Multi-Chassis Passive Optical Network (MC-PON) Protection in MPLS
RFC 8024
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2016) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yuanlong Jiang , Yong Luo , Edwin Mallette , Yimin Shen , Weiqiang Cheng | ||
| Last updated | 2016-11-30 | ||
| Replaces | draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-04)
Has Issues
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Andrew G. Malis | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2016-06-16 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8024 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
RFC 8024
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Jiang, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8024 Y. Luo
Category: Standards Track Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721 E. Mallette, Ed.
Charter Communications
Y. Shen
Juniper Networks
W. Cheng
China Mobile
November 2016
Multi-Chassis Passive Optical Network (MC-PON) Protection in MPLS
Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge of
operator networks including the network access nodes. Separately,
network access nodes such as Passive Optical Network (PON) Optical
Line Terminations (OLTs) have evolved to support first-mile access
protection, where one or more physical OLTs provide first-mile
diversity to the customer edge. Multihoming support is needed on the
MPLS-enabled PON OLT to provide resiliency for provided services.
This document describes the Multi-Chassis PON (MC-PON) protection
architecture in MPLS and also specifies the Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol (ICCP) extension to support it.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8024.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. ICCP Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Multi-Chassis PON Application TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. PON Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3. PON Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.4. PON State TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Considerations on PON ONU Database Synchronization . . . . . 9
4. Multi-Chassis PON Application Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Protection Procedure upon PON Link Failures . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Protection Procedure upon PW Failures . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Protection Procedure upon the Working OLT Failure . . . . 12
4.4. Protection Procedure for a Dual-Homing PE . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
1. Introduction
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge of
operator networks, as is described in the multi-segment pseudowires
(PWs) with Passive Optical Network (PON) access use case [RFC6456].
Combining MPLS with Optical Line Termination (OLT) access further
facilitates a low-cost, multi-service convergence.
Tens of millions of Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx) (x = H for home, P for
premises, C for curb) lines have been deployed over the years, with
many of those lines being some PON variant. PON provides operators a
cost-effective solution for delivering high bandwidth (1 Gbps or even
10 Gbps) to a dozen or more subscribers simultaneously.
In the past, access technologies such as PON and Digital Subscriber
Line (DSL) are usually used for subscribers, and no redundancy is
provided in their deployment.
But, with the rapid growth of mobile data traffic, more and more Long
Term Evolution (LTE) small cells and Wi-Fi hotspots are deployed.
PON is considered a viable low-cost backhaul solution for these
mobile services. Besides its high bandwidth and scalability, PON
further provides frequency and time-synchronization features, e.g.,
SyncE [G.8261] and IEEE 1588v2 [IEEE-1588] functionality, which can
fulfill synchronization needs of mobile backhaul services.
The Broadband Forum specifies reference architecture for mobile
backhaul networks using MPLS transport in [TR-221] where PON can be
the access technology.
Unlike typical residential service where a single or handful of end-
users hang off a single PON OLT port in a physical optical
distribution network, a PON port that supports a dozen LTE small
cells or Wi-Fi hotspots could be providing service to hundreds of
simultaneous subscribers. Small-cell backhaul often demands the
economics of a PON first mile and yet expects first-mile protection
commonly available in a point-to-point access portfolio.
Some optical layer protection mechanisms, such as Trunk and Tree
protection, are specified in [IEEE-1904.1] to avoid a single point of
failure in the access. They are called Type B and Type C protection,
respectively, in [G.983.1].
Trunk protection architecture is an economical PON resiliency
mechanism, where the working OLT and the working link between the
working splitter port and the working OLT (i.e., the working trunk
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
fiber) is protected by a redundant protection OLT and a redundant
trunk fiber between the protection splitter port and the protection
OLT; however, it only protects a portion of the optical path from OLT
to Optical Network Units (ONUs). This is different from the more
complex and costly Tree protection architecture where there is a
working optical distribution network path from the working OLT and a
complete protected optical distribution network path from the
protection OLT to the ONUs. Figure 1 depicts a typical scenario of
Trunk protection.
| |
|<--Optical Distribution Network->|
| |
| branch trunk +-----+
+-----+ fibers fibers | |
Base ------| | | | . OLT |
Stations ------| ONU |\ | | ,'`| A |
------| | \ V V -` +-----+
+-----+ \ .'
. \ +----------+ ,-`
+-----+ . \| -` Working
Base ------| | . | Optical |
Stations ------| ONU |---------| Splitter |
------| | . /| -, Protection
+-----+ . / +----------+ `'.,
/ `-, +-----+
+-----+ / `'.,| |
Base ------| |/ | OLT |
Stations ------| ONU | | B |
------| | +-----+
+-----+
Figure 1: Trunk Protection Architecture in PON
Besides small-cell backhaul, this protection architecture can also be
applicable to other services, for example, DSL and Multiple System
Operator (MSO) services. In that case, an ONU in Figure 1 can play
the similar role as a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer
(DSLAM) or a Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)
Remote Physical Layer (PHY) device [remote-phy], and it may further
be attached with dozens of Customer Premises devices.
In some deployments, it is also possible that only some ONUs need to
be protected.
The PON architecture as depicted in Figure 1 can provide redundancy
in its physical topology; however, all traffic, including link
Operation Administration and Maintenance (OAM), is blocked on the
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
protection link, which frustrates end-to-end protection mechanisms
such as those specified in ITU-T G.8031 [G.8031]. Therefore, some
standard signaling mechanisms are needed between OLTs to exchange
information, for example, PON link status, registered ONU
information, and network status, so that protection and restoration
can be done rapidly and reliably, especially when the OLTs also
support MPLS.
ICCP [RFC7275] provides a framework for inter-chassis synchronization
of state and configuration data between a set of two or more Provider
Edges (PEs). Currently, ICCP only defines application-specific
messages for Pseudowire Redundancy (PW-RED) and Multi-Chassis LACP
(mLACP), but it can be easily extended to support PON as an
Attachment Circuit (AC) redundancy.
This document proposes the extension of ICCP to support multi-
chassis PON protection in MPLS.
1.1. 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].
1.2. Terminology
DSL: Digital Subscriber Line
FTTx: Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx) (x = H for home, P for premises, C for
curb)
ICCP: Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol
OLT: Optical Line Termination
ONU: Optical Network Unit
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
PON: Passive Optical Network
RG: Redundancy Group
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
2. ICCP Protocol Extensions
2.1. Multi-Chassis PON Application TLVs
A set of MC-PON application Type-Length-Values (TLVs) are defined in
the following subsections.
2.1.1. PON Connect TLV
This TLV is included in the RG Connect message to signal the
establishment of PON application connection.
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| Type=0x200D | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol Version |A| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
~ ~
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o U and F bits: both are set to 0.
o Type: set to 0x200D for "PON Connect TLV".
o Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
o Protocol Version: the version of this PON-specific protocol for
the purposes of inter-chassis communication. This is set to
0x0001.
o A bit: Acknowledgement bit. It MUST be set to 1 if the sender has
received a PON Connect TLV from the recipient. Otherwise, set to
0.
o Reserved: reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
o Optional Sub-TLVs: there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this
version of the protocol. The structure of optional Sub-TLVs is
defined as follows:
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| Sub-TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Variable Length Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o U bit: set to 1. The unknown Sub-TLV is silently ignored.
o F bit: set to 0.
o The optional Sub-TLV Type values will be allocated by IANA in a
registry named "ICC RG Parameter Types" for Pseudowire Name Spaces
(PWE3).
o Length: length of the TLV in octets, excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
2.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV
This TLV is included in the RG Disconnect message to indicate that
the connection for the PON application is to be terminated.
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| Type=0x200E | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o U and F bits: both are set to 0.
o Type: set to 0x200E for "PON Disconnect TLV".
o Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
o Optional Sub-TLVs: there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this
version of the protocol.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
2.1.3. PON Configuration TLV
The "PON Configuration TLV" is included in the "RG Application Data"
message and announces an OLT's system parameters to other members in
the same RG.
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| Type=0x200F | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System Priority | Port ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o U and F bits: both are set to 0.
o Type: set to 0x200F for "PON Configuration TLV".
o Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
o System ID: 8 octets encoding the System ID used by the OLT, which
is the chassis Media Access Control (MAC) address. If a 6-octet
System ID is used, the least significant 2 octets of the 8-octet
field will be encoded as 0000.
o System Priority: a 2-octet value assigned by management or
administration policy; the OLT with the numerically lower value of
System Priority has the higher priority.
o Port ID: 2-octet PON Port ID.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
2.1.4. PON State TLV
The "PON State TLV" is included in the "RG Application Data" message
and used by an OLT to report its PON states to other members in the
same RG.
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| Type=0x2010 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ROID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local PON Port State |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote PON Port State |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o U and F bits: both are set to 0.
o Type: set to 0x2010 for "PON State TLV".
o Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
o ROID: Redundant Object ID (ROID) as defined in Section 4.3 of
[RFC7275].
o Local PON Port State: the status of the local PON port as
determined by the sending OLT (PE). The last bit is defined as
Fault indication of the PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in
fault; 0 - in normal).
o Remote PON Port State: the status of the remote PON port as
determined by the remote peer of the sending OLT (i.e., the
sending PE). The last bit is defined as Fault indication of the
PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in fault; 0 - in normal).
3. Considerations on PON ONU Database Synchronization
Without an effective mechanism to communicate the registered ONUs
between the working and protection OLT, all registered ONUs would be
de-registered and go through re-registration during a switchover,
which would significantly increase protection time. To enable faster
switchover capability, the working and protection OLTs need to know
about the protected ONUs. To enable service continuity, a mechanism
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
needs to be employed such that the operational state and significant
configuration data of both the protected ONU and the services
provisioned to it can be distributed to the working and protection
OLT.
The specific ONU's configuration and operational data can be
synchronized by some policy mechanism or provisioned in the
management plane. Alternatively, said synchronization could occur by
some other signaling options. Describing how to synchronize the
configuration objects associated with both protected ONU as well as
the services constructed to the ONU (e.g., ONU MAC address, IPv4
addresses, IPv6 addresses, VLAN identifiers, etc.) is outside of the
scope of this document.
4. Multi-Chassis PON Application Procedures
Two typical MPLS protection network architectures for PON access are
depicted in Figures 2 and 3 (their PON access segments are the same
as in Figure 1 and thus omitted for simplification). OLTs with MPLS
functionality are connected to a single PE (Figure 2) or dual-homing
PEs (Figure 3), respectively, i.e., the working OLT to PE1 by a
working PW and the protection OLT to PE1 or PE2 by a protection PW;
thus, these devices constitute an MPLS network that provides PW
transport services between ONUs and a Customer Edge (CE), and the PWs
can provide protection for each other.
+-----+
| |
|OLT -,
| A | `.,
+-----+ ', PW1
`',
`., +-----+ +-----+
', | | | |
`. PE1 ------------ CE |
.'`| | | |
,-` +-----+ +-----+
.`
+-----+ .'` PW2
| | ,-`
|OLT -`
| B |
+-----+
Figure 2: An MPLS Network with a Single PE
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
+-----+ +-----+
| | PW1 | |
|OLT ----------------- PE1 -,
| A | | | ',
+-----+ +--/--+ ',
| `.
| `. +-----+
| `' |
| | CE |
| . |
| ,'+-----+
| ,-`
+-----+ +--\--+ ,'
| | PW2 | | .`
|OLT ----------------- PE2 -`
| B | | |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 3: An MPLS Network with Dual-Homing PEs
Faults may be encountered in PON access links or in the MPLS network
(including the working OLT). Procedures for these cases are
described in this section (it is assumed that both OLTs and PEs are
working in the independent mode of PW redundancy [RFC6870]).
4.1. Protection Procedure upon PON Link Failures
When a fault is detected on a working PON link, a working OLT
switches to the corresponding protection PON link attached with its
protection OLT, i.e., the working OLT turns off its faulty PON
interface so that the protection trunk link to its protection OLT can
be activated. Then, the working OLT MUST send an LDP fault
notification message (i.e., with the status bit "Local AC (ingress)
Receive Fault" being set) to its peer PE on the remote end of the PW.
At the same time, the working OLT MUST send an ICCP message with PON
State TLV with Local PON Port State being set to notify the
protection OLT of the PON fault.
Upon receiving a PON state TLV where Local PON Port State is set, a
protection OLT MUST activate the protection PON link in the
protection group and advertise a notification message for the
protection PW with the Preferential Forwarding status bit of active
to the remote PE.
According to [RFC6870], the remote PE(s) can match the local and
remote Preferential Forwarding status and select PW2 as the new
active PW over which data traffic is sent.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
4.2. Protection Procedure upon PW Failures
Usually, MPLS networks have their own protection mechanism such as
Label Switched Path (LSP) protection or Fast Reroute (FRR). But, in
a link-sparse access or aggregation network where protection for a PW
is impossible in its LSP layer, the following PW layer protection
procedures can be enabled.
When a fault is detected on its working PW (e.g., by Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)), a working OLT SHOULD turn off its associated PON interface
and then send an ICCP message with PON State TLV with Local PON Port
State being set to notify the protection OLT of the PON fault.
Upon receiving a PON state TLV where Local PON Port State is set, the
protection OLT MUST activate its PON interface to the protection
trunk fiber. At the same time, the protection OLT MUST send a
notification message for the protection PW with the Preferential
Forwarding status bit of active to the remote PE, so that traffic can
be switched to the protection PW.
4.3. Protection Procedure upon the Working OLT Failure
As depicted in Figure 2, a service is provisioned with a working PW
and a protection PW, and both PWs are terminated on PE1. If PE1 lost
its connection to the working OLT, it SHOULD send an LDP notification
message on the protection PW with the Request Switchover bit set.
Upon receiving an LDP notification message from its remote PE with
the Request Switchover bit set, a protection OLT MUST activate its
optical interface to the protection trunk fiber and activate the
associated protection PW, so that traffic can be reliably switched to
the protection trunk PON link and the protection PW.
4.4. Protection Procedure for a Dual-Homing PE
In the case of Figure 3, the PW-RED State TLV as described in
Section 7.1 of [RFC7275] can be used by PE1 to notify PE2 of the
faults in all the scenarios, and PE2 operates the same as described
in Sections 4.1 to 4.3 of this document.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
5. Security Considerations
Similar to ICCP itself, this ICCP application SHOULD only be used in
well-managed and highly monitored service provider PON access
networks in a single administrative domain, including the
implementation of rogue ONU attachment detection and mitigation via
device authentication. Thus, many of the security considerations as
described in [RFC7275] apply here as well.
Again, similar to ICCP, activity on the attachment circuits may cause
security threats or be exploited to create denial-of-service attacks.
In many passive optical networks, the optical paths between OLT and
ONUs traverse publicly accessible facilities including public
attachments (e.g., telephone poles), which opens up the risk of
excessive link bouncing by optical layer impairment. While ICCP for
MC-PON interconnects in the MPLS domain and does not traverse the PON
network, risks do include introduction of a malicious ONU that could
cause, for example, excessive link bouncing. This link bouncing
could result in increased ICCP exchanges similar to the malicious CE
case described in [RFC7275]. Operators of such networks should take
additional care to restrict unauthorized ONUs and to limit the impact
of link bouncing at the OLT, as these could result in service
impairment.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name Spaces
(PWE3)". It has a subregistry called "ICC RG Parameter Types". The
following values have been allocated from this subregistry:
0x200D PON Connect TLV
0x200E PON Disconnect TLV
0x200F PON Configuration TLV
0x2010 PON State TLV
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6870] Muley, P., Ed. and M. Aissaoui, Ed., "Pseudowire
Preferential Forwarding Status Bit", RFC 6870,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6870, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6870>.
[RFC7275] Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M.,
Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
(L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>.
7.2. Informative References
[G.8031] International Telecommunications Union, "Ethernet Linear
Protection Switching", ITU-T Recommendation G.8031,
January 2015.
[G.8261] International Telecommunications Union, "Timing and
synchronization aspects in packet networks", ITU-T
Recommendation G.8261, August 2013.
[G.983.1] International Telecommunications Union, "Broadband optical
access systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON)",
ITU-T Recommendation G.983.1, January 2005.
[IEEE-1588]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Std 1588-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760, July
2008.
[IEEE-1904.1]
IEEE, "Standard for Service Interoperability in Ethernet
Passive Optical Networks (SIEPON)", IEEE Std 1904.1-2013,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6605490, June 2013.
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
[remote-phy]
CableLabs, "Remote PHY Specification", DCN: CM-SP-R-PHY-
I05-160923, September 2016.
[RFC6456] Li, H., Zheng, R., and A. Farrel, "Multi-Segment
Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks", RFC 6456,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6456, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6456>.
[TR-221] The Broadband Forum, "Technical Specifications for MPLS in
Mobile Backhaul Networks", BBF TR-221, October 2011.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Min Ye, Hongyu Li, Wei Lin, Xifeng
Wan, Yannick Legoff, Shrinivas Joshi, Alexey Melnikov, and Stephen
Farrell for their valuable discussions and comments.
Contributors
The following people made significant contributions to this document:
Chengbin Shen
China Telecom
1835 South Pudong Road
Shanghai 200122, China
Email: shencb@sttri.com.cn
Guangtao Zhou
China Unicom
No.9 Shouti South Road
Beijing 100048, China
Email: zhouguangtao@chinaunicom.cn
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016
Authors' Addresses
Yuanlong Jiang (editor)
Huawei
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Yong Luo
Huawei
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: dennis.luoyong@huawei.com
Edwin Mallette (editor)
Charter Communications
4145 S. Falkenburg Road
Tampa, FL 33578
United States of America
Email: edwin.mallette@gmail.com
Yimin Shen
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
United States of America
Email: yshen@juniper.net
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
Beijing 100053
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]