Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp

draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp






  Internet Draft Document                            Marc Lasserre 
  L2VPN Working Group                                Vach Kompella 
  draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-09.txt                       (Editors) 
  Expires: Dec 2006                                      June 2006 
   
   
   
                Virtual Private LAN Services Using LDP 
   
   
   
Status of this Memo 
   
  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. 
   
IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement 
   
  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 
  applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 
  have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 
  aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 
 
Abstract 
   
  This document describes a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) 
  solution using pseudo-wires, a service previously implemented over 
  other tunneling technologies and known as Transparent LAN Services 
  (TLS).  A VPLS creates an emulated LAN segment for a given set of 
  users, i.e., it creates a Layer 2 broadcast domain that is fully 
  capable of learning and forwarding on Ethernet MAC addresses that 
  is closed to a given set of users.  Multiple VPLS services can be 
  supported from a single PE node. 
   
  This document describes the control plane functions of signaling 
  pseudo-wire labels using LDP [RFC3036], extending [RFC4447].  It is 
  agnostic to discovery protocols.  The data plane functions of 
  forwarding are also described, focusing, in particular, on the 
   
    
  Lasserre, Kompella                                          [Page 1] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  learning of MAC addresses.  The encapsulation of VPLS packets is 
  described by [RFC4448]. 
   
1. Conventions 
   
  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 RFC 2119 
  [RFC2119]. 
   
2. Table of Contents 
   
   1. Conventions.....................................................2 
   2. Table of Contents...............................................2 
   3. Introduction....................................................3 
   3.1. Terminology...................................................3 
   3.2. Acronyms......................................................4 
   4. Topological Model for VPLS......................................5 
   4.1. Flooding and Forwarding.......................................5 
   4.2. Address Learning..............................................6 
   4.3. Tunnel Topology...............................................6 
   4.4. Loop free VPLS................................................6 
   5. Discovery.......................................................7 
   6. Control Plane...................................................7 
   6.1. LDP Based Signaling of Demultiplexers.........................7 
   6.1.1. Using the Generalized PWid FEC Element......................8 
   6.2. MAC Address Withdrawal........................................8 
   6.2.1. MAC List TLV................................................9 
   6.2.2. Address Withdraw Message Containing MAC List TLV...........10 
   7. Data Forwarding on an Ethernet PW..............................10 
   7.1. VPLS Encapsulation actions...................................10 
   7.2. VPLS Learning actions........................................11 
   8. Data Forwarding on an Ethernet VLAN PW.........................12 
   8.1. VPLS Encapsulation actions...................................12 
   9. Operation of a VPLS............................................13 
   9.1. MAC Address Aging............................................14 
   10. A Hierarchical VPLS Model.....................................14 
   10.1. Hierarchical connectivity...................................15 
   10.1.1. Spoke connectivity for bridging-capable devices...........15 
   10.1.2. Advantages of spoke connectivity..........................17 
   10.1.3. Spoke connectivity for non-bridging devices...............17 
   10.2. Redundant Spoke Connections.................................19 
   10.2.1. Dual-homed MTU-s..........................................19 
   10.2.2. Failure detection and recovery............................20 
   10.3. Multi-domain VPLS service...................................21 
   11. Hierarchical VPLS model using Ethernet Access Network.........21 
   11.1. Scalability.................................................22 
   11.2. Dual Homing and Failure Recovery............................22 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 2] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
   12. Contributors..................................................22 
   13. Acknowledgments...............................................23 
   14. Security Considerations.......................................23 
   15. IANA Considerations...........................................24 
   16. References....................................................24 
   16.1. Normative References........................................24 
   16.2. Informative References......................................25 
   17. Appendix: VPLS Signaling using the PWid FEC Element...........25 
   18. Authors' Addresses............................................26 
    
3. Introduction 
   
  Ethernet has become the predominant technology for Local Area 
  Network (LAN) connectivity and is gaining acceptance as an access 
  technology, specifically in Metropolitan and Wide Area Networks 
  (MAN and WAN, respectively).  The primary motivation behind Virtual 
  Private LAN Services (VPLS) is to provide connectivity between 
  geographically dispersed customer sites across MANs and WANs, as if 
  they were connected using a LAN.  The intended application for the 
  end-user can be divided into the following two categories: 
   
  - Connectivity between customer routers: LAN routing application 
  - Connectivity between customer Ethernet switches: LAN switching 
  application 
   
  Broadcast and multicast services are available over traditional 
  LANs.  Sites that belong to the same broadcast domain and that are 
  connected via an MPLS network expect broadcast, multicast and 
  unicast traffic to be forwarded to the proper location(s).  This 
  requires MAC address learning/aging on a per pseudo-wire basis, 
  packet replication across pseudo-wires for multicast/broadcast 
  traffic and for flooding of unknown unicast destination traffic. 
   
  [RFC4448] defines how to carry Layer 2 (L2) frames over point-to-
  point pseudo-wires (PW).  This document describes extensions to 
  [RFC4447] for transporting Ethernet/802.3 and VLAN [802.1Q] traffic 
  across multiple sites that belong to the same L2 broadcast domain 
  or VPLS.  Note that the same model can be applied to other 802.1 
  technologies.  It describes a simple and scalable way to offer 
  Virtual LAN services, including the appropriate flooding of 
  broadcast, multicast and unknown unicast destination traffic over 
  MPLS, without the need for address resolution servers or other 
  external servers, as discussed in [L2VPN-REQ]. 
   
  The following discussion applies to devices that are VPLS capable 
  and have a means of tunneling labeled packets amongst each other.  
  The resulting set of interconnected devices forms a private MPLS 
  VPN. 
   
3.1. Terminology 
   
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 3] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  Q-in-Q                802.1ad Provider Bridge extensions also known 
                        as stackable VLANs or Q-in-Q. 
                 
  Qualified learning    Learning mode in which each customer VLAN is  
                        mapped to its own VPLS instance. 
   
  Service delimitor    Information used to identify a specific customer 
                       service instance. This is typically encoded in 
                       the encapsulation header of customer frames 
                       (e.g. VLAN Id). 
   
  Tagged frame          Frame with an 802.1Q VLAN identifier. 
   
  Unqualified learning  Learning mode where all the VLANs of a single  
                        customer are mapped to a single VPLS. 
   
  Untagged frame        Frame without an 802.1Q VLAN identifier 
   
3.2. Acronyms 
   
  AC            Attachment Circuit 
   
  BPDU          Bridge Protocol Data Unit 
   
  CE            Customer Edge device 
   
  FEC           Forwarding Equivalence Class 
   
  FIB           Forwarding Information Base 
   
  GRE           Generic Routing Encapsulation 
   
  IPsec         IP secutity 
   
  L2TP          Layer Two Tunneling Protocol 
   
  LAN           Local Area Network 
   
  LDP           Label Distribution Protocol 
   
  MTU-s         Multi-Tenant Unit switch 
   
  PE            Provider Edge device 
   
  PW            Pseudo-wire 
   
  STP           Spanning Tree Protocol 
   
  VLAN          Virtual LAN 
   
  VLAN tag      VLAN Identifier 
   

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 4] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
4. Topological Model for VPLS 
   
  An interface participating in a VPLS must be able to flood, 
  forward, and filter Ethernet frames.  Figure 1 below shows the 
  topological model of a VPLS.  The set of PE devices interconnected 
  via PWs appears as a single emulated LAN to customer X.  Each PE 
  will form remote MAC address to PW associations and associate 
  directly attached MAC addresses to local customer facing ports.  
  This is modeled on standard IEEE 802.1 MAC address learning. 
   
   
    +-----+                                              +-----+ 
    | CE1 +---+      ...........................     +---| CE2 | 
    +-----+   |      .                         .     |   +-----+ 
     Site 1   |   +----+                    +----+   |   Site 2 
              +---| PE |       Cloud        | PE |---+ 
                  +----+                    +----+ 
                     .                         . 
                     .         +----+          . 
                     ..........| PE |........... 
                               +----+         ^ 
                                 |            | 
                                 |            +-- Emulated LAN 
                               +-----+ 
                               | CE3 | 
                               +-----+ 
                               Site 3 
   
            Figure 1: Topological Model of a VPLS for Customer X 
                      With three sites 
   
   
  We note here again that while this document shows specific examples 
  using MPLS transport tunnels, other tunnels that can be used by PWs 
  (as mentioned in [RFC4447]), e.g., GRE, L2TP, IPsec, etc., can also 
  be used, as long as the originating PE can be identified, since 
  this is used in the MAC learning process. 
   
  The scope of the VPLS lies within the PEs in the service provider 
  network, highlighting the fact that apart from customer service 
  delineation, the form of access to a customer site is not relevant 
  to the VPLS [L2VPN-REQ].  In other words, the attachment circuit 
  (AC) connected to the customer could be a physical Ethernet port, a 
  logical (tagged) Ethernet port, an ATM PVC carrying Ethernet 
  frames, etc., or even an Ethernet PW. 
   
  The PE is typically an edge router capable of running the LDP 
  signaling protocol and/or routing protocols to set up PWs.  In 
  addition, it is capable of setting up transport tunnels to other 
  PEs and delivering traffic over PWs. 
   
4.1. Flooding and Forwarding 
   
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 5] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  One of attributes of an Ethernet service is that frames sent to 
  broadcast addresses and to unknown destination MAC addresses are 
  flooded to all ports.  To achieve flooding within the service 
  provider network, all unknown unicast, broadcast and multicast 
  frames are flooded over the corresponding PWs to all PE nodes 
  participating in the VPLS, as well as to all ACs. 
   
  Note that multicast frames are a special case and do not 
  necessarily have to be sent to all VPN members.  For simplicity, 
  the default approach of broadcasting multicast frames is used.   
   
  To forward a frame, a PE MUST be able to associate a destination 
  MAC address with a PW.  It is unreasonable and perhaps impossible 
  to require PEs to statically configure an association of every 
  possible destination MAC address with a PW.  Therefore, VPLS-
  capable PEs SHOULD have the capability to dynamically learn MAC 
  addresses on both ACs and PWs and to forward and replicate packets 
  across both ACs and PWs. 
   
4.2. Address Learning 
   
  Unlike BGP VPNs [BGP-VPN], reachability information is not 
  advertised and distributed via a control plane.  Reachability is 
  obtained by standard learning bridge functions in the data plane. 
   
  When a packet arrives on a PW, if the source MAC address is 
  unknown, it needs to be associated with the PW, so that outbound 
  packets to that MAC address can be delivered over the associated 
  PW.  Likewise, when a packet arrives on an AC, if the source MAC 
  address is unknown, it needs to be associated with the AC, so that 
  outbound packets to that MAC address can be delivered over the 
  associated AC. 
   
  Standard learning, filtering and forwarding actions, as defined in  
  [802.1D-ORIG], [802.1D-REV] and [802.1Q], are required when a PW or 
  AC state changes. 
   
4.3. Tunnel Topology 
   
  PE routers are assumed to have the capability to establish 
  transport tunnels.  Tunnels are set up between PEs to aggregate 
  traffic.  PWs are signaled to demultiplex encapsulated Ethernet 
  frames from multiple VPLS instances that traverse the transport 
  tunnels. 
   
  In an Ethernet L2VPN, it becomes the responsibility of the service 
  provider to create the loop free topology.  For the sake of 
  simplicity, we define that the topology of a VPLS is a full mesh of 
  PWs. 
   
4.4. Loop free VPLS 
   

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 6] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  If the topology of the VPLS is not restricted to a full mesh, then 
  it may be that for two PEs not directly connected via PWs, they 
  would have to use an intermediary PE to relay packets.  This 
  topology would require the use of some loop-breaking protocol, like 
  a spanning tree protocol. 
   
  Instead, a full mesh of PWs is established between PEs.  Since 
  every PE is now directly connected to every other PE in the VPLS 
  via a PW, there is no longer any need to relay packets, and we can 
  instantiate a simpler loop-breaking rule - the "split horizon" 
  rule: a PE MUST NOT forward traffic from one PW to another in the 
  same VPLS mesh. 
   
  Note that customers are allowed to run a Spanning Tree Protocol 
  (STP) (e.g., as defined in [802.1D-REV]), such as when a customer 
  has "back door" links used to provide redundancy in the case of a 
  failure within the VPLS.  In such a case, STP Bridge PDUs (BPDUs) 
  are simply tunneled through the provider cloud. 
   
5. Discovery 
   
  The capability to manually configure the addresses of the remote 
  PEs is REQUIRED.  However, the use of manual configuration is not 
  necessary if an auto-discovery procedure is used.  A number of 
  auto-discovery procedures are compatible with this document 
  ([RADIUS-DISC], [BGP-DISC]). 
   
6. Control Plane 
   
  This document describes the control plane functions of signaling of 
  PW labels.  Some foundational work in the area of support for 
  multi-homing is laid.  The extensions to provide multi-homing 
  support should work independently of the basic VPLS operation, and 
  are not described here. 
   
6.1. LDP Based Signaling of Demultiplexers 
   
  A full mesh of LDP sessions is used to establish the mesh of PWs.  
  The requirement for a full mesh of PWs may result in a large number 
  of targeted LDP sessions.  Section 8 discusses the option of 
  setting up hierarchical topologies in order to minimize the size of 
  the VPLS full mesh. 
   
  Once an LDP session has been formed between two PEs, all PWs 
  between these two PEs are signaled over this session. 
   
  In [RFC4447], two types of FECs are described, the PWid FEC Element 
  (FEC type 128) and the Generalized PWid FEC Element (FEC type 129).  
  The original FEC element used for VPLS was compatible with the PWid 
  FEC Element.  The text for signaling using PWid FEC Element has 
  been moved to Appendix 1.  What we describe below replaces that 
  with a more generalized L2VPN descriptor, the Generalized PWid FEC 
  Element. 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 7] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
   
6.1.1. Using the Generalized PWid FEC Element 
   
  [RFC4447] describes a generalized FEC structure that is be used for 
  VPLS signaling in the following manner.  We describe the assignment 
  of the Generalized PWid FEC Element fields in the context of VPLS 
  signaling. 
   
  Control bit (C): This bit is used to signal the use of the control 
  word as specified in [RFC4447]. 
   
  PW type: The allowed PW types are Ethernet (0x0005) and Ethernet 
  tagged mode (0x004) as specified in [IANA]. 
   
  PW info length: As specified in [RFC4447]. 
   
  Attachment Group Identifier (AGI), Length, Value: The unique name 
  of this VPLS.  The AGI identifies a type of name, Length denotes 
  the length of Value, which is the name of the VPLS.  We use the 
  term AGI interchangeably with VPLS identifier. 
   
  Target Attachment Individual Identifier (TAII), Source Attachment 
  Individual Identifier (SAII): These are null because the mesh of 
  PWs in a VPLS terminate on MAC learning tables, rather than on 
  individual attachment circuits.  The use of non-null TAII and SAII 
  is reserved for future enhancements. 
   
  Interface Parameters: The relevant interface parameters are: 
   
     - MTU: the MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) of the VPLS MUST be 
        the same across all the PWs in the mesh. 
   
     - Optional Description String: same as [RFC4447]. 
   
     - Requested VLAN ID: If the PW type is Ethernet tagged mode, 
        this parameter may be used to signal the insertion of the 
        appropriate VLAN ID, as defined in [RFC4448]. 
   
6.2. MAC Address Withdrawal 
   
  It MAY be desirable to remove or unlearn MAC addresses that have 
  been dynamically learned for faster convergence.  This is 
  accomplished by sending an LDP Address Withdraw Message with the 
  list of MAC addresses to be removed to all other PEs over the 
  corresponding LDP sessions. 
   
  We introduce an optional MAC List TLV in LDP to specify a list of 
  MAC addresses that can be removed or unlearned using the LDP 
  Address Withdraw Message. 
   
  The Address Withdraw message with MAC List TLVs MAY be supported in 
  order to expedite removal of MAC addresses as the result of a 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 8] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  topology change (e.g., failure of the primary link for a dual-homed 
  VPLS-capable switch). 
   
  In order to minimize the impact on LDP convergence time, when the 
  MAC list TLV contains a large number of MAC addresses, it may be 
  preferable to send a MAC address withdrawal message with an empty 
  list. 
   
6.2.1. MAC List TLV 
   
  MAC addresses to be unlearned can be signaled using an LDP Address 
  Withdraw Message that contains a new TLV, the MAC List TLV.  Its 
  format is described below.  The encoding of a MAC List TLV address 
  is the 6-octet MAC address specified by IEEE 802 documents [g-ORIG] 
  [802.1D-REV]. 
   
   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 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |U|F|       Type                |            Length             | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |                      MAC address #1                           | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |        MAC address #1         |      MAC Address #2           | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |                      MAC address #2                           | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  ~                              ...                              ~ 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |                      MAC address #n                           | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |        MAC address #n         | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   
  U bit: Unknown bit.  This bit MUST be set to 1.  If the MAC address 
  format is not understood, then the TLV is not understood, and MUST 
  be ignored. 
   
  F bit: Forward bit.  This bit MUST be set to 0.  Since the LDP 
  mechanism used here is targeted, the TLV MUST NOT be forwarded. 
   
  Type: Type field.  This field MUST be set to 0x0404 (subject to 
  IANA approval).  This identifies the TLV type as MAC List TLV. 
   
  Length: Length field.  This field specifies the total length in 
  octets of the MAC addresses in the TLV.  The length MUST be a 
  multiple of 6. 
   
  MAC Address: The MAC address(es) being removed. 
   
  The MAC Address Withdraw Message contains a FEC TLV (to identify 
  the VPLS affected), a MAC Address TLV and optional parameters.  No 
  optional parameters have been defined for the MAC Address Withdraw 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                            [Page 9] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  signaling.  Note that if a PE receives a MAC Address Withdraw 
  Message and does not understand it, it MUST ignore the message.  In 
  this case, instead of flushing its MAC address table, it will 
  continue to use stale information, unless: 
   
     - it receives a packet with a known MAC address association, 
        but from a different PW, in which case it replaces the old 
        association, or 
     - it ages out the old association 
   
  The MAC Address Withdraw message only helps to speed up 
  convergence, so PEs that do not understand the message can continue 
  to participate in the VPLS. 
   
6.2.2. Address Withdraw Message Containing MAC List TLV 
   
  The processing for MAC List TLV received in an Address Withdraw 
  Message is: 
   
  For each MAC address in the TLV: 
     - Remove the association between the MAC address and the AC or 
        PW over which this message is received 
   
  For a MAC Address Withdraw message with empty list: 
     - Remove all the MAC addresses associated with the VPLS 
        instance  (specified by the FEC TLV) except the MAC addresses 
        learned over the PW associated with this signaling session 
        over which the message was received 
   
  The scope of a MAC List TLV is the VPLS specified in the FEC TLV in 
  the MAC Address Withdraw Message.  The number of MAC addresses can 
  be deduced from the length field in the TLV. 
   
7. Data Forwarding on an Ethernet PW 
   
  This section describes the data plane behavior on an Ethernet  
  PW used in a VPLS.  While the encapsulation is similar to that 
  described in [RFC4448], the functions of stripping the service-
  delimiting tag and using a "normalized" Ethernet frame are 
  described. 
   
7.1. VPLS Encapsulation actions 
   
  In a VPLS, a customer Ethernet frame without preamble is 
  encapsulated with a header as defined in [RFC4448].  A customer 
  Ethernet frame is defined as follows: 
   
     - If the frame, as it arrives at the PE, has an encapsulation 
        that is used by the local PE as a service delimiter, i.e., to 
        identify the customer and/or the particular service of that 
        customer, then that encapsulation may be stripped before the 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 10] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
        frame is sent into the VPLS.  As the frame exits the VPLS, 
        the frame may have a service-delimiting encapsulation 
        inserted. 
   
     - If the frame, as it arrives at the PE, has an encapsulation 
        that is not service delimiting, then it is a customer frame 
        whose encapsulation should not be modified by the VPLS.  This 
        covers, for example, a frame that carries customer-specific 
        VLAN tags that the service provider neither knows about nor 
        wants to modify. 
   
  As an application of these rules, a customer frame may arrive at a 
  customer-facing port with a VLAN tag that identifies the customer's 
  VPLS instance.  That tag would be stripped before it is 
  encapsulated in the VPLS.  At egress, the frame may be tagged 
  again, if a service-delimiting tag is used, or it may be untagged 
  if none is used. 
   
  Likewise, if a customer frame arrives at a customer-facing port 
  over an ATM or Frame Relay VC that identifies the customer's VPLS 
  instance, then the ATM or FR encapsulation is removed before the 
  frame is passed into the VPLS. 
   
  Contrariwise, if a customer frame arrives at a customer-facing port 
  with a VLAN tag that identifies a VLAN domain in the customer L2 
  network, then the tag is not modified or stripped, as it belongs 
  with the rest of the customer frame. 
   
  By following the above rules, the Ethernet frame that traverses a 
  VPLS is always a customer Ethernet frame.  Note that the two 
  actions, at ingress and egress, of dealing with service delimiters 
  are local actions that neither PE has to signal to the other.  They 
  allow, for example, a mix-and-match of VLAN tagged and untagged 
  services at either end, and do not carry across a VPLS a VLAN tag 
  that has local significance only.  The service delimiter may be an 
  MPLS label also, whereby an Ethernet PW given by [RFC4448] can 
  serve as the access side connection into a PE.  An RFC1483 Bridged 
  PVC encapsulation could also serve as a service delimiter.  By 
  limiting the scope of locally significant encapsulations to the 
  edge, hierarchical VPLS models can be developed that provide the 
  capability to network-engineer scalable VPLS deployments, as 
  described below. 
   
7.2. VPLS Learning actions 
   
  Learning is done based on the customer Ethernet frame as defined 
  above.  The Forwarding Information Base (FIB) keeps track of the 
  mapping of customer Ethernet frame addressing and the appropriate 
  PW to use.  We define two modes of learning: qualified and 
  unqualified learning. Qualified learning is the default mode and 
  MUST be supported. Support of unqualified learning is OPTIONAL. 

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 11] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
   
  In unqualified learning, all the VLANs of a single customer are 
  handled by a single VPLS, which means they all share a single 
  broadcast domain and a single MAC address space.  This means that 
  MAC addresses need to be unique and non-overlapping among customer 
  VLANs or else they cannot be differentiated within the VPLS 
  instance and this can result in loss of customer frames.  An 
  application of unqualified learning is port-based VPLS service for 
  a given customer (e.g., customer with non-multiplexed AC where all 
  the traffic on a physical port, which may include multiple customer 
  VLANs, is mapped to a single VPLS instance). 
   
  In qualified learning, each customer VLAN is assigned to its own 
  VPLS instance, which means each customer VLAN has its own broadcast 
  domain and MAC address space.  Therefore, in qualified learning, 
  MAC addresses among customer VLANs may overlap with each other, but 
  they will be handled correctly since each customer VLAN has its own 
  FIB, i.e., each customer VLAN has its own MAC address space.  Since 
  VPLS broadcasts multicast frames by default, qualified learning 
  offers the advantage of limiting the broadcast scope to a given 
  customer VLAN.  Qualified learning can result in large FIB table 
  sizes, because the logical MAC address is now a VLAN tag + MAC 
  address. 
   
  For STP to work in qualified learning mode, a VPLS PE must be able 
  to forward STP BPDUs over the proper VPLS instance.  In a 
  hierarchical VPLS case (see details in Section 10), service 
  delimiting tags (Q-in-Q or [RFC4448]) can be added such that PEs 
  can unambiguously identify all customer traffic, including STP 
  BPDUs.  In a basic VPLS case, upstream switches must insert such 
  service delimiting tags.  When an access port is shared among 
  multiple customers, a reserved VLAN per customer domain must be 
  used to carry STP traffic.  The STP frames are encapsulated with a 
  unique provider tag per customer (as the regular customer traffic), 
  and a PEs looks up the provider tag to send such frames across the 
  proper VPLS instance. 
   
8. Data Forwarding on an Ethernet VLAN PW 
   
  This section describes the data plane behavior on an Ethernet VLAN 
  PW in a VPLS.  While the encapsulation is similar to that described 
  in [RFC4448], the functions of imposing tags and using a 
  "normalized" Ethernet frame are described.  The learning behavior 
  is the same as for Ethernet PWs. 
 
 
 
     
8.1. VPLS Encapsulation actions 
   
  In a VPLS, a customer Ethernet frame without preamble is 
  encapsulated with a header as defined in [RFC4448].  A customer 
  Ethernet frame is defined as follows: 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 12] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
   
     - If the frame, as it arrives at the PE, has an encapsulation 
        that is part of the customer frame, and is also used by the 
        local PE as a service delimiter, i.e., to identify the 
        customer and/or the particular service of that customer, then 
        that encapsulation is preserved as the frame is sent into the 
        VPLS, unless the Requested VLAN ID optional parameter was 
        signaled.  In that case, the VLAN tag is overwritten before 
        the frame is sent out on the PW. 
   
     - If the frame, as it arrives at the PE, has an encapsulation 
        that does not have the required VLAN tag, a null tag is 
        imposed if the Requested VLAN ID optional parameter was not 
        signaled. 
   
  As an application of these rules, a customer frame may arrive at a 
  customer-facing port with a VLAN tag that identifies the customer's 
  VPLS instance and also identifies a customer VLAN.  That tag would 
  be preserved as it is encapsulated in the VPLS. 
   
  The Ethernet VLAN PW provides a simple way to preserve customer 
  802.1p bits. 
   
  A VPLS MAY have both Ethernet and Ethernet VLAN PWs.  However, if a 
  PE is not able to support both PWs simultaneously, it SHOULD send a 
  Label Release on the PW messages that it cannot support with a 
  status code "Unknown FEC" as given in [RFC3036]. 
   
9. Operation of a VPLS 
   
  We show here, in Figure 2 below, an example of how a VPLS works.  
  The following discussion uses the figure below, where a VPLS has 
  been set up between PE1, PE2 and PE3.  The VPLS connects a customer 
  with 4 sites labeled A1, A2, A3 and A4 through CE1, CE2, CE3 and 
  CE4, respectively. 
   
  Initially, the VPLS is set up so that PE1, PE2 and PE3 have a full 
  mesh of Ethernet PWs.  The VPLS instance is assigned an identifier 
  (AGI).  For the above example, say PE1 signals PW label 102 to PE2 
  and 103 to PE3, and PE2 signals PW label 201 to PE1 and 203 to PE3. 
   










    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 13] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
                                                           ----- 
                                                          /  A1 \ 
             ----                                    ----CE1    | 
            /    \          --------       -------  /     |     | 
            | A2 CE2-      /        \     /       PE1     \     / 
            \    /   \    /          \---/         \       ----- 
             ----     ---PE2                        | 
                         | Service Provider Network | 
                          \          /   \         / 
                   -----  PE3       /     \       / 
                   |Agg|_/  --------       ------- 
                  -|   | 
           ----  / -----  ---- 
          /    \/    \   /    \             CE = Customer Edge Router 
          | A3 CE3    -CE4 A4 |             PE = Provider Edge Router 
          \    /         \    /             Agg = Layer 2 Aggregation 
           ----           ---- 
   
               Figure 2: Example of a VPLS 
   
  Assume a packet from A1 is bound for A2.  When it leaves CE1, say 
  it has a source MAC address of M1 and a destination MAC of M2.  If 
  PE1 does not know where M2 is, it will flood the packet, i.e., send 
  it to PE2 and PE3.  When PE2 receives the packet, it will have a PW 
  label of 201.  PE2 can conclude that the source MAC address M1 is 
  behind PE1, since it distributed the label 201 to PE1.  It can 
  therefore associate MAC address M1 with PW label 102. 
   
9.1. MAC Address Aging 
   
  PEs that learn remote MAC addresses SHOULD have an aging mechanism 
  to remove unused entries associated with a PW label.  This is 
  important both for conservation of memory as well as for 
  administrative purposes.  For example, if a customer site A is shut 
  down, eventually, the other PEs should unlearn A's MAC address. 
   
  The aging timer for MAC address M SHOULD be reset when a packet 
  with source MAC address M is received. 
   
10. A Hierarchical VPLS Model 
   
  The solution described above requires a full mesh of tunnel LSPs 
  between all the PE routers that participate in the VPLS service.   
  For each VPLS service, n*(n-1)/2 PWs must be setup between the PE 
  routers.  While this creates signaling overhead, the real detriment 
  to large scale deployment is the packet replication requirements 
  for each provisioned PWs on a PE router.  Hierarchical 
  connectivity, described in this document reduces signaling and 
  replication overhead to allow large scale deployment. 
   
  In many cases, service providers place smaller edge devices in 
  multi-tenant buildings and aggregate them into a PE in a large 
  Central Office (CO) facility.  In some instances, standard IEEE 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 14] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  802.1q (Dot 1Q) tagging techniques may be used to facilitate 
  mapping CE interfaces to VPLS access circuits at a PE. 
   
  It is often beneficial to extend the VPLS service tunneling 
  techniques into the access switch domain.  This can be accomplished 
  by treating the access device as a PE and provisioning PWs between 
  it and every other edge, as a basic VPLS.  An alternative is to 
  utilize [RFC4448] PWs or Q-in-Q logical interfaces between the 
  access device and selected VPLS enabled PE routers.  Q-in-Q 
  encapsulation is another form of L2 tunneling technique, which can 
  be used in conjunction with MPLS signaling as will be described 
  later.  The following two sections focus on this alternative 
  approach.  The VPLS core PWs (hub) are augmented with access PWs 
  (spoke) to form a two-tier hierarchical VPLS (H-VPLS). 
   
  Spoke PWs may be implemented using any L2 tunneling mechanism, 
  expanding the scope of the first tier to include non-bridging VPLS 
  PE routers.  The non-bridging PE router would extend a spoke PW 
  from a Layer-2 switch that connects to it, through the service core 
  network, to a bridging VPLS PE router supporting hub PWs.  We also 
  describe how VPLS-challenged nodes and low-end CEs without MPLS 
  capabilities may participate in a hierarchical VPLS. 
   
  For rest of this discussion we refer to a bridging capable access 
  device as MTU-s and a non-bridging capable PE as PE-r.  We refer to 
  a routing and bridging capable device as PE-rs. 
   
   
10.1. Hierarchical connectivity 
   
  This section describes the hub and spoke connectivity model and 
  describes the requirements of the bridging capable and non-bridging 
  MTU-s devices for supporting the spoke connections.   
   
10.1.1. Spoke connectivity for bridging-capable devices 
   
  In Figure 3 below, three customer sites are connected to an MTU-s 
  through CE-1, CE-2, and CE-3. The MTU-s has a single connection 
  (PW-1) to PE1-rs.  The PE-rs devices are connected in a basic VPLS 
  full mesh.  For each VPLS service, a single spoke PW is set up 
  between the MTU-s and the PE-rs based on [RFC4447].  Unlike 
  traditional PWs that terminate on a physical (or a VLAN-tagged 
  logical) port, a spoke PW terminates on a virtual switch instance 
  (VSI, see [L2FRAME]) on the MTU-s and the PE-rs devices. 
   








    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 15] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
                                                            PE2-rs 
                                                          +--------+ 
                                                          |        | 
                                                          |   --   | 
                                                          |  /  \  | 
      CE-1                                                |  \S /  | 
       \                                                  |   --   | 
        \                                                 +--------+ 
         \   MTU-s                          PE1-rs        /   | 
          +--------+                      +--------+     /    | 
          |        |                      |        |    /     | 
          |   --   |      PW-1            |   --   |---/      | 
          |  /  \--|- - - - - - - - - - - |  /  \  |          | 
          |  \S /  |                      |  \S /  |          | 
          |   --   |                      |   --   |---\      | 
          +--------+                      +--------+    \     | 
           /                                             \    | 
         ----                                             +--------+ 
        |Agg |                                            |        | 
         ----                                             |  --    | 
        /    \                                            | /  \   | 
       CE-2  CE-3                                         | \S /   | 
                                                          |  --    | 
                                                          +--------+ 
                                                            PE3-rs 
      Agg = Layer-2 Aggregation 
      -- 
     /  \ 
     \S / = Virtual Switch Instance 
      -- 
   
          Figure 3: An example of a hierarchical VPLS model 
   
  The MTU-s and the PE-rs treat each spoke connection like an AC of 
  the VPLS service.  The PW label is used to associate the traffic 
  from the spoke to a VPLS instance. 
   
10.1.1.1. MTU-s Operation 
   
  An MTU-s is defined as a device that supports layer-2 switching 
  functionality and does all the normal bridging functions of 
  learning and replication on all its ports, including the spoke, 
  which is treated as a virtual port.  Packets to unknown 
  destinations are replicated to all ports in the service including 
  the spoke.  Once the MAC address is learned, traffic between CE1 
  and CE2 will be switched locally by the MTU-s saving the capacity 
  of the spoke to the PE-rs.  Similarly traffic between CE1 or CE2 
  and any remote destination is switched directly on to the spoke and 
  sent to the PE-rs over the point-to-point PW. 
   
  Since the MTU-s is bridging capable, only a single PW is required 
  per VPLS instance for any number of access connections in the same 

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 16] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  VPLS service.  This further reduces the signaling overhead between 
  the MTU-s and PE-rs. 
   
  If the MTU-s is directly connected to the PE-rs, other 
  encapsulation techniques such as Q-in-Q can be used for the spoke. 
       
10.1.1.2. PE-rs Operation 
   
  A PE-rs is a device that supports all the bridging functions for 
  VPLS service and supports the routing and MPLS encapsulation, i.e., 
  it supports all the functions described for a basic VPLS as 
  described above. 
   
  The operation of PE-rs is independent of the type of device at the 
  other end of the spoke.  Thus, the spoke from the MTU-s is treated 
  as a virtual port and the PE-rs will switch traffic between the 
  spoke PW, hub PWs, and ACs once it has learned the MAC addresses. 
   
10.1.2. Advantages of spoke connectivity 
   
  Spoke connectivity offers several scaling and operational 
  advantages for creating large scale VPLS implementations, while 
  retaining the ability to offer all the functionality of the VPLS 
  service. 
     - Eliminates the need for a full mesh of tunnels and full mesh 
        of PWs per service between all devices participating in the 
        VPLS service. 
     - Minimizes signaling overhead since fewer PWs are required for 
        the VPLS service. 
     - Segments VPLS nodal discovery.  MTU-s needs to be aware of 
        only the PE-rs node although it is participating in the VPLS 
        service that spans multiple devices.  On the other hand, 
        every VPLS PE-rs must be aware of every other VPLS PE-rs and 
        all of its locally connected MTU-s and PE-r devices. 
     - Addition of other sites requires configuration of the new 
        MTU-s but does not require any provisioning of the existing 
        MTU-s devices on that service. 
     - Hierarchical connections can be used to create VPLS service 
        that spans multiple service provider domains.  This is 
        explained in a later section. 
   
  Note that as more devices participate in the VPLS, there are more 
  devices that require the capability for learning and replication. 
   
10.1.3. Spoke connectivity for non-bridging devices 
   
  In some cases, a bridging PE-rs may not be deployed, or a PE-r 
  might already have been deployed.  In this section, we explain how 
  a PE-r that does not support any of the VPLS bridging functionality 
  can participate in the VPLS service. 

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 17] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
   
  In Figure 4, three customer sites are connected through CE-1, CE-2 
  and CE-3 to the VPLS through PE-r. For every attachment circuit 
  that participates in the VPLS service, PE-r creates a point-to-
  point PW that terminates on the VSI of PE1-rs. 
   
                                                            PE2-rs 
                                                          +--------+ 
                                                          |        | 
                                                          |   --   | 
                                                          |  /  \  | 
      CE-1                                                |  \S /  | 
       \                                                  |   --   | 
        \                                                 +--------+ 
         \   PE-r                           PE1-rs        /   | 
          +--------+                      +--------+     /    | 
          |\       |                      |        |    /     | 
          | \      |      PW-1            |   --   |---/      | 
          |  ------|- - - - - - - - - - - |  /  \  |          | 
          |   -----|- - - - - - - - - - - |  \S /  |          | 
          |  /     |                      |   --   |---\      | 
          +--------+                      +--------+    \     | 
           /                                             \    | 
         ----                                            +--------+ 
        | Agg|                                           |        | 
         ----                                            |  --    | 
        /    \                                           | /  \   | 
       CE-2  CE-3                                        | \S /   | 
                                                         |  --    | 
                                                         +--------+ 
                                                           PE3-rs 
   
                  Figure 4: An example of a hierarchical VPLS 
                            with non-bridging spokes 
   
   
  The PE-r is defined as a device that supports routing but does not 
  support any bridging functions.  However, it is capable of setting 
  up PWs between itself and the PE-rs.  For every port that is 
  supported in the VPLS service, a PW is setup from the PE-r to the 
  PE-rs.  Once the PWs are setup, there is no learning or replication 
  function required on the part of the PE-r.  All traffic received on 
  any of the ACs is transmitted on the PW.  Similarly all traffic 
  received on a PW is transmitted to the AC where the PW terminates.  
  Thus traffic from CE1 destined for CE2 is switched at PE1-rs and 
  not at PE-r. 
   
  Note that in the case where PE-r devices use Provider VLANs (P-
  VLAN) as demultiplexers instead of PWs, PE1-rs can treat them as 
  such and map these "circuits" into a VPLS domain to provide 
  bridging support between them. 
   

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 18] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  This approach adds more overhead than the bridging capable (MTU-s) 
  spoke approach since a PW is required for every AC that 
  participates in the service versus a single PW required per service 
  (regardless of ACs) when an MTU-s is used.  However, this approach 
  offers the advantage of offering a VPLS service in conjunction with 
  a routed internet service without requiring the addition of new 
  MTU-s. 
   
10.2. Redundant Spoke Connections 
   
  An obvious weakness of the hub and spoke approach described thus 
  far is that the MTU-s has a single connection to the PE-rs.  In 
  case of failure of the connection or the PE-rs, the MTU-s suffers 
  total loss of connectivity. 
   
  In this section we describe how the redundant connections can be 
  provided to avoid total loss of connectivity from the MTU-s.  The 
  mechanism described is identical for both, MTU-s and PE-r devices. 
   
10.2.1. Dual-homed MTU-s 
   
  To protect from connection failure of the PW or the failure of the 
  PE-rs, the MTU-s or the PE-r is dual-homed into two PE-rs devices.  
  The PE-rs devices must be part of the same VPLS service instance. 
   
  In Figure 5, two customer sites are connected through CE-1 and CE-2 
  to an MTU-s. The MTU-s sets up two PWs (one each to PE1-rs and PE3-
  rs) for each VPLS instance.  One of the two PWs is designated as 
  primary and is the one that is actively used under normal 
  conditions, while the second PW is designated as secondary and is 
  held in a standby state.  The MTU-s negotiates the PW labels for 
  both the primary and secondary PWs, but does not use the secondary 
  PW unless the primary PW fails.  How a spoke is designated primary 
  or secondary is outside of the scope of this document.  For 
  example, a spanning tree instance running between only the MTU-s 
  and the two PE-rs nodes is one possible method.  Another method 
  could be configuration. 
















    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 19] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
                                                            PE2-rs 
                                                          +--------+ 
                                                          |        | 
                                                          |   --   | 
                                                          |  /  \  | 
      CE-1                                                |  \S /  | 
        \                                                 |   --   | 
         \                                                +--------+ 
          \  MTU-s                          PE1-rs        /   | 
          +--------+                      +--------+     /    | 
          |        |                      |        |    /     | 
          |   --   |   Primary PW         |   --   |---/      | 
          |  /  \  |- - - - - - - - - - - |  /  \  |          | 
          |  \S /  |                      |  \S /  |          | 
          |   --   |                      |   --   |---\      | 
          +--------+                      +--------+    \     | 
            /      \                                     \    | 
           /        \                                     +--------+ 
          /          \                                    |        | 
         CE-2         \                                   |  --    | 
                       \     Secondary PW                 | /  \   | 
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | \S /   | 
                                                          |  --    | 
                                                          +--------+ 
                                                            PE3-rs 
              Figure 5: An example of a dual-homed MTU-s 
   
10.2.2. Failure detection and recovery 
   
  The MTU-s should control the usage of the spokes to the PE-rs 
  devices.  If the spokes are PWs, then LDP signaling is used to 
  negotiate the PW labels, and the hello messages used for the LDP 
  session could be used to detect failure of the primary PW.  The use 
  of other mechanisms which could provide faster detection failures 
  is outside the scope of this document. 
   
  Upon failure of the primary PW, MTU-s immediately switches to the 
  secondary PW.  At this point the PE3-rs that terminates the 
  secondary PW starts learning MAC addresses on the spoke PW.  All 
  other PE-rs nodes in the network think that CE-1 and CE-2 are 
  behind PE1-rs and may continue to send traffic to PE1-rs until they 
  learn that the devices are now behind PE3-rs.  The unlearning 
  process can take a long time and may adversely affect the 
  connectivity of higher level protocols from CE1 and CE2.  To enable 
  faster convergence, the PE3-rs where the secondary PW got activated 
  may send out a flush message (as explained in section 4.2), using 
  the MAC List TLV as defined in Section 6, to all PE-rs nodes.  Upon 
  receiving the message, PE-rs nodes flush the MAC addresses 
  associated with that VPLS instance. 
   
   
   

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 20] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
10.3. Multi-domain VPLS service 
   
  Hierarchy can also be used to create a large scale VPLS service 
  within a single domain or a service that spans multiple domains 
  without requiring full mesh connectivity between all VPLS capable 
  devices.  Two fully meshed VPLS networks are connected together 
  using a single LSP tunnel between the VPLS "border" devices.  A 
  single spoke PW per VPLS service is set up to connect the two 
  domains together. 
   
  When more than two domains need to be connected, a full mesh of 
  inter-domain spokes is created between border PEs.  Forwarding 
  rules over this mesh are identical to the rules defined in section 
  5. 
   
  This creates a three-tier hierarchical model that consists of a 
  hub-and-spoke topology between MTU-s and PE-rs devices, a full-mesh 
  topology between PE-rs, and a full mesh of inter-domain spokes 
  between border PE-rs devices. 
   
  This document does not specify how redundant border PEs per domain 
  per VPLS instance can be supported. 
   
11. Hierarchical VPLS model using Ethernet Access Network 
   
  In this section the hierarchical model is expanded to include an 
  Ethernet access network.  This model retains the hierarchical 
  architecture discussed previously in that it leverages the full-
  mesh topology among PE-rs devices; however, no restriction is 
  imposed on the topology of the Ethernet access network (e.g., the 
  topology between MTU-s and PE-rs devices is not restricted to hub 
  and spoke). 
   
  The motivation for an Ethernet access network is that Ethernet-
  based networks are currently deployed by some service providers to 
  offer VPLS services to their customers.  Therefore, it is important 
  to provide a mechanism that allows these networks to integrate with 
  an IP or MPLS core to provide scalable VPLS services. 
   
  One approach of tunneling a customer's Ethernet traffic via an 
  Ethernet access network is to add an additional VLAN tag to the 
  customer's data (which may be either tagged or untagged).  The 
  additional tag is referred to as Provider's VLAN (P-VLAN).  Inside 
  the provider's network each P-VLAN designates a customer or more 
  specifically a VPLS instance for that customer.  Therefore, there 
  is a one-to-one correspondence between a P-VLAN and a VPLS 
  instance.  In this model, the MTU-s needs to have the capability of 
  adding the additional P-VLAN tag to non-multiplexed ACs where 
  customer VLANs are not used as service delimiters.  This 
  functionality is described in [802.1ad]. 
   
  If customer VLANs need to be treated as service delimiters (e.g., 
  the AC is a multiplexed port), then the MTU-s needs to have the 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 21] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  additional capability of translating a customer VLAN (C-VLAN) to a 
  P-VLAN, or push an additional P-VLAN tag, in order to resolve 
  overlapping VLAN tags used by different customers.  Therefore, the 
  MTU-s in this model can be considered as a typical bridge with this 
  additional capability.  This functionality is described in 
  [802.1ad]. 
   
  The PE-rs needs to be able to perform bridging functionality over 
  the standard Ethernet ports toward the access network as well as 
  over the PWs toward the network core.  In this model, the PE-rs may 
  need to run STP towards the access network, in addition to split-
  horizon over the MPLS core.  The PE-rs needs to map a P-VLAN to a 
  VPLS-instance and its associated PWs and vice versa. 
   
  The details regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs (e.g., 
  encapsulation format for Q-in-Q messages, customer's Ethernet 
  control protocol handling, etc.) are outside of the scope of this 
  document and they are covered in [802.1ad].  However, the relevant 
  part is the interaction between the bridge module and the MPLS/IP 
  PWs in the PE-rs, which behaves just as in a regular VPLS. 
   
11.1. Scalability 
   
  Since each P-VLAN corresponds to a VPLS instance, the total number 
  of VPLS instances supported is limited to 4K.  The P-VLAN serves as 
  a local service delimiter within the provider's network that is 
  stripped as it gets mapped to a PW in a VPLS instance.  Therefore, 
  the 4K limit applies only within an Ethernet access network 
  (Ethernet island) and not to the entire network.  The SP network 
  consists of a core MPLS/IP network that connects many Ethernet 
  islands.  Therefore, the number of VPLS instances can scale 
  accordingly with the number of Ethernet islands (a metro region can 
  be represented by one or more islands). 
   
11.2. Dual Homing and Failure Recovery 
   
  In this model, an MTU-s can be dual homed to different devices 
  (aggregators and/or PE-rs devices).  The failure protection for 
  access network nodes and links can be provided through running STP 
  in each island.  The STP of each island is independent from other 
  islands and do not interact with each other.  If an island has more 
  than one PE-rs, then a dedicated full-mesh of PWs is used among 
  these PE-rs devices for carrying the SP BPDU packets for that 
  island.  On a per P-VLAN basis, STP will designate a single PE-rs 
  to be used for carrying the traffic across the core.  The loop-free 
  protection through the core is performed using split-horizon and 
  the failure protection in the core is performed through standard 
  IP/MPLS re-routing. 
   
12. Contributors 
   
  Loa Andersson, TLA 
  Ron Haberman, Alcatel 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 22] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  Juha Heinanen, Independent 
  Giles Heron, Tellabs 
  Sunil Khandekar, Alcatel 
  Luca Martini, Cisco 
  Pascal Menezes, Independent  
  Rob Nath, Lucent  
  Eric Puetz, SBC  
  Vasile Radoaca, Independent  
  Ali Sajassi, Cisco  
  Yetik Serbest, SBC  
  Nick Slabakov, Juniper 
  Andrew Smith, Consultant 
  Tom Soon, SBC 
  Nick Tingle, Alcatel 
   
13. Acknowledgments 
   
  We wish to thank Joe Regan, Kireeti Kompella, Anoop Ghanwani, Joel 
  Halpern, Bill Hong, Rick Wilder, Jim Guichard, Steve Phillips, Norm 
  Finn, Matt Squire, Muneyoshi Suzuki, Waldemar Augustyn, Eric Rosen, 
  Yakov Rekhter, Sasha Vainshtein, and Du Wenhua for their valuable 
  feedback. 
   
  We would also like to thank Rajiv Papneja (ISOCORE), Winston Liu 
  (Ixia), and Charlie Hundall for identifying issues with the draft 
  in the course of the interoperability tests. 
   
  We would also like to thank Ina Minei, Bob Thomas, Eric Gray and 
  Dimitri Papadimitriou for their thorough technical review of the 
  document.  
   
14. Security Considerations 
   
  A more comprehensive description of the security issues involved in  
  L2VPNs is covered in [VPN-SEC].  An unguarded VPLS service is 
  vulnerable to some security issues which pose risks to the customer 
  and provider networks.  Most of the security issues can be avoided 
  through implementation of appropriate guards.  A couple of them can 
  be prevented through existing protocols. 
   
     - Data plane aspects 
          - Traffic isolation between VPLS domains is guaranteed by 
            the use of per VPLS L2 FIB table and the use of per VPLS 
            PWs 
          - The customer traffic, which consists of Ethernet frames, 
            is carried unchanged over VPLS.  If security is 
            required, the customer traffic SHOULD be encrypted 
            and/or authenticated before entering the service 
            provider network 



    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 23] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
          - Preventing broadcast storms can be achieved by using 
            routers as CPE devices or by rate policing the amount of 
            broadcast traffic that customers can send 
     - Control plane aspects 
          - LDP security (authentication) methods as described in 
            [RFC3036] SHOULD be applied.  This would prevent 
            unauthenticated messages from disrupting a PE in a VPLS 
     - Denial of service attacks 
          - Some means to limit the number of MAC addresses (per site 
            per VPLS) that a PE can learn SHOULD be implemented 
   
15. IANA Considerations 
   
  The type field in the MAC List TLV is defined as 0x404 in section 
  6.2.1 and is subject to IANA approval. 
   
16. References 
   
16.1. Normative References 
   
  [RFC4447] "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label 
  Distribution Protocol (LDP)", L. Martini, et al., April 2006. 
   
  [RFC4448] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over 
  MPLS Networks", L. Martini, et al., RFC 4448, April 2006. 
   
  [802.1D-ORIG] Original 802.1D - ISO/IEC 10038, ANSI/IEEE Std 
  802.1D-1993 "MAC Bridges". 
   
  [802.1D-REV] 802.1D - "Information technology - Telecommunications 
  and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan 
  area networks - Common specifications - Part 3: Media Access 
  Control (MAC) Bridges: Revision.  This is a revision of ISO/IEC 
  10038: 1993, 802.1j-1992 and 802.6k-1992.  It incorporates 
  P802.11c, P802.1p and P802.12e." ISO/IEC 15802-3: 1998. 
   
  [802.1Q] 802.1Q - ANSI/IEEE Draft Standard P802.1Q/D11, "IEEE 
  Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged 
  Local Area Networks", July 1998. 
   
  [RFC3036] "LDP Specification", L. Andersson, et al., RFC 3036, 
  January 2001. 
   
  [IANA] "IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation 
  (PWE3)" Martini,Townsley, draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-08.txt, 
  Work in progress, February 2005. 
   
  [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
   

    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 24] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
16.2. Informative References 
   
  [BGP-VPN] "BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt, Work 
  in Progress, October 2004. 
   
  [RADIUS-DISC] "Using Radius for PE-Based VPN Discovery", draft-
  ietf-l2vpn-radius-pe-discovery-01.txt, Work in Progress, February 
  2005. 
   
  [BGP-DISC] "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for Network-
  based VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-06.txt, Work in Progress, 
  June 2005. 
   
  [L2FRAME] "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks 
  (L2VPNs)", draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05, Work in Progress, June 
  2004. 
   
  [L2VPN-REQ] "Service Requirements for Layer-2 Provider Provisioned 
  Virtual Private  Networks", draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-04.txt, 
  Work in Progress, October 2005. 
   
  [VPN-SEC] "Security Framework for Provider Provisioned Virtual  
  Private Networks", draft-ietf-l3vpn-security-framework-03.txt, Work 
  in Progress, November 2004. 
   
  [802.1ad] "IEEE standard for Provider Bridges", Work in Progress,  
  December 2002. 
   
17. Appendix: VPLS Signaling using the PWid FEC Element 
   
  This section is being retained because live deployments use this 
  version of the signaling for VPLS. 
   
  The VPLS signaling information is carried in a Label Mapping 
  message sent in downstream unsolicited mode, which contains the 
  following PWid FEC TLV. 
   
  PW, C, PW Info Length, Group ID, Interface parameters are as 
  defined in [RFC4447]. 
   
   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 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |    PW TLV     |C|         PW Type             |PW info Length | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |                      Group ID                                 | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |                        PWID                                   | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |                       Interface parameters                    | 
  ~                                                               ~ 
  |                                                               | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 25] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
  We use the Ethernet PW type to identify PWs that carry Ethernet 
  traffic for multipoint connectivity. 
   
  In a VPLS, we use a VCID (which, when using the PWid FEC, has been 
  substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), to address 
  extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment.  
  Note that the VCID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service 
  identifier, identifying a service emulating a point-to-point 
  virtual circuit.  In a VPLS, the VCID is a single service 
  identifier, so it has global significance across all PEs involved 
  in the VPLS instance. 
   
18. Authors' Addresses 
   
  Marc Lasserre 
  Lucent Technologies 
  Email: mlasserre@lucent.com 
   
  Vach Kompella 
  Alcatel 
  Email: vach.kompella@alcatel.com 
   
IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement 
   
  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 
  Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 
  to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described 
  in this document or the extent to which any license under such 
  rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that 
  it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  
  Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC 
  documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 
   
  Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 
  assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 
  attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 
  of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 
  specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 
  at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 
   
  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 
  rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
  ipr@ietf.org. 
   
Copyright Notice 
   
  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is 
  subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 
  78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their 
  rights. 
   
    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 26] 
   
  Internet Draft  Virtual Private LAN Service over LDP       June 2006 
 
Disclaimer 
   
  This document and the information contained herein are provided on 
  an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 
  REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND 
  THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, 
  EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT 
  THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR 
  ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A 
  PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 











































    
  Lasserre, et al.                                           [Page 27]