LDP Extensions to Support Private Line Emulation (PLE)
draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-01
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Christian Schmutzer | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-18 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-01
Network Working Group C. Schmutzer, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track 18 April 2024
Expires: 20 October 2024
LDP Extensions to Support Private Line Emulation (PLE)
draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-01
Abstract
This document defines extension to the Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) control protocol [RFC4447] required for the setup of
Private Line Emulation (PLE) pseudowires in MPLS networks.
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 https://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 20 October 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Ethernet Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Fibre Channel Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.3. OTN Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4. SONET/SDH Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. PW FEC for Setup of PLE Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Interface Parameters for PLE Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. PLE/CEP/TDM Payload Bytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4. PLE/CEP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.5. Endpoint-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. LDP Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Using the PW Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction and Motivation
[RFC5287] has already specified extensions to the Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP) for the setup of structure-agnostic TDM pseudowires
specified in [RFC4533], structure-aware pseudowires specified in
[RFC5086] and SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)
pseudowires in [RFC4842].
Private Line Emulation pseudowires are specified in
[I-D.ietf-pals-ple]. This document focuses on the LDP definitions
and extensions required for the setup of PLE pseudowires taking
[RFC5287] and Section 12 of [RFC4842] as a starting point.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
3. Terminology
to be added
4. Service Types
The following sections list all possible service types that are
supported by PLE and the proposed signalling mechanisms.
4.1. Ethernet Service Types
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| Service Type | PW Type | PLE/CEP Type | PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate |
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| 1000Base-X | TBD1 | 0x3 | 1,250,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 10GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 10,312,500 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 25GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 25,791,300 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 40GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 41,250,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 50GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 51,562,500 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 100GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 103,125,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 200GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 212,500,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 400GBASE-R | TBD1 | 0x3 | 425,000,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
Table 1: Ethernet Service Types
4.2. Fibre Channel Service Types
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| Service Type | PW Type | PLE/CEP Type | PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate |
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| 1GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 1,062,500 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 2GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 2,125,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 4GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 4,250,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 8GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 8,500,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 10GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 10,518,750 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
| 16GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 14,025,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 32GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 28,050,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 64GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 57,800,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| 128GFC | TBD1 | 0x3 | 112,200,000 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
Table 2: Fibre Channel Service Types
4.3. OTN Service Types
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| Service Type | PW Type | PLE/CEP Type | PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate |
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| ODU0 | TBD1 | 0x4 | 1,244,160 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| ODU1 | TBD1 | 0x4 | 2,498,775 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| ODU2 | TBD1 | 0x4 | 10,037,273 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| ODU2e | TBD1 | 0x4 | 10,399,525 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| ODU3 | TBD1 | 0x4 | 40,319,218 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| ODU4 | TBD1 | 0x4 | 104,794,445 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
Table 3: OTN Service Types
4.4. SONET/SDH Service Types
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| Service Type | PW Type | PLE/CEP Type | PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate |
+==============+=========+==============+======================+
| OC3/STM1 | TBD1 | 0x3 | 155,520 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| OC12/STM4 | TBD1 | 0x3 | 622,080 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| OC48/STM16 | TBD1 | 0x3 | 2,488,320 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| OC192/STM64 | TBD1 | 0x3 | 9,953,280 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
| OC768/STM256 | TBD1 | 0x3 | 39,813,120 |
+--------------+---------+--------------+----------------------+
Table 4: Ethernet Service Types
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
5. PW FEC for Setup of PLE Pseudowires
[RFC4447] does define two types of PW Forwarding Equivalent Classes
(FECs)
* PWId FEC (FEC 128)
* Generalized PW FEC (FEC 129)
The Group ID and the Interface Parameters are contained in separate
TLVs, called the PW Grouping TLV and the Interface Parameters TLV.
Either of these types of PW FEC MAY be used for the setup of PLE PWs
with the PW type TBD1 and appropriate interface parameters.
The two endpoints MUST agree on the PW type, as both directions of
the PW are required to be of the same type.
The Control bit MUST be set as PLE PW encapsulation uses a control
word.
6. Interface Parameters for PLE Pseudowires
6.1. Overview
The interface parameters that are relevant for the setup of PLE
pseudowires are listed in Table 5
+===========================+=========+========+=============+
| Interface Parameter | Sub-TLV | Length | Description |
+===========================+=========+========+=============+
| PLE/CEP/TDM Payload Bytes | 0x04 | 4 | Section 6.2 |
+---------------------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-Rate | 0x07 | 6 | Section 6.3 |
+---------------------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| PLE/CEP Options | 0x05 | 4 | Section 6.4 |
+---------------------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Endpoint-ID | TBD2 | 2-82 | Section 6.5 |
+---------------------------+---------+--------+-------------+
Table 5: Relevant Interface Parameters
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
6.2. PLE/CEP/TDM Payload Bytes
The payload byte sub-TLV already defined in [RFC5287] does also apply
to PLE and MAY be included if a non-default payload size is to be
used. If this TLV is omitted then the default payload size defined
in [I-D.ietf-pals-ple] MUST be assumed. The format of the PLE/CEP/
TDM Payload Bytes sub-TLV is shown in Figure 1.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLV Type | Length | PLE/CEP/TDM Payload Bytes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PLE/CEP/TDM Payload Bytes sub-TLV
Type : 4
Length : 4
The total length in octets of the value portion of the TLV.
PLE/CEP/TDM Payload Bytes :
A two byte field denoting the desired payload size to be used.
6.3. PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-Rate
The bit-rate sub-TLV already defined in [RFC5287] is MANDATORY for
PLE pseudowires in order to unambiguously indicate the attachment
circuit type. The format of the PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-Rate sub-TLV is
shown in Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLV Type | Length | PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-Rate sub-TLV
Type : 7
Length : 6
The total length in octets of the value portion of the TLV.
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
PLE/CEP/TDM Bit-rate :
A four byte field denoting the data rate in units of 1-kbps
6.4. PLE/CEP Options
The options sub-TLV already defined in Section 12.3 of [RFC4842] MUST
be present when signaling PLE pseudowires. The format of the PLE/CEP
options sub-TLV is shown in Figure 3.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLV Type | Length | PLE/CEP Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PLE/CEP Options sub-TLV
Type : 5
Length : 4
The total length in octets of the value portion of the TLV.
PLE/CEP Options :
A two byte field with the format as shown in Figure 4
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|AIS|UNE|RTP|EBM| Reserved [0:6] | PLE/CEP | Async |
| | | | | | Type |T3 |E3 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 4: PLE/CEP Options
AIS, UNE, RTP, EBM :
These bits MUST be set to zero and ignored by the receiver.
Reserved :
7-bit field for future use. MUST be set to ZERO and ignored by
receiver.
CEP/PLE Type :
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
Indicates the connection type for CEP and PLE. CEP connection
types are defined in [RFC4842]. Two new values for PLE are
defined in this document:
- 0x3 - Basic PLE payload
- 0x4 - Byte aligned PLE payload
Async :
These bits MUST be set to zero and ignored by the receiver.
6.5. Endpoint-ID
The Endpoint-ID sub-TLV MAY be included to allow for misconnection
detection. The format of the Endpoint-ID sub-TLV format is shown in
Figure 5.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLV Type | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
// Endpoint Identifier (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Endpoint-ID sub-TLV
Type : TBD2
Length : 2-82
The total length in octets of the value portion of the TLV.
Endpoint Identifier :
Arbitrary string of variable length from 0 to 80 octets used to
describe the attachment circuit to the remote PE node.
7. LDP Status Codes
Per [RFC4447] in case of incompatible bit-rate the LDP status code
0x00000026 (incompatible bit-rate) and in case of incompatible PLE
options the LDP status code 0x00000027 (CEP-TDM mis-configuration)
has to be used to indicate the reason of failure to establish the
pseudowire.
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
Setting of the Control bit to zero MUST result in an LDP status of
0x00000024 (Illegal C-Bit).
8. Using the PW Status TLV
The PLE PW control word carries status indications for both
attachment circuits (L bit) and the PSN (R bit) indication (see
[I-D.ietf-pals-ple]). Similar functionality is available via use of
the PW Status TLV (see Section 5.4.2 of [RFC4447]). If the latter
mechanism is employed, the signaling PE sends its peer a PW Status
TLV for this PW, setting the appropriate bits (see Section 3.5 of
[RFC4446]):
* Pseudowire Not Forwarding
* Local Attachment Circuit (ingress) Receive Fault
* Local Attachment Circuit (egress) Transmit Fault
* Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault
* Local PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault
As long as the TDM PW interworking function is operational, usage of
the Status TLV is NOT RECOMMENDED in order to avoid contention
between status indications reported by the data and control plane.
However, if the TDM PW interworking function (IWF) itself fails while
the PWE3 control plane remains operational, a Status TLV with all of
the above bits set SHOULD be sent.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not have any additional impact on the security of
PWs above that of basic LDP-based setup of PWs specified in
[RFC4447].
10. IANA Considerations
As already indicated in section 10 of
[I-D.schmutzer-bess-bitstream-vpws-signalling], IANA is requested to
assign a PW type (value TBD1) for PLE pseudowires from the "MPLS
Pseudowire Types" registry.
IANA is further requested to assign a sub-TLV type (value TBD2) for
the Endpoint-ID sub-TLV from the "Pseudowire Interface Parameters
Sub-TLV type" registry.
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
11. Acknowledgements
to be added
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pals-ple]
Gringeri, S., Whittaker, J., Leymann, N., Schmutzer, C.,
and C. Brown, "Private Line Emulation over Packet Switched
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pals-ple-01, 21 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pals-
ple-01>.
[I-D.schmutzer-bess-bitstream-vpws-signalling]
Gringeri, S., Whittaker, J., Schmutzer, C., Vasudevan, B.,
and P. Brissette, "Ethernet VPN Signalling Extensions for
Bit-stream VPWS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
schmutzer-bess-bitstream-vpws-signalling-00, 23 October
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
schmutzer-bess-bitstream-vpws-signalling-00>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4447, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4447>.
[RFC4842] Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., Ed., and D. Zelig,
"Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)",
RFC 4842, DOI 10.17487/RFC4842, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4842>.
[RFC5287] Vainshtein, A. and Y. Stein, "Control Protocol Extensions
for the Setup of Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM)
Pseudowires in MPLS Networks", RFC 5287,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5287, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5287>.
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for PLE April 2024
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC1925] Callon, R., "The Twelve Networking Truths", RFC 1925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1925, April 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925>.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4446>.
[RFC4533] Zeilenga, K. and J.H. Choi, "The Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP) Content Synchronization Operation",
RFC 4533, DOI 10.17487/RFC4533, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4533>.
[RFC5086] Vainshtein, A., Ed., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and
P. Pate, "Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)
Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network
(CESoPSN)", RFC 5086, DOI 10.17487/RFC5086, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5086>.
Author's Address
Christian Schmutzer (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Austria
Email: cschmutz@cisco.com
Schmutzer Expires 20 October 2024 [Page 11]