame from the customer
   device is assigned to a C-VLAN and presented at one or more internal
   port-based interfaces, each supporting a single service instance
   that the customer desires to carry that C-VLAN. Similarly frames
   from the provider network are assigned to an internal interface or
   æLANÆ (e.g, between C-VLAN and S-VLAN components) on the basis of
   the S-VLAN tag. Since each internal interface supports a single
   service instance, the S-VLAN tag can be, and is, removed at this
   interface by the S-VLAN bridge component. If multiple C-VLANs are
   supported by this service instance (e.g., VLAN bundling), then the
   frames will have already been tagged with C-VLAN tags. If a single
   C-VLAN is supported by this service instance (e.g., VLAN mapping),
   then the frames shall not have tagged with C-VLAN tag since C-VLAN
   can be derived from the S-VLAN. The C-VLAN aware bridge component
   applies a port VLAN ID (PVID) to untagged frames received on each
   internal æLANÆ, allowing full control over the delivery of frames
   for each C-VLAN through the Customer UNI Port.
   4.        CE Bridge Protocol Handling
   When a VPLS-capable PE is connected to a CE bridge, then depending
   on the type of Attachment Circuit, different protocol handling may
   be required by the bridge module of the PE. [P802.1ad] states that
   when a PE is connected to a CE bridge, then the service offered by
   Sajassi, et al.                                            [Page 9]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   the PE may appear to specific customer protocols running on the CE
   in one of the four ways:
     i) Transparent to the operation of the protocol among CEs of
        different sites using the service provided, appearing as an
        individual LAN without bridges; or,
     i     i) Discarding frames, acting as a non-participating barrier to the
        operation of the protocol; or,
     i     i      i) Peering, with a local protocol entity at the point of provider
        ingress and egress, participating in and terminating the
        operation of the protocol; or,
     iv) Participation in individual instances of customer protocols.
   For example, when an Attachment Circuit is port-based, then the
   bridge module of the PE can operate transparently with respect to
   the CEÆs RSTP/MSTP protocols (and thus no C-VLAN component is
   required for that customer UNI). However, when an Attachment Circuit
   is VLAN-based (either VLAN mapping or VLAN bundling), then the
   bridge module of the PE needs to peer with the RSTP/MSTP protocols
   running on the CE (and thus the C-VLAN bridge component is
   required). There are also protocols that require peering but are
   independent from the type of Attachment Circuit. An example of such
   protocol is link aggregation protocol [802.3ad]; however, one can
   argue that this is a media-dependent protocol as its name implies.
   Therefore, the peering requirement can be generalized such that the
   media-independent protocols (RSTP/MSTP, CFM, etc) that require
   peering are for VLAN-based Attachment Circuit.
   [P802.1ad] reserves a block of 16 MAC addresses for the operation of
   C-VLAN and S-VLAN bridge components and it shows which of these
   reserved MAC addresses are only for C-VLAN bridge component and
   which ones are only for S-VLAN bridge component and which ones apply
   to both C-VLAN and S-VLAN components.
   4.1.          Customer Network Topology Changes
   A single CE or a customer network can be connected to a provider
   network using more than one User-Network Interface (UNI).
   Furthermore, a single CE or a customer network can be connected to
   more than one provider network. [L2VPN-REQ] provides some examples
   of such customer network connectivity that are depicted in the
   figure below. Such network topologies are designed to protect
   against the failure or removal of network components with the
   customer network and it is assumed that the customer leverages the
   spanning tree protocol to protect against these cases. Therefore, in
   such scenarios, it is important to flush customer MAC addresses in
   the provider network upon the customer topology change to avoid
   black holing of customer frames.
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 10]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
                      +-----------                     +---------------
                      |                                |
     +------+     +------+            +------+     +------+
     |  CE  |-----|  PE  |            |  CE  |-----|  PE  |
     |device|     |device|            |device|     |device| SP network
     +------+\    +------+            +------+\    +------+
        |     \       |                  |     \       |
        |Back  \      |                  |Back  \      +---------------
        |door   \     |   SP network     |door   \     +---------------
        |link    \    |                  |link    \    |
     +------+     +------+            +------+     +------+
     |  CE  |     |  PE  |            |  CE  |     |  PE  |
     |device|-----|device|            |device|-----|device| SP network
     +------+     +------+            +------+     +------+
                      |                                |
                      +------------                    +---------------
                     (a)                                 (b)
      Figure 3. Combination of Dual-Homing and Backdoor Links for CE
   The customer networks use their own instances of spanning tree
   protocol to configure and partition their active topology, so that
   the provider connectivity doesnÆt result in data loop.
   Reconfiguration of a customerÆs active topology can result in the
   apparent movement of customer end stations from the point of view of
   the PEs. However, the requirement for mutual independence of the
   distinct ESIs that can be supported by a single provider spanning
   tree active topology does not permit either the direct receipt of
   provider topology change notifications from the CEs or the use of
   received customer spanning tree protocol topology change
   notifications to stimulate topology change signaling on a provider
   spanning tree.
   To address this issue, [P802.1ad] requires that customer topology
   change notification to be detected at the ingress of the S-VLAN
   bridge component and the S-VLAN bridge transmits a Customer Change
   Notification (CCN) BPDU tagged with the S-VLAN ID associated with
   that service instance and a destination MAC address as specified in
   the block of 16 reserved multicast MAC addresses. Upon receiving the
   CCN, the provider bridge will flush all the customer MAC addresses
   associated with that S-VLAN ID on all the provider bridge interfaces
   except the one that the CCN message is received from.
   Based on the provider bridge model depicted in figure (1), there are
   two methods of propagating the CCN message over the VPLS network.
   The first method is to translate the in-band CCN message into an
   out-of-band ôMAC Address Withdrawalö message as specified in [VPLS-
   LDP] and the second method is to treat the CCN message as customer
   data and pass it transparently over the set of PWs associated with
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 11]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   that VPLS instance. The second method is recommended because of ease
   of interoperability between the bridge and the LAN emulation modules
   of the PE.
   5.        Partial-mesh of Pseudowires
   The effect of a PW failure (resulting in creation of partial-mesh of
   PWs) on the CE devices and their supported services should be well
   known. If the CE devices belonging to an ESI are routers running
   link state routing protocols that use LAN procedures over that ESI,
   then a partial-mesh of PWs can cause ôblack holesö among the
   selected set of routers. And if the CE devices belonging to an ESI
   are IEEE bridges, then a partial-mesh of PWs can cause broadcast
   storms in the customer and provider networks. Furthermore, it can
   cause multiple copies of a single frame to be received by the CE
   and/or PE devices. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to be
   able to detect PW failure and to take corrective action to prevent
   creation of partial-mesh of PWs.
   [P802.1ag] defines a set of procedures for fault detection,
   verification, isolation, and notification per ESI. However, these
   procedures are not very suitable for detection and isolation of PW
   failure for a number of reasons.
   First, [P802.1ag] checks the integrity of a service instance end-to-
   end within an administrative domain û e.g., from one AC at one end
   of the network to another AC at the other end of the network.
   Therefore, its path coverage includes bridge module within a PE and
   it is not limited to just PWs. Furthermore, [P802.1ag] operates
   transparently over the full-mesh of PWs for a given service instance
   since it operates at the Ethernet level (and not at PW level).
   Second, [P802.1ag] assume that the Ethernet links or LAN segments
   connecting provider bridges are full-duplex and the failure in one
   direction results in the failure of the whole link or LAN segment.
   However, that is not the case for VPLS instance since a PW consists
   of two uni-directional LSPs and one direction can fail independent
   from the other causing inconsistent view of the full-mesh by the
   participating PEs till the failure is detected and propagated to the
   other PEs.
   [Rosen-Mesh] defines a procedure for detection of partial mesh in
   which each PE keeps track of the status of PW Endpoint Entities (EEs
   - e.g., VPLS forwarders) for itself as wells the ones reported by
   other PEs. Therefore, upon a PW failure, the PE that detects the
   failure not only takes notice locally but it notifies other PEs
   belonging to that service instance of such failure so that all the
   participants PEs have a consistent view of the PW mesh. The
   procedure defined in [Rosen-Mesh] is for detection of partial mesh
   per service instance and in turn it relies on additional procedure
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 12]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   for PW failure detection such as BFD or VCCV. Given that there can
   be ten or hundreds of thousands of PWs in a PE, the scalability
   aspects of this procedure needs to be worked out. Also [Rosen-Mesh]
   acknowledges that many of the details regarding operational aspects
   of such procedure are missing and need to be worked out.
   6.        Redundancy
   [VPLS-LDP] talks about dual-homing of a given u-PE to two n-PEs over
   a provider MPLS access network to provide protection against link
   and node failure û e.g., in case the primary n-PE fails or the
   connection to it fails, then the u-PE uses the backup PWs to reroute
   the traffic to the backup n-PE. Furthermore, it discusses the
   provision of redundancy when a provider Ethernet access network is
   used and how any arbitrary access network topology (not just limited
   to hub-and-spoke) can be supported using the providerÆs MSTP
   protocol and how the provider MSTP for a given access network can be
   confined to that access network and operate independently from MSTP
   protocols running in other access networks.
   In both types of redundancy mechanisms (Ethernet versus MPLS access
   networks), only one n-PE is active for a given VPLS instance at any
   time. In case of an Ethernet access network, core-facing PWs (for a
   VPLS instance) at the n-PE are blocked by the MSTP protocol;
   whereas, in case of a MPLS access network, the access-facing PW is
   blocked at the u-PE for a given VPLS instance.
      -------------------------+  Provider  +-------------------------
                               .   Core     .
                   +------+    .            .    +------+
                   | n-PE |======================| n-PE |
        Provider   | (P)  |---------\    /-------| (P)  |  Provider
        Access     +------+    ._    \  /   .    +------+  Access
        Network                .      \/    .              Network
          (1)      +------+    .      /\    .    +------+     (2)
                   | n-PE |----------/  \--------| n-PE |
                   |  (B) |----------------------| (B)  |_
                   +------+    .            .    +------+
                               .            .
       ------------------------+            +-------------------------
                       Figure 3. Bridge Module Model
   Figure-3 shows two provider access networks each with two n-PEs
   where the n-PEs are connected via a full mesh of PWs for a given
   VPLS instance. As shown in the figure, only one n-PE in each access
   network is serving as a Primary PE (P) for that VPLS instance and
   the other n-PE is serving as the backup PE (B). In this figure, each
   primary PE has two active PWs originating from it. Therefore, when a
   multicast, broadcast, and unknown unicast frame arrives at the
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 13]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   primary n-PE from the access network side, the n-PE replicates the
   frame over both PWs in the core even though it only needs to send
   the frames over a single PW (shown with ô==ö in the figure) to the
   primary n-PE on the other side. This is an unnecessary replication
   of the customer frames that consumes core-network bandwidth (half of
   the frames get discarded at the receiving n-PE). This issue gets
   aggravated when there are more than two n-PEs per provider access
   network  û e.g., if there are three n-PEs or four n-PEs per access
   network, then 67% or 75% of core-BW for multicast, broadcast and
   unknown unicast are respectively wasted.
   Therefore, it is important to have a protocol among n-PEs that can
   disseminate the status of PWs (active or blocked) among themselves
   and furthermore to have it tied up with the redundancy mechanism
   such that per VPLS instance the status of active/backup n-PE gets
   reflected on the corresponding PWs emanating from that n-PE.
   The above discussion was centered on the lack of efficiency with
   regards to packet replication over MPLS core network for current
   VPLS redundancy mechanism. Another important issue to consider is
   the interaction between customer and service provider redundancy
   mechanisms especially when customer devices are IEEE bridges. If CEs
   are IEEE bridges, then they can run RSTP/MSTP protocols, RSTP
   convergence and detection time is much faster than its predecessor
   (IEEE 802.1D STP which is obsolete). Therefore, if the provider
   network offers VPLS redundancy mechanism, then it should provide
   transparency to the customerÆs network during a failure within its
   network û e.g., the failure detection and recovery time within the
   service provider network to be less than the one in the customer
   network. If this is not the case, then a failure within the provider
   network can result in unnecessary switch-over and temporary
   flooding/loop within the customerÆs network that is dual homed.
   7.        MAC Address Learning
   When customer devices are routers, servers, or hosts, then the
   number of MAC addresses per customer sites is very limited (most
   often one MAC address per CE). However, when CEs are bridges, then
   there can be many customer MAC addresses (e.g., hundreds of MAC
   addresses) associated with each CE.
   [P802.1ad] has devised a mechanism to alleviate MAC address learning
   within provider Ethernet networks that can equally be applied to
   VPLS networks. This mechanism calls for disabling MAC address
   learning for an S-VLAN (or a service instance) within a provider
   bridge (or PE) when there is only one ingress and one egress port
   associated with that service instance on that PE. In such cases,
   there is no need to learn customer MAC addresses on that PE since
   the path through that PE for that service instance is fixed. For
   example, if a service instance is associated with four CEs at four
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 14]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   different sites, then the maximum number of provider bridges (or
   PEs), that need to participate in that customer MAC address
   learning, is only three regardless of how many PEs are in the path
   of that service instance. This mechanism can reduce the number of
   MAC addressed learned in a H-VPLS with QinQ access configuration.
   If the provider access network is of type Ethernet (e.g., IEEE
   802.1ad-based network), then the MSTP protocol can be used to
   partition access network into several loop-free spanning tree
   topologies where Ethernet service instances (S-VLANs) are
   distributed among these tree topologies. Furthermore, GVRP can be
   used to limit the scope of each service instance to a subset of its
   associated tree topology (and thus limiting the scope of customer
   MAC address learning to that sub-tree). Finally, the MAC address
   disabling mechanism (described above) can be applied to that sub-
   tree, to further limit the number of nodes (PEs) on that sub-tree
   that need to learn customer MAC addresses for that service instance.
   Furthermore, [p802.1ah] provides the capability of encapsulating
   customersÆ MAC addresses within the provider MAC header. A u-PE
   capable of this functionality can reduce the number of MAC addressed
   learned significantly within the provider network for H-VPLS with
   QinQ access as well as H-VPLS with MPLS access.
   8.        Multicast Traffic
   VPLS follows a centralized model for multicast replication within an
   ESI. VPLS relies on ingress replication. The ingress PE replicates
   the multicast packet for each egress PE and sends it to the egress
   PE using PtP PW over a unicast tunnel. VPLS operates on an overlay
   topology formed by the full mesh of pseudo-wires. Thus, depending on
   the underlying topology, the same datagram can be sent multiple
   times down the same physical link. VPLS currently does not offer any
   mechanisms to restrict the distribution of multicast or broadcast
   traffic of an ESI throughout the network causing additional burden
   on the ingress PE for unnecessary packet replication, causing
   additional load on the MPLS core network, and causing additional
   processing at the receiving PE where multicast packet is discarded.
   One possible approach, to deliver multicast more efficiently over
   VPLS network, is to include the use of IGMP snooping in order to
   send the packet only to the PEs that have receivers for that
   traffic, rather than to all the PEs in the VPLS instance. If the
   customer bridge or its network has dual-home connectivity as
   described in section 7, then for proper operation of IGMP snooping,
   the PE must generate a ôGeneral Queryö over that customer UNIs upon
   receiving a customer topology change notification as described in
   [IGMP-SNOOP]. A ôGeneral Queryö by the PE results in proper
   registration of the customer multicast MAC address(s) at the PE when
   there is customer topology change. It should be noted that IGMP
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 15]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   snooping provides a solution for IP multicast packets and is not
   applicable to general multicast data.
   Using the IGMP-snooping as described, the ingress PE can select a
   sub-set of PWs for packet replication; therefore, avoiding sending
   multicast packets to the egress PEs that donÆt need them. However,
   the replication is still performed by the ingress PE. In order to
   avoid, replication at ingress PE, one may want to use multicast
   distribution trees (MDTs) in the provider core network; however,
   this comes with its potential pitfalls. If the MDT is used for all
   multicast traffic of a given customer, then this results in customer
   multicast and unicast traffic to be forwarded on different PWs and
   even on a different physical topology within the provider network.
   This is a serious issue for customer bridges because customer BPDUs,
   which are multicast data, can take a different path through the
   network than the unicast data. Situations might arise where either
   unicast OR multicast connectivity is lost. If unicast connectivity
   is lost, but multicast forwarding continues to work, the customer
   spanning tree would not take notice which results in distribution of
   its data traffic. Similarly, if multicast connectivity is lost, but
   unicast is working, then the customer spanning tree will activate
   the blocked port which will result in loop within the customer
   network. Therefore, the MDT cannot be used for both customer
   multicast control and data traffic. If it is used, it should only be
   limited to customer data traffic. However, there can be potential
   issue even when it is used for customer data traffic since the MDT
   doesnÆt fit the PE model described in Figure-1 (it operates
   independently from the full-mesh of PWs that correspond to an S-
   VLAN). It is also not clear how CFM procedures (802.1ag) used for
   ESI integrity check (e.g., per service instance) can be applied to
   check the integrity of the customer multicast traffic over the
   provider MDT. Because of these potential issues, the applicability
   of the provider MDT to customer multicast traffic is for future
   9.        Interoperability with 802.1ad Networks
   [VPLS-LDP] discusses H-VPLS provider-network topologies with both
   Ethernet [P802.1ad] as well as MPLS access networks. Therefore, it is
   of paramount importance to ensure seamless interoperability between
   these two types of networks.
   Provider bridges as specified in [P802.1ad] are intended to operate
   seamlessly with customer bridges and provide the required services.
   Therefore, if a PE is modeled based on Figures 1&2 that includes a
   [802.1ad] bridge module, then it should operate seamlessly with
   Provider Bridges.  The issues discussed in this draft have been taken
   into account.
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 16]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   10.         Acknowledgments
   The authors would like to thank Norm Finn for his valuable comments.
   11.         Security Considerations
   Security aspects of this draft will be discussed at a later point.
   12.         Intellectual Property Considerations
   This document is being submitted for use in IETF standards
   13.         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
   14.         IPR Notice
   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
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 17]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   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
   15.         References
   [L2VPN-REQ] Agustyn, W. et al, "Service Requirements for Layer-2
   Provider Provisioned Virtual Provider Networks", work in progress
   [L2VPN-FRWK] Andersson, L. and et al, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
   Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Work in Progress
   [VPLS-LDP] Lasserre, M. and et al, "Virtual Private LAN Services
   over MPLS", work in progress
   [IPLS] Shah, H. and et al, "IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) ", work in
   progress, October 2004
   [MFA-Ether] Sajassi, A. and et al, ôEthernet Service Interworking
   Over MPLSö, Work in Progress, September 2004
   [P802.1ad] IEEE Draft P802.1ad/D2.4 ôVirtual Bridged Local Area
   Networks: Provider Bridgesö, Work in progress, September 2004
   [P802.1ag] IEEE Draft P802.1ag/D0.1 ôVirtual Bridge Local Area
   Networks: Connectivity Fault Managementö, Work in Progress, October
   [Rosen-Mesh] ôDetecting and Reacting to Failures of the Full Mesh in
   IPLS and VPLSö,draft-rosen-l2vpn-mesh-failure-01.txt, March 2004
   [PWE3-Ethernet] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet
   Frames Over IP/MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-
   01.txt, Work in progress, November 2002.
   [802.1D-REV] IEEE Std. 802.1D-2003 ôMedia Access Control (MAC)
   [802.1Q] IEEE Std. 802.1Q-2003 "Virtual Bridged Local Area
   [IGMP-SNOOP] Christensen, M. and et al, ôConsiderations for IGMP and
   MLD Snooping Switchesö, Work in progress, May 2004
   16.         Authors' Addresses
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 18]

   draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop.txt            October 2004
   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   Yetik Serbest
   SBC Labs
   9505 Arboretum Blvd.
   Austin, TX 78759
   Frank Brockners
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Hansaallee 249
   40549 Duesseldorf
   Dinesh Mohan
   Nortel Networks
   3500 Carling Ave
   Ottawa, ON K2H8E9
   Sajassi, et al.                                           [Page 19]