Network Working Group H. van Helvoort Internet-Draft L. Andersson Intended status: Standards Track A. Malis Expires: January 2, 2015 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd J. Shin SK Telecom L. Wang China Mobile A. D'Alessandro Telecom Italia July 1, 2014 Encapsulation for PSC for Multi-Segment Pseudowires draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-00.txt Abstract In RFC 6378 'MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection', as well as in the later updates of this RFC, the Protection State Coordiantion (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS LSPs only. This draft extends RFC 6378 to be applicable for pseudowires as well. 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 http://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 January 2, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MS-PW Protection July 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Encapsulation of the PSC protocol for Pseudowires . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction In RFC 6378 'MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection' [RFC6378], as well as in the later updates of this RFC in 'MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network Operators' [RFC7271] and in 'Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection' [I-D.ietf-mpls-psc-updates], the Protection State Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS LSPs only. This draft extends RFC 6378 to be applicable for pseudowires (PWs) as well. This is useful especially in the case of end-to-end static provisioned Multi-Segment PWs (MS-PWs) running over MPLS-TP where we can't rely on tunnel protection alone for end-to- end protection of PWs against switching PE (S-PE) failure. 2. Encapsulation of the PSC protocol for Pseudowires The PSC protocol can be used to protect against defects on any LSP (segment, link or path). Linear protection protects an LSP end-to- end and if a failure is detected, switches traffic over to another (redundant) set of resources. Obviously, the protected entity does not need to be of the same type as the protecting, it is possible to protect a link by a path. Likewise it is possible to protect a PW with a MS-PW. From a PSC protocol point of view it is possible to view a PW as a single hop LSP, and a MS-PW as a multiple hop LSP. The PSC protocol will work just as specified in RFC 6378. van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MS-PW Protection July 2014 Thus the G-ACh carrying the PSC protocol information is placed in the label stack directly beneath the PW identifier. 3. Security Considerations The security considerations defined for RFC 6378 apply to this document as well. As this is simply a re-use of RFC 6378, there are no new security considerations. 4. IANA Considerations There are no requests for IANA actions in this document. Note to the RFC Editor - this section can be removed before publication. 5. Acknowledgements TBA 6. Normative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-psc-updates] Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection", draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-06 (work in progress), May 2014. [RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011. [RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Gray, E., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS- TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014. Authors' Addresses Huub van Helvoort Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Email: huub.van.helvoort@huawei.com van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MS-PW Protection July 2014 Loa Andersson Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Andrew G. Malis Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Email: Andrew.Malis@huawei.com Jongyoon Shin SK Telecom Email: jongyoon.shin@sk.com Lei Wang China Mobile Email: wangleiyj@chinamobile.com Alessandro D'Alessandro Telecom Italia Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it van Helvoort, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 4]