Technical Summary
Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP). Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.
This document has been written to address errata in a previous
version of this standard.
Working Group Summary
This was reviewed by the WG. There is nothing contentious.
Document Quality
This document addresses errata in previous versions of RFC 6723, RFC 4447.
There are many implementations of this protocol. Refer to Section 10 of
document.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Stewart Bryant
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard
IANA Note
Changes for the IANA section:
OLD:
8. IANA Considerations
The authors request that IANA remove this section before publication
and that IANA update any references to [RFC4447] in their registries
to refer to this document.
NEW:
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. LDP TLV TYPE
This document uses several new LDP TLV types; IANA already maintains
a registry of name "TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC 5036. The
following values are suggested for assignment:
TLV type Description
=====================================
0x096A PW Status TLV
0x096B PW Interface Parameters TLV
0x096C Group ID TLV
8.2. LDP Status Codes
This document uses several new LDP status codes; IANA already
maintains a registry of name "STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC
5036. The following values are suggested for assignment:
Range/Value E Description Reference
------------- ----- ---------------------- ---------
0x00000024 0 Illegal C-Bit [RFC4447]
0x00000025 0 Wrong C-Bit [RFC4447]
0x00000026 0 Incompatible bit-rate [RFC4447]
0x00000027 0 CEP-TDM mis-configuration [RFC4447]
0x00000028 0 PW Status [RFC4447]
0x00000029 0 Unassigned/Unrecognized TAI [RFC4447]
0x0000002A 0 Generic Misconfiguration Error [RFC4447]
0x0000002B 0 Label Withdraw PW Status Method [RFC4447]
8.3. FEC Type Name Space
This document uses two new FEC element types, 0x80 and 0x81, from the
registry "FEC Type Name Space" for the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP RFC 5036).
NOTE TO IANA:
IANA needs to update any references to [RFC4447] in their registries
to refer to this document. No other action is needed.
RFC Editor Notes:
Figure 2 appears to be missing a couple of forward/backslashes in the
ASCII art drawing. Please add them.
OLD:
+-------+---------+ ___________ +---------+-------+
| / |
+===============/ PSN ===============+
/
_____________/
NEW:
+-------+---------+ ____________ +---------+-------+
| / \ |
+===============/ PSN \===============+
\ /
\____________/
At the end of the Abstract:
OLD:
This document has been written to address errata in a previous
version of this standard.
NEW:
This document is a rewrite of RFC 4447 for publication as an
Internet Standard
In section 9.1:
OLD:
When an MPLS PSN is used to provide pseudowire service, there is a
perception that security MUST be at least equal to the currently
deployed Layer 2 native protocol networks that the MPLS/PW network
NEW:
When an MPLS PSN is used to provide pseudowire service, there is a
perception that security must be at least equal to the currently
deployed Layer 2 native protocol networks that the MPLS/PW network
OLD:
14. Author Information
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street
Suite 600
Denver, CO, 80202
e-mail: lmartini@cisco.com
NEW:
14. Author Information
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street
Suite 600
Denver, CO, 80202
e-mail: lmartini@monoski.com
Please update all references to RFC4447 in the IANA section to the
correct RFC number for this document.
Note: While this document obsoletes RFC6723 and RFC4447, it does not update RFC6073.