Network Working Group Y. Jiang, Ed.
Internet Draft L. Yong
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
M. Paul
Deutsche Telekom
Expires: February 2016 August 20, 2015
Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-08.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
Abstract
A generic Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution which uses
VLANs to indicate root or leaf traffic is specified for Ethernet-
Tree (E-Tree) services. A VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model is
illustrated as an example for the solution. In the solution, E-Tree
VPLS PEs are interconnected by PWs which carry the VLAN indicating
the E-Tree attribute, the MAC address based Ethernet forwarding
engine and the PW work in the same way as in RFC 4762 and RFC 4448
respectively. A signaling mechanism is further described for E-Tree
capability and VLAN mapping negotiation.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document ......................... 3
2. Terminology ............................................... 3
3. Introduction .............................................. 4
4. PE Model with E-Tree Support .............................. 5
4.1. Existing PE Models ..................................... 5
4.2. A New PE Model with E-Tree Support ..................... 8
5. PW for E-Tree Support ..................................... 9
5.1. PW Encapsulation ....................................... 9
5.2. VLAN Mapping ........................................... 9
5.3. PW Processing ......................................... 11
5.3.1. PW Processing in the VLAN Mapping Mode .......... 11
5.3.2. PW Processing in the Compatible Mode ............ 12
5.3.3. PW Processing in the Optimized Mode ............. 13
6. Signaling for E-Tree Support ............................. 14
6.1. LDP Extensions for E-Tree Support ..................... 14
6.2. BGP Extensions for E-Tree Support ..................... 16
7. OAM Considerations ....................................... 18
8. Applicability ............................................ 18
9. Security Considerations .................................. 19
10. IANA Considerations ...................................... 19
11. References ............................................... 19
11.1. Normative References ............................... 19
11.2. Informative References ............................. 20
12. Acknowledgments .......................................... 21
Appendix A. Other PE Models for E-Tree ........................ 22
A.1. A PE Model With a VSI and No bridge ................... 22
A.2. A PE Model With external E-Tree interface ............. 23
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
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].
2. Terminology
AC: Attachment Circuit
B-VLAN: Backbone VLAN
C-VLAN: Customer VLAN
E-Tree: Ethernet Tree, a Rooted-Multipoint EVC service as defined in
[MEF6.1]
EVC: Ethernet Virtual Connection, as defined in [MEF4]
FIB: Forwarding Information Base, also known as forwarding table
I-SID: Backbone Service Instance Identifier, as defined in IEEE
802.1ah
Leaf AC: an AC attached with a leaf
Leaf VLAN: a VLAN Identifier (ID) used to indicate all the frames
that are originated at a leaf AC, it may be a C-VLAN, an S-VLAN or a
B-VLAN
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
PBB: Provider Backbone Bridge
PE: Provider Edge
PW: Pseudo Wire
Root AC: an AC attached with a root
Root VLAN: a VLAN ID used to indicate all the frames that are
originated at a root AC, it may be a C-VLAN, an S-VLAN or a B-VLAN
S-VLAN: Service VLAN
T-VSI: Tree VSI, a VSI with E-Tree support
VLAN: Virtual Local Area Network
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
VPLS: Virtual Private LAN Service
VSI: Virtual Switching Instance as defined in [RFC4664], also known
as VPLS Forwarder in [RFC7041]
3. Introduction
The Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) service is defined in Metro Ethernet
Forum (MEF) Technical Specification MEF 6.1 as a Rooted-Multipoint
Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) service. It is a multipoint
Ethernet service with special restrictions: the Ethernet frames from
a root MAY be received by any other root or leaf, and the frames
from a leaf MAY be received by any root, but MUST NOT be received by
a leaf. Further, an E-Tree service MAY include multiple roots and
multiple leaves. Although Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)
[VPMS] or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) multicast is a somewhat
simplified version of this service, in fact, they are both multicast
services and are different from an E-Tree service which may include
both unicast and multicast traffic.
[RFC7152] gives the requirements for providing E-Tree solutions in
the VPLS and the need to filter leaf-to-leaf traffic. [RFC7387]
further describes a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) framework
for providing E-Tree. Though there were proposals on using PW
control word or PWs to indicate the root/leaf attribute of an E-Tree
frame, both methods are limited in that they are only applicable to
"VPLS only" networks.
In fact, VPLS PE usually consists of a bridge module itself (see
[RFC4664] and [RFC6246]); moreover, E-Tree services may cross both
Ethernet and VPLS domains. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an
E-Tree solution both for "VPLS only" scenarios and for interworking
between Ethernet and VPLS.
IEEE 802.1 has incorporated the generic E-Tree solution in the
latest version of 802.1Q [802.1Q-2011], which is just an improvement
on the traditional asymmetric VLAN mechanism (the use of different
VLANs to indicate E-Tree root/leaf attributes and prohibiting leaf-
to-leaf traffic with the help of VLANs was first standardized in
IEEE 802.1Q-2003). In the new IEEE 802.1Q solution, VLANs are used
to indicate root/leaf attribute of a frame: one VLAN ID is used to
indicate the frames originated from the roots and another VLAN ID is
used to indicate the frames originated from the leaves. At a leaf
port, the bridge can then filter out all the frames from other leaf
ports based on the VLAN ID. It is better to reuse the same mechanism
in VPLS than to develop a new mechanism. The latter will introduce
more complexity to interwork with the new IEEE 802.1Q solution.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
This document specifies how the Ethernet VLAN solution can be used
to support generic E-Tree services in VPLS. The solution specified
here is fully compatible with the IEEE bridge architecture and with
IETF Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) technology, thus it
will not change the FIB (such as installing E-Tree attributes in the
FIB), or need any specially tailored implementation. Furthermore,
VPLS scalability and simplicity are also well kept. With this
mechanism, it is also convenient to deploy a converged E-Tree
service across both Ethernet and MPLS networks.
Firstly, a typical VPLS PE model is introduced as an example; the
model is then extended in which a Tree VSI is connected to a VLAN
bridge with a dual-VLAN interface.
This document then discusses the PW encapsulation and PW processing
such as VLAN mapping options for transporting E-Tree services in
VPLS.
Finally, it describes the signaling extensions and processing
procedures for E-Tree support in VPLS.
4. PE Model with E-Tree Support
The problem scenario of E-Tree as shown in Fig. 1 of [RFC7152] is a
simplification of the L2VPN architecture, several common VPLS PE
architectures are discussed in more details in [RFC4664] and
[RFC6246].
Therefore, E-Tree solution in VPLS is demonstrated with the help of
a typical VPLS PE model. It can also be used in other PE models
which are discussed in Appendix A.
4.1. Existing PE Models
According to [RFC4664], there are at least three models possible for
a VPLS PE, including:
o A single bridge module, a single VSI;
o A single bridge module, multiple VSIs;
o Multiple bridge modules, each attaches to a VSI.
The second PE model is commonly used. A typical example is further
depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (both figures are extracted from
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
[RFC6246]), where an S-VLAN bridge module is connected to multiple
VSIs each with a single VLAN virtual interface.
+-------------------------------+
| 802.1ad Bridge Module Model |
| |
+---+ AC | +------+ +-----------+ |
|CE |---------|C-VLAN|------| | |
+---+ | |bridge|------| | |
| +------+ | | |
| o | S-VLAN | |
| o | | | ---> to VSI
| o | Bridge | |
+---+ AC | +------+ | | |
|CE |---------|C-VLAN|------| | |
+---+ | |bridge|------| | |
| +------+ +-----------+ |
+-------------------------------+
Figure 1 A model of 802.1ad Bridge Module
+----------------------------------------+
| VPLS-capable PE model |
| +---------------+ +------+ |
| | | |VSI-1 |------------
| | |==========| |------------ PWs
| | Bridge ------------ |------------
| | | S-VLAN-1 +------+ |
| | Module | o |
| | | o |
| | (802.1ad | o |
| | bridge) | o |
| | | o |
| | | S-VLAN-n +------+ |
| | ------------VSI-n |-------------
| | |==========| |------------- PWs
| | | ^ | |-------------
| +---------------+ | +------+ |
| | |
+-------------------------|--------------+
LAN emulation Interface
Figure 2 A VPLS-capable PE Model
In this PE model, Ethernet frames from Customer Edges (CEs) will
cross multiple stages of bridge modules (i.e., C-VLAN and S-VLAN
bridge) and a VSI in a PE before being sent on the PW to a remote PE.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
Therefore, the association between an AC port and a PW on a VSI is
difficult.
This model could be further enhanced: When Ethernet frames arrive at
a PE, a root VLAN or a leaf VLAN tag is added. Then the frames with
the root VLAN tag are transmitted both to the roots and the leaves,
while the frames with the leaf VLAN tag are transmitted to the roots
but dropped for the leaves (these VLAN tags are removed before the
frames are transmitted over the wire). It was demonstrated in
[802.1Q-2011] that the E-Tree service in Ethernet networks can be
well supported with this mechanism.
Assuming this mechanism is implemented in the bridge module, it is
quite straightforward to infer a VPLS PE model with two VSIs to
support the E-Tree (as shown in Fig. 3). But this model will require
two VSIs per PE and two sets of PWs per E-Tree service, which is
poorly scalable in a large MPLS/VPLS network; in addition, both
these VSIs have to share their learned MAC addresses.
+----------------------------------------+
| VPLS-capable PE model |
| +---------------+ +------+ |
| | | |VSI-1 |------------
| | |==========| |------------ PWs
| | Bridge ------------ |------------
| | | Root +------+ |
| | Module | S-VLAN |
| | | |
| | (802.1ad | |
| | bridge) | |
| | | Leaf |
| | | S-VLAN +------+ |
| | ------------VSI-2 |-------------
| | |==========| |------------- PWs
| | | ^ | |-------------
| +---------------+ | +------+ |
| | |
+-------------------------|--------------+
LAN emulation Interface
Figure 3 A VPLS PE Model for E-Tree with 2 VSIs
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
4.2. A New PE Model with E-Tree Support
In order to support the E-Tree in a more scalable way, a new VPLS PE
model with a single Tree VSI (T-VSI, a VSI with E-Tree support) is
specified. As depicted in Fig. 4, the bridge module is connected to
the T-VSI with a dual-VLAN virtual interface, i.e., both the root
VLAN and the leaf VLAN are connected to the same T-VSI, and they
share the same FIB and work in shared VLAN learning. In this way,
only one VPLS instance and one set of PWs is needed per E-Tree
service, and the scalability of VPLS is improved.
+----------------------------------------+
| VPLS-capable PE model |
| +---------------+ +------+ |
| | |==========|TVSI-1|------------
+---+AC | | ------------ |------------ PWs
|CE |-------| Bridge ------------ |------------
+---+ | | | Root & +------+ |
| | Module | Leaf VLAN o |
| | | o |
| | | o |
| | | o |
| | | o |
+---+AC | | | VLAN-n +------+ |
|CE |-------| ------------VSI-n |-------------
+---+ | | |==========| |------------- PWs
| | | ^ | |-------------
| +---------------+ | +------+ |
| | |
+-------------------------|--------------+
LAN emulation Interface
Figure 4 A VPLS PE Model for E-Tree with a Single T-VSI
For an untagged port (frames over this port are untagged) or VLAN-
unaware port (VLAN tags in the frames are ignored), when the bridge
module is a C-VLAN bridge, the Ethernet frames received from the
root ACs SHOULD be tagged with a root C-VLAN; when the bridge module
is an 802.1ad bridge, the Ethernet frames received from the root ACs
SHOULD be tagged with a root S-VLAN (it can be added with a root C-
VLAN firstly in a C-VLAN bridge but this is out of the scope of this
document).
For a C-VLAN tagged port, the Ethernet frames received from the root
ACs SHOULD be added with a root S-VLAN.
For an S-VLAN tagged port, the S-VLAN tag in the Ethernet frames
received from the root ACs SHOULD be translated to the root S-VLAN
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
in the VPLS network domain. Alternatively, the PBB VPLS PE model
(where an IEEE 802.1ah bridge module is embedded in the PE) as
described in [RFC7041] MAY be used, and a root B-VLAN or leaf B-VLAN
MAY be added in this case (the E-Tree attribute may also be
indicated with two I-SID tags in the bridge module, and the frames
are further encapsulated and transported transparently over a single
B-VLAN, thus the PBB VPLS works just in the same way as described in
[RFC7041] and will be discussed no more in this document). When many
S-VLANs are multiplexed in a single AC, the 2nd option has an
advantage of both VLAN scalability and MAC address scalability.
In a similar way, the traffic from the leaf ACs is tagged and
transported on the leaf C-VLAN, S-VLAN or B-VLAN.
In all cases, the outermost VLAN in the resulted Ethernet header is
used to indicate the E-Tree attribute of an Ethernet frame; this
document uses VLAN to refer to this outermost VLAN for simplicity in
the latter sections.
5. PW for E-Tree Support
5.1. PW Encapsulation
To support an E-Tree service, T-VSIs in a VPLS MUST be
interconnected with a bidirectional Ethernet PW. The Ethernet PW
SHOULD work in the tagged mode (PW type 0x0004) as described in
[RFC4448], in which case a VLAN tag MUST be carried in each frame in
the PW to indicate the frame originated from either root or leaf
(the VLAN tag indicating the frame originated from either root or
leaf can be translated by a bridge module in the PE or added by an
outside Ethernet edge device, even by a customer device). In the
tagged PW mode, two service delimiting VLANs MUST be allocated in
the VPLS domain for an E-Tree. PW processing for the tagged PW will
be described in Section 5.3 of this document.
Raw PW (PW type 0x0005 in [RFC4448]) MAY also be used to carry E-
Tree service for a PW in Compatible mode as shown in Section 5.3.2.
5.2. VLAN Mapping
There are two ways of manipulating VLANs for an E-Tree in VPLS:
o Global VLAN based, that is, provisioning two global VLANs (Root
VLAN, Leaf VLAN) across the VPLS network, thus no VLAN mapping is
needed at all, or the VLAN mapping is done completely in the
Ethernet domains.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
o Local VLAN based, that is, provisioning two local VLANs for each
PE (which participates in the E-Tree) in the VPLS network
independently.
The first method requires no VLAN mapping in the PW, but two unique
service delimiting VLANs must be allocated across the VPLS domain.
The second method is more scalable in the use of VLANs, but needs a
VLAN mapping mechanism in the PW similar to what is already
described in Section 4.3 of [RFC4448].
Global or local VLANs can be manually configured or provisioned by
an Operational Support System. Alternatively, some automatic VLAN
allocation algorithm may be provided in the management plane, but it
is out scope of this document.
For both methods, VLAN mapping parameters from a remote PE can be
provisioned or determined by a signaling protocol as described in
Section 6 when a PW is being established.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
5.3. PW Processing
5.3.1.PW Processing in the VLAN Mapping Mode
In the VLAN Mapping mode, two VPLS PEs with E-Tree capability are
inter-connected with a PW (For example, the scenario of Fig. 5
depicts the interconnection of two PEs miscellaneously attached with
both root and leaf nodes).
+----------------------------+
| VPLS PE with T-VSI |
| |
+----+ | +------+ Root VLAN +-----+ | PW
|Root|------| VLAN |-----------|T-VSI|----------
+----+ | | BRG | Leaf VLAN | |----------
+----+ | | |-----------| |----------
|Leaf|------| | | |-----+
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | |
| | |
+----------------------------+ |
|
+----------------------------+ |
| VPLS PE with T-VSI | |
| | |
+----+ | +------+ Root VLAN +-----+ | | PW
|Root|------| VLAN |-----------|T-VSI|-----+
+----+ | | BRG | Leaf VLAN | |----------
+----+ | | |-----------| |----------
|Leaf|------| | | |----------
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ |
| |
+----------------------------+
Figure 5 T-VSI Interconnected in the Normal Mode
If a PE is in the VLAN mapping mode for a PW, then in the data plane
the PE MUST map the VLAN in each frame as follows:
o Upon transmitting frames on the PW, map from local VLAN to remote
VLAN (i.e., the local leaf VLAN in a frame is translated to the
remote leaf VLAN; the local root VLAN in a frame is translated to
the remote root VLAN).
o Upon receiving frames on the PW, map from remote VLAN to local
VLAN, and the frames are further forwarded or dropped in the egress
bridge module using the filtering mechanism as described in [802.1Q-
2011].
The signaling for VLANs used by E-Tree is specified in Section 6.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
5.3.2.PW Processing in the Compatible Mode
The new VPLS PE model can work in a traditional VPLS network
seamlessly in the compatibility mode. As shown in Fig. 6, the VPLS
PE with T-VSI can be attached with root and/or leaf nodes, while the
VPLS PE with a traditional VSI can only be attached with root nodes.
A raw PW SHOULD be used to connect them.
+------------------------+
| VPLS PE with T-VSI |
| |
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | PW
|Root|------| VLAN |-------|T-VSI|----------
+----+ | | BRG | | |----------
+----+ | | |-------| |----------
|Leaf|------| | | |---------+
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | |
| | |
+------------------------+ |
|
+------------------------+ |
| VPLS PE with VSI | |
| | |
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | PW |
|Root|------| VLAN |-------|VSI |---------+
+----+ | | BRG | | |----------
+----+ | | | | |----------
|Root|------| | | |----------
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ |
| |
+------------------------+
Figure 6 T-VSI interconnected with Traditional VSI
If a PE is in the Compatible mode for a PW, then in the data plane
the PE MUST process the frame as follows:
o Upon transmitting frames on the PW, remove the root or leaf VLAN
in the frames.
o Upon receiving frames on the PW, add a VLAN tag with a value of
the local root VLAN to the frames.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
5.3.3.PW Processing in the Optimized Mode
When two PEs (both have E-Tree capability) are inter-connected with
a PW and one of them (e.g., PE2) is attached with only leaf nodes,
as shown in the scenario of Fig. 7, its peer PE (e.g., PE1) should
then work in the optimized mode for this PW. In this case, PE1
should not send the frames originated from the local leaf VLAN to
PE2, i.e., these frames are dropped rather than transported over the
PW. The bandwidth efficiency of the VPLS can thus be improved. The
signaling for the PE attached with only leaf nodes is specified in
Section 6.
+------------------------+
|VPLS PE with T-VSI (PE1)|
| |
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | PW
|Root|------| VLAN |-------|T-VSI|----------
+----+ | | BRG | | |----------
+----+ | | |-------| |----------
|Leaf|------| | | |---------+
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | |
| | |
+------------------------+ |
|
+------------------------+ |
|VPLS PE with T-VSI (PE2)| |
| | |
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ | PW |
|Leaf|------| VLAN |-------|T-VSI|---------+
+----+ | | BRG | | |----------
+----+ | | |-------| |----------
|Leaf|------| | | |----------
+----+ | +------+ +-----+ |
| |
+------------------------+
Figure 7 T-VSI interconnected with PE attached with only leaf nodes
If a PE is in the Optimized Mode for a PW, upon transmit, the PE
SHOULD first operate as follows:
o Drop a frame if its VLAN ID matches the local leaf VLAN ID.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
6. Signaling for E-Tree Support
6.1. LDP Extensions for E-Tree Support
In addition to the signaling procedures as specified in [RFC4447],
this document specifies a new interface parameter sub-TLV to
provision an E-Tree service and negotiate the VLAN mapping function,
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| E-Tree(0x1A) | Length=8 | Reserved |P|V|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root VLAN ID | Leaf VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 E-Tree Sub-TLV
Where:
o E-Tree is the sub-TLV identifier (0x1A) as assigned by IANA.
o Length is the length of the sub TLV in octets.
o Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmit and be ignored on
receive.
o P is a Leaf-only bit, it is set to 1 to indicate that the PE is
attached with only leaf nodes, and set to 0 otherwise.
o V is a bit indicating the sender's VLAN mapping capability. A PE
capable of VLAN mapping MUST set this bit, and clear it otherwise.
o Root VLAN ID is the value of the local root VLAN.
o Leaf VLAN ID is the value of the local leaf VLAN.
When setting up a PW for the E-Tree based VPLS, two peer PEs
negotiate the E-Tree support using the above E-Tree sub-TLV. Note PW
type of 0x0004 SHOULD be used during the PW negotiation.
A PE that wishes to support E-Tree service MUST include an E-Tree
Sub-TLV in its PW label mapping message and include its local root
VLAN ID and leaf VLAN ID in the TLV. A PE that has the VLAN mapping
capability MUST set the V bit to 1, and a PE is attached with only
leaf nodes SHOULD set the P bit to 1.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
A PE that receives a PW label mapping message with an E-Tree Sub-TLV
from its peer PE, after saving the VLAN information for the PW, MUST
process it as follows:
1) For this PW, set VLAN-Mapping-Mode, Compatible-Mode, and
Optimized-Mode to FALSE.
2) If either the root VLAN ID in the message is not equal to the
local root VLAN ID or the leaf VLAN ID in the message is not equal
to the local leaf VLAN ID {
If the bit V is cleared {
If the PE is capable of VLAN mapping, it MUST set VLAN-
Mapping-Mode to TRUE;
Else {
A label release message with the error code "E-
Tree VLAN mapping not supported" is sent to the
peer PE and exit the process;
}
}
If the bit V is set, and the PE is capable of VLAN mapping,
the PE with the minimum IP address MUST set VLAN-Mapping-Mode
to TRUE;
}
3) If the P bit is set
{
If the PE is a leaf-only node itself, a label release message
with a status code "Leaf to Leaf PW released" is sent to the peer
PE and exit the process;
Else the PE SHOULD set the Optimized-Mode to TRUE.
}
A PE SHOULD send a Label Mapping message with an E-Tree Sub-TLV as
per Section 5.3.3 of RFC 4447. A PE MUST send a Label Mapping
message with an updated E-Tree Sub-TLV to all other PEs over
corresponding LDP sessions when its role changes from leaf-only to
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
not leaf-only (i.e., when a root node is added to a PE attached with
only leaf nodes).
If a PE has sent a Label Mapping message with an E-Tree Sub-TLV but
does not receive any E-Tree Sub-TLV in its peer's PW label mapping
message, The PE SHOULD then establish a raw PW with this peer as in
traditional VPLS and set Compatible-Mode to TRUE for this PW.
Data plane processing for this PW is as following:
If Optimized-Mode is TRUE, then data plane processing as described
in Section 5.3.3 applies.
If VLAN-Mapping-Mode is TRUE, then data plane processing as
described in Section 5.3.1 applies.
If Compatible-Mode is TRUE, then data plane processing is as
described in Section 5.3.2.
PW processing as described in [RFC4448] proceeds as usual for all
cases.
6.2. BGP Extensions for E-Tree Support
A new E-Tree extended community (0x800b) is allocated by IANA for E-
Tree signaling in BGP VPLS:
+------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Root VLAN (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Leaf VLAN (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved |P|V|
+------------------------------------+
Figure 9 E-Tree Extended Community
Where:
o Root VLAN ID is the value of the local root VLAN.
o Leaf VLAN ID is the value of the local leaf VLAN.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
o Reserved, 14 bits MUST be set to zero on transmit and be ignored
on receive.
o P is a Leaf-only bit, it is set to 1 to indicate that the PE is
attached with only leaf nodes, and set to 0 otherwise.
o V is a bit indicating the sender's VLAN mapping capability. A PE
capable of VLAN mapping MUST set this bit, and clear it otherwise.
The PEs attached with both leaf and root nodes MUST support BGP E-
Tree signaling as described in this document, and SHOULD support
VLAN mapping in their data planes. The traditional PE attached with
only root nodes may also participate in an E-Tree service. If some
PEs don't support VLAN mapping, global VLANs as per Section 5.2 MUST
be provisioned for an E-Tree service.
In BGP VPLS signaling, besides attaching a Layer2 Info Extended
Community as detailed in [RFC4761], an E-Tree Extended Community
MUST be further attached if a PE wishes to participate in an E-Tree
service. The PE MUST include its local root VLAN ID and leaf VLAN ID
in the E-Tree Extended Community. A PE attached with only leaf nodes
of an E-Tree SHOULD set the P bit in the E-Tree Extended Community
to 1.
A PE that receives a BGP UPDATE message with an E-Tree Extended
Community from its peer PE, after saving the VLAN information for
the PW, MUST process it as follows (after processing procedures as
specified in Section 3.2 of [RFC4761]):
1) For this PW, set VLAN-Mapping-Mode, Compatible-Mode, and
Optimized-Mode to FALSE.
2) If either the root VLAN ID in the E-Tree Extended Community is
not equal to the local root VLAN ID or the leaf VLAN ID in the E-
Tree Extended Community is not equal to the local leaf VLAN ID {
If the bit V is cleared {
If the PE is capable of VLAN mapping, it MUST set VLAN-
Mapping-Mode to TRUE;
Else {
Log with a message "E-Tree VLAN mapping not
supported" and exit the process;
}
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
}
If the bit V is set, and the PE is capable of VLAN mapping,
the PE with the minimum IP address MUST set VLAN-Mapping-Mode
to TRUE;
}
3) If the P bit is set {
If the PE is a leaf-only PE itself, forbids any traffic on the
PW;
Else the PE SHOULD set the Optimized-Mode to TRUE.
}
A PE which does not recognize this attribute SHALL ignore it
silently. If a PE has sent an E-Tree Extended Community but does not
receive any E-Tree Extended Community from its peer, the PE SHOULD
then establish a raw PW with this peer as in traditional VPLS, and
set Compatible-Mode to TRUE for this PW.
Data plane in the VPLS is the same as described in Section 4.2 of
[RFC4761], and data plane processing for a PW is the same as
described at the end of Section 6.1 in this document.
7. OAM Considerations
VPLS OAM requirements and framework as specified in [RFC6136] are
applicable to E-Tree, as both Ethernet OAM frames and data traffic
are transported over the same PW.
Ethernet OAM for E-Tree including both service OAM and segment OAM
frames SHALL undergo the same VLAN mapping as the data traffic; and
root VLAN SHOULD be applied to segment OAM frames so that they are
not filtered.
8. Applicability
The solution specified in this document is applicable to both LDP
VPLS [RFC4762] and BGP VPLS [RFC4761].
This solution is applicable to both "VPLS Only" networks and VPLS
with Ethernet aggregation networks.
This solution is also applicable to PBB VPLS networks.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
9. Security Considerations
Besides security considerations as described in [RFC4448], [RFC4761]
and [RFC4762], this solution prevents leaf to leaf communication in
the data plane of VPLS when its PEs are interconnected with PWs. In
this regard, security can be enhanced for customers with this
solution.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA allocated a value for E-Tree in the registry of Pseudowire
Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type.
Parameter ID Length Description
=======================================
0x1A 8 E-Tree
IANA allocated two new LDP status codes from the registry of name
"STATUS CODE NAME SPACE".
Range/Value E Description
------------- ----- ----------------------
0x20000003 1 E-Tree VLAN mapping not supported
0x20000004 0 Leaf to Leaf PW released
IANA allocated a value for E-Tree in the registry of BGP Extended
Community.
Type Value Sub-Type Value Name
========== ============== ============
0x80 0x0b E-Tree Info
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and Heron,
G., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and Heron,G.,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
RFC 4761, January 2007.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and Kompella, V., "Virtual Private LAN
Services using LDP", RFC 4762, January 2007.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., and Pate, P., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., and Rosen, E., "Framework for Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September
2006.
[RFC6136] Sajassi, A. and Mohan, D., "L2VPN OAM Requirements and
Framework", RFC 6136, March 2011.
[RFC6246] Sajassi, A., Brockners, F., Mohan, D., and Serbest, Y.,
"Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Interoperability with
Customer Edge (CE) Bridges", RFC 6246, June 2011.
[RFC7041] Balus, F., Sajassi, A., and Bitar, N., Extensions to VPLS
PE model for Provider Backbone Bridging, RFC 7041,
November 2013.
[RFC7152] Key, R., DeLord, S., Jounay, F., Huang, L., Liu, Z., and M.
Paul, "Requirements for Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF)
Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Layer 2 Virtual Private
Network (L2VPN)", RFC 7152, March 2014.
[RFC7387] Key, R., Yong, L., DeLord, S., Jounay, F., and Jin, L., "A
Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network", RFC 7387,
October 2014.
[802.1Q-2011] IEEE 802.1Q, Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and
Virtual Bridge Local Area Networks, August 2011.
[MEF4] Metro Ethernet Forum, Metro Ethernet Network Architecture
Framework - Part 1: Generic Framework, Technical
Specification MEF 4, May 2004.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
[MEF6.1] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions -
Phase 2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008.
[VPMS] Kamite, Y., Jounay, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D.,
and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual
Private Multicast Service (VPMS)", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-05, October 2012.
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Stewart Bryant for his detailed
review and suggestions, thank Adrian Farrel, Susan Hares and Shane
Amante for their valuable advices, thank Ben Mack-crane, Edwin
Mallette, Donald Fedyk, Dave Allan, Giles Heron, Raymond Key, Josh
Rogers, Sam Cao and Daniel Cohn for their valuable comments and
discussions.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
Appendix A. Other PE Models for E-Tree
A.1. A PE Model With a VSI and No bridge
If there is no bridge module in a PE, the PE may consist of Native
Service Processors (NSPs) as shown in Figure A.1 (adapted from Fig.
5 of [RFC3985]) where any transformation operation for VLANs (e.g.,
VLAN insertion/removal or VLAN mapping) may be applied. Thus a root
VLAN or leaf VLAN can be added by the NSP depending on the User
Network Interface (UNI) type (root/leaf) associated with the AC over
which the packet arrives.
Further, when a packet with a leaf VLAN exits a forwarder and
arrives at the NSP, the NSP must drop the packet if the egress AC is
associated with a leaf UNI.
Tagged PW and VLAN mapping work in the same way as in the typical PE
model.
+----------------------------------------+
| PE Device |
Multiple+----------------------------------------+
AC | | | Single | PW Instance
<------>o NSP # + PW Instance X<---------->
| | | |
|------| VSI |----------------------|
| | | Single | PW Instance
<------>o NSP #Forwarder + PW Instance X<---------->
| | | |
|------| |----------------------|
| | | Single | PW Instance
<------>o NSP # + PW Instance X<---------->
| | | |
+----------------------------------------+
Figure A.1 A PE model with a VSI and no bridge module
This PE model may be used by a Multi-Tenant Unit switch (MTU-s) in a
Hierarchical VPLS (H-VPLS) network, or a Network-facing PE (N-PE) in
an H-VPLS network with non-bridging edge devices, wherein a spoke PW
can be treated as an AC in this model.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
A.2. A PE Model With external E-Tree interface
+----------------------------------------+
| PE Device |
Root +----------------------------------------+
VLAN | | Single | PW Instance
<------>o + PW Instance X<---------->
| | |
| VSI |----------------------|
| | Single | PW Instance
| Forwarder + PW Instance X<---------->
| | |
Leaf | |----------------------|
VLAN | | Single | PW Instance
<------>o + PW Instance X<---------->
| | |
+----------------------------------------+
Figure A.2 A PE model with external E-Tree interface
A more simplified PE model is depicted in A.2, where Root/Leaf VLANs
are directly or indirectly over a single PW connected to a same VSI
forwarder in a PE, any transformation of E-Tree VLANs, e.g., VLAN
insertion/removal or VLAN mapping, can be performed by some outer
equipments, and the PE may further translate these VLANs into its
own local VLANs. This PE model may be used by an N-PE in an H-VPLS
network with bridging-capable devices, or scenarios such as
providing E-Tree Network-to-Network interfaces.
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft E-Tree Support in VPLS August 2015
Authors' Addresses
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129, China
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
207 Estrella Xing
Georgetown TX, USA 78628
Email: lucyyong@huawei.com
Manuel Paul
Deutsche Telekom
Winterfeldtstr. 21
10781 Berlin, Germany
Email: manuel.paul@telekom.de
Frederic Jounay
Orange CH
4 rue caudray 1020 Renens, Switzerland
Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch
Florin Balus
Alcatel-Lucent
701 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA, USA 94043
Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Jiang, et al Expires February 20, 2016 [Page 24]