Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "The IESG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "Stewart Bryant" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Protocol Action: 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution Protocol' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-05.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution Protocol' (draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-05.txt) as Internet Standard This document is the product of the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah Brungard. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis/
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: email@example.com NEW: 14. Author Information Luca Martini Cisco Systems, Inc. 1899 Wynkoop Street Suite 600 Denver, CO, 80202 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org 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.