Skip to main content

Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging
RFC 7041

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
07 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBBs) specification defines an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBBs) specification defines an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple Provider Bridged Networks (PBNs). Provider backbone bridging was defined by IEEE as a connectionless technology based on multipoint VLAN tunnels. PBB can be used to attain better scalability than Provider Bridges (PBs) in terms of the number of customer Media Access Control addresses and the number of service instances that can be supported.

The Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) provides a framework for extending Ethernet LAN services, using MPLS tunneling capabilities, through a routed MPLS backbone without running the Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP) or the Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP) across the backbone. As a result, VPLS has been deployed on a large scale in service provider networks.

This document discusses extensions to the VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model required to incorporate desirable PBB components while maintaining the service provider fit of the initial model.')
2016-11-30
07 (System) Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Unknown'
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from l2vpn-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model@ietf.org to (None)
2013-11-25
07 (System) RFC published
2013-11-23
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2013-10-14
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2013-10-10
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2013-09-25
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2013-09-04
07 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2013-09-03
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2013-09-03
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2013-09-03
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2013-09-03
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2013-09-03
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2013-09-03
07 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2013-09-03
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2013-09-03
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-09-03
07 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2013-09-03
07 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2013-07-11
07 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2013-07-11
07 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-07-11
07 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-07-11
07 Ted Lemon
[Ballot comment]
I think the authors should consider whether the density of acronyms in this document is something that should be continued going forward. I …
[Ballot comment]
I think the authors should consider whether the density of acronyms in this document is something that should be continued going forward. I am impressed that Barry found this document easy to read.

I am not proposing that any changes be made to this particular document at this late date, but I would like to encourage the authors to consider a different balance in future documents. For instance, why is pseudowire abbreviated PW?  SA is used twice in the document; why not write "source address"?

Generally speaking you should abbreviate things that are used so frequently that it's clunky to spell it out each time, and spell everything else out so that the reader doesn't spend more time flipping back and forth between the text and the glossary than actually reading.

It's possible that all these terms are used so frequently by practitioners that there's no problem, so maybe I am making too much of this, but I found that the excessive use of acronyms in this document had a really negative impact on readability.
2013-07-11
07 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-07-10
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-07-10
07 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Like Barry, I thought this was very readable (especially given the long strings of hyphenated uppercase letters that are in every spec in …
[Ballot comment]
Like Barry, I thought this was very readable (especially given the long strings of hyphenated uppercase letters that are in every spec in this space :-)

I had a couple of non-blocking comments for readability, and one question for the ADs (again, not blocking, just checking my own understanding of How Things Are Done).

In Abstract

  IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBB) [IEEE.802.1Q-2011] defines
  an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple
  Provider Bridge Networks (PBNs). PBB was defined in IEEE as a
  connectionless technology based on multipoint VLAN tunnels.  PBB can
  be used to attain better scalability in terms of number of customer
  MAC addresses and number of service instances that can be supported.

Did I miss where you said "better than $WHAT"? I'm sure you had something in mind ...

4. Packet Walkthrough

  Because of text-based graphics, the Figure 3 only shows PWs on the
  core-facing side; however, in case of MPLS access with spoke PWs, the
  PE reference model is simply extended to include the same PW
  Forwarder function on the access-facing side. To avoid cluttering the
  figure, the access-side PW Forwarder (Fwdr) is not depicted without
  loss of any generality.

I don't think the last sentence in this paragraph means what it was likely intended to mean, (double negatives don't work well in English) but rather than try to fix it, I would suggest something like

  Because of text-based graphics, the Figure 3 only shows PWs on the
  core-facing side; however, in case of MPLS access with spoke PWs, the
  PE reference model is simply extended to include the same PW
  Forwarder function on the access-facing side. To avoid cluttering the
  figure, the access-side PW Forwarder (Fwdr) is not depicted.
                                                              ^
                                    ending the sentence here


FOR THE ADs: in 11. Contributors

  The following authors contributed to this document: John Hoffmans
  (KPN), Geraldine Calvignac (France Telecom), Olen Stokes (Extreme
  Networks), Raymond Zhang and Matthew Bocci (Alcatel-Lucent).

We're including the organization names because they would have been on the front page anyway, right?
2013-07-10
07 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2013-07-10
07 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Like Barry, I thought this was very readable (especially given the long strings of hyphenated uppercase letters that are in every spec in …
[Ballot comment]
Like Barry, I thought this was very readable (especially given the long strings of hyphenated uppercase letters that are in every spec in this space :-)

I had a couple of non-blocking comments for readability, and one question for the ADs (again, not blocking, just checking my own understanding of How Things Are Done).

In Abstract

  IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBB) [IEEE.802.1Q-2011] defines
  an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple
  Provider Bridge Networks (PBNs). PBB was defined in IEEE as a
  connectionless technology based on multipoint VLAN tunnels.  PBB can
  be used to attain better scalability in terms of number of customer
  MAC addresses and number of service instances that can be supported.

Did I miss where you said "better than $WHAT"? I'm sure you had something in mind ...

4. Packet Walkthrough

  Because of text-based graphics, the Figure 3 only shows PWs on the
  core-facing side; however, in case of MPLS access with spoke PWs, the
  PE reference model is simply extended to include the same PW
  Forwarder function on the access-facing side. To avoid cluttering the
  figure, the access-side PW Forwarder (Fwdr) is not depicted without
  loss of any generality.

I don't think the last sentence in this paragraph means what it was likely intended to mean, (double negatives don't work well in English) but rather than try to fix it, I would suggest something like

  Because of text-based graphics, the Figure 3 only shows PWs on the
  core-facing side; however, in case of MPLS access with spoke PWs, the
  PE reference model is simply extended to include the same PW
  Forwarder function on the access-facing side. To avoid cluttering the
  figure, the access-side PW Forwarder (Fwdr) is not depicted.
                                                              ^
                                                ending the sentence here


FOR THE ADs: in 11. Contributors

  The following authors contributed to this document: John Hoffmans
  (KPN), Geraldine Calvignac (France Telecom), Olen Stokes (Extreme
  Networks), Raymond Zhang and Matthew Bocci (Alcatel-Lucent).

We're including the organization names because they would have been on the front page anyway, right?
2013-07-10
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-07-10
07 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-07-10
07 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-07-10
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-07-10
07 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-07-09
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-07-08
07 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-07-05
07 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-07-05
07 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-07-02
07 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
I found this to be an easy-to-read document that was informative for someone not immersed in this technology.  Good work.
2013-07-02
07 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2013-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-07-11
2013-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant Ballot has been issued
2013-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant Created "Approve" ballot
2013-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant Ballot writeup was changed
2013-06-27
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker.
2013-06-27
07 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2013-06-20
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker
2013-06-20
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker
2013-06-19
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-06-19
07 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-07, which is
currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-07, which is
currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2013-06-14
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2013-06-14
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2013-06-13
07 Maddy Conner IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-06-13
07 Maddy Conner
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extensions to VPLS PE model …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extensions to VPLS PE model for Provider Backbone Bridging) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'Extensions to VPLS PE model for Provider Backbone Bridging'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBB) [IEEE.802.1Q-2011] defines
  an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple
  Provider Bridge Networks (PBNs). PBB was defined in IEEE as a
  connectionless technology based on multipoint VLAN tunnels.  PBB can
  be used to attain better scalability in terms of number of customer
  MAC addresses and number of service instances that can be supported.

  Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4664] provides a framework for
  extending Ethernet LAN services, using MPLS tunneling capabilities,
  through a routed MPLS backbone without running RSTP or MSTP across
  the backbone. As a result, VPLS has been deployed on a large scale in
  service provider networks.

  This draft discusses extensions to the VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model
  required to incorporate desirable PBB components while maintaining
  the Service Provider fit of the initial model.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1498/



2013-06-13
07 Maddy Conner State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-06-13
07 Stewart Bryant Last call was requested
2013-06-13
07 Stewart Bryant Ballot approval text was generated
2013-06-13
07 Stewart Bryant Ballot writeup was generated
2013-06-13
07 Stewart Bryant State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-06-13
07 Stewart Bryant Last call announcement was generated
2013-06-13
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-06-13
07 Florin Balus New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-07.txt
2013-04-16
06 Stewart Bryant The draft needs a quick scrub for abbreviations used but not previously expanded.
2013-04-16
06 Stewart Bryant State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2013-03-07
06 Cindy Morgan
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational.

This is the proper type of RFC as this is an optional enhancement to the an existing standards-track RFC (RFC4762) enabling better scaling of VPLS services.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The draft documents extensions to the VPLS PE model required to incorporate desirable IEEE PBB (Provider Backbone Bridges) components, such as enhanced scalability in terms of number of customer MAC addresses and number of service instances, whilst maintaing the Service Provider alignment of VPLS - which has been deployed on a large scale in many Service Provider networks.

Working Group Summary:

This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been well reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft. It has been essentially stable since WG adoption in May 2009.

Document Quality:

The document is concise (13 pages of which about 6 are substantive - the rest being introduction, terminology, references and acknowledgements) and is stable. There are multiple interoperable implementations by multiple vendors.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.com)
Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd did a full review of the text of version 04 of the draft, leading to the authors issuing version 05 with various fixes. The Document Shepherd subsequently did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft. The document shepherd then asked the authors to issue version 06 - to reduce the author list and to remove a duplicate copy of the RFC2119 text.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes. Nortel networks made a statement about IPR claimed in the draft on Feb 25, 2011. This was notified to the L2VPN mailing list on Feb 28, 2011 but there was no discussion of this IPR claim on the list. At the last IETF, and more recently on the mailing list, the WG chairs have notified the WG that there the current ownership of the claimed IPR is unknown and have asked for feedback as to whether to publish the draft as an informational RFC. Given the lack of feedback from the WG the chairs suggest that we go ahead and publish the draft as an RFC.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

WG consensus is solid. When the draft was adopted as a WG draft after IETF74 there was strong consensus (approx 20 people in the room in favour - roughly the same number as had read the draft). 16 people indicated support for the draft on the mailing group list, and none objected.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No errors. Warning & comment generated because current revision is 120 days old and was written in the last calendar year.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No - all normative references are to RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No - all normative references are upward.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No - no impact on status of existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA considerations section simply states that IANA does not need to take any action for this draft. There are no new code points or registries defined in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No sections written in a formal language.
2013-03-07
06 Cindy Morgan Note added 'Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.'
2013-03-07
06 Cindy Morgan Intended Status changed to Informational
2013-03-07
06 Cindy Morgan IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-10-22
06 Florin Balus New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-06.txt
2012-08-29
05 Florin Balus New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-05.txt
2011-10-04
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04.txt
2011-09-02
04 (System) Document has expired
2011-03-01
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-03.txt
2011-02-25
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Nortel Networks Limited Statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-02
2010-07-12
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-02.txt
2010-01-07
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-01.txt
2009-05-13
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-00.txt