Network Working Group H. van Helvoort
Internet-Draft L. Andersson
Intended status: Standards Track A. Malis
Expires: January 2, 2015 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
J. Shin
SK Telecom
L. Wang
China Mobile
A. D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia
July 1, 2014
Encapsulation for PSC for Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-00.txt
Abstract
In RFC 6378 'MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection', as
well as in the later updates of this RFC, the Protection State
Coordiantion (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS LSPs only. This
draft extends RFC 6378 to be applicable for pseudowires as well.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Protection July 2014
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Encapsulation of the PSC protocol for Pseudowires . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction
In RFC 6378 'MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection'
[RFC6378], as well as in the later updates of this RFC in 'MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
Operational Expectations of SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators' [RFC7271] and in 'Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
Protection' [I-D.ietf-mpls-psc-updates], the Protection State
Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS LSPs only.
This draft extends RFC 6378 to be applicable for pseudowires (PWs) as
well. This is useful especially in the case of end-to-end static
provisioned Multi-Segment PWs (MS-PWs) running over MPLS-TP where we
can't rely on tunnel protection alone for end-to- end protection of
PWs against switching PE (S-PE) failure.
2. Encapsulation of the PSC protocol for Pseudowires
The PSC protocol can be used to protect against defects on any LSP
(segment, link or path). Linear protection protects an LSP end-to-
end and if a failure is detected, switches traffic over to another
(redundant) set of resources.
Obviously, the protected entity does not need to be of the same type
as the protecting, it is possible to protect a link by a path.
Likewise it is possible to protect a PW with a MS-PW.
From a PSC protocol point of view it is possible to view a PW as a
single hop LSP, and a MS-PW as a multiple hop LSP. The PSC protocol
will work just as specified in RFC 6378.
van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Protection July 2014
Thus the G-ACh carrying the PSC protocol information is placed in the
label stack directly beneath the PW identifier.
3. Security Considerations
The security considerations defined for RFC 6378 apply to this
document as well. As this is simply a re-use of RFC 6378, there are
no new security considerations.
4. IANA Considerations
There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.
Note to the RFC Editor - this section can be removed before
publication.
5. Acknowledgements
TBA
6. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-psc-updates]
Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
Protection", draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-06 (work in
progress), May 2014.
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and
A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear
Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011.
[RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Gray, E., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A.,
Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational
Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical
Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Huub van Helvoort
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Email: huub.van.helvoort@huawei.com
van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Protection July 2014
Loa Andersson
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Email: Andrew.Malis@huawei.com
Jongyoon Shin
SK Telecom
Email: jongyoon.shin@sk.com
Lei Wang
China Mobile
Email: wangleiyj@chinamobile.com
Alessandro D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia
Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it
van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 4]