Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements
Network Working Group F. Jounay, Ed.
Internet-Draft Orange CH
Category: Informational Y. Kamite, Ed.
Expires: December 20, 2014 NTT Communications
G. Heron
Cisco Systems
M. Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
June 20, 2014
Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires
over MPLS Packet Switched Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-10.txt
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements and a framework for
providing a Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire (PW) over MPLS Packet
Switched Networks. The requirements identified in this document are
related to architecture, signaling and maintenance aspects of Point-
to-Multipoint PW operation. They are proposed as guidelines for the
standardization of such mechanisms. Among other potential
applications, Point-to-Multipoint PWs can be used to optimize the
support of multicast layer 2 services (Virtual Private LAN Service
and Virtual Private Multicast Service).
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 December 20, 2014.
Jounay, et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
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
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.....................................................3
1.1. Problem Statement........................................... 3
1.2. Scope of this document...................................... 3
1.3. Conventions used in this document........................... 4
2. Definition...................................................... 4
2.1. Acronyms.................................................... 4
2.2. Terminology ................................................ 4
3. P2MP PW Requirements.............................................5
3.1. Reference Model............................................. 5
3.2. P2MP PW and Underlying Layer ............................... 7
3.3. P2MP PW Construction........................................ 9
3.4. P2MP PW Signaling Requirements.............................. 9
3.4.1. PW Identifier........................................... 9
3.4.2. PW type mismatch ....................................... 9
3.4.3. Interface Parameters sub-TLV............................ 9
3.4.4. Leaf Grafting/Pruning ..................................10
3.4.5. Failure Detection and Reporting.........................10
3.4.6. Protection and Restoration..............................11
3.4.7. Scalability.............................................12
4. Backward Compatibility..........................................12
5. Security Considerations.........................................13
6. IANA Considerations.............................................13
7. Contributing Authors............................................13
8. Acknowledgments.................................................14
9. References......................................................15
9.1. Normative References........................................15
9.2. Informative References......................................15
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem Statement
As defined in the pseudowire architecture [RFC3985], a Pseudowire
(PW) is a mechanism that emulates the essential attributes of a
telecommunications service (such as a T1 leased line or Frame Relay)
over an IP or MPLS Packet Switched Network. It provides a single
service which is perceived by its user as an unshared link or circuit
of the chosen service. A Pseudowire is used to transport layer 1 or
layer 2 traffic (e.g. Ethernet, TDM, ATM, and FR) over a layer 3 PSN.
Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) operates "edge to edge" to
provide the required connectivity between the two endpoints of the
PW.
The Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) topology described in
[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements] and required to provide P2MP
Layer2 VPN service can be achieved using one or more P2MP PWs.
The use of PW encapsulation enables P2MP services transporting layer1
or layer2 data. This could be achieved using a set of point to point
PWs, with traffic replication on the Provider Edge (PE), but at the
cost of bandwidth efficiency, as duplicate traffic would be carried
multiple times on shared links.
This document defines the requirements for a Point-to-Multipoint PW
(P2MP PW). A P2MP PW is a mechanism that emulates the essential
attributes of a P2MP telecommunications service such as a P2MP ATM
VC over a Packet Switch Networks.
The required functions of P2MP PWs include encapsulating
service-specific Protocol data Units (PDU) arriving at an ingress
Attachment Circuit (AC), and carrying them across a tunnel to one or
more egress ACs, managing their timing and order, and any other
operations required to emulate the behavior and characteristics of
the service as faithfully as possible.
1.2. Scope of this document
The document describes the general architecture of P2MP PW with
reference model, mentions the notion of data encapsulation, and
outlines specific requirements for the setup and maintenance of a
P2MP PW. In this document, the requirements focus on the Single-
Segment PW model. It is for further study how it should be realized
in Multi-Segment PW model. For other aspects of P2MP PW
implementation, such as packet processing (section 4) and
Faithfulness of Emulated Services (section 7), the document refers to
[RFC3916].
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
1.3. Conventions used in this document
Although this is a requirements specification not a protocol
specification, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted to apply to
protocol solutions designed to meet these requirements as described
in [RFC2119] .
2. Definition
2.1. Acronyms
P2P: Point-to-Point
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
PW: Pseudowire
PSN: Packet Switched Network
SS-PW: Single-Segment Pseudowire
MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire
2.2. Terminology
This document uses terminology described in [RFC5659]. It also
introduces additional terms needed in the context of P2MP PW.
P2MP PW, (also referred as PW Tree):
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire. A PW attached to a source
Customer Edge (CE) used to distribute Layer1 or Layer2 traffic
to a set of one or more receiver CEs. The P2MP PW is
unidirectional (i.e., carrying traffic from Root PE to Leaf
PEs), and optionally supports a return path.
P2MP SS-PW:
Point-to-Multipoint Single-Segment Pseudowire. A single
segment P2MP PW set up between the Root PE attached to the
source CE and the Leaf PEs attached to the receiver CEs. The
P2MP SS-PW uses P2MP Label Switched Paths (LSP) as PSN tunnels.
The requirements in this document is targeted for SS-PW model.
Application of MS-PW (Multi-segment PW) model [RFC5254] is out
of scope and left for future work.
Root PE:
P2MP PW Root Provider Edge. The PE attached to the traffic
source CE for the P2MP PW via an Attachment Circuit (AC).
Leaf PE:
P2MP PW Leaf Provider Edge. A PE attached to a set of one or
more traffic receiver CEs, via ACs. The Leaf PE replicates
traffic to the CEs based on its Forwarder function [RFC3985].
P2MP PSN Tunnel:
In the P2MP SS-PW topology, The PSN Tunnel is a general term
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
indicating a virtual P2MP connection between the Root PE and
the Leaf PEs. A P2MP tunnel may potentially carry multiple
P2MP PWs inside (aggregation). This document uses terminology
from the document describing the MPLS multicast architecture
[RFC5332] for MPLS PSN.
3. P2MP PW Requirements
3.1. Reference Model
As per the definition of [RFC3985], a pseudowire (PW) both originates
and terminates on the edge of the same packet switched network (PSN).
The PW label is unchanged between the originating and terminating
Provider Edges (PEs). This is also known as a single-segment
pseudowire (SS-PW), as the most fundamental network model of PWE3.
P2MP PW can be defined as Point-to-Multipoint connectivity from a
Root PE connected to a traffic source CE to one or more Leaf PEs
connected to traffic receiver CEs. It is considered to be an
extended architecture of the existing unicast-based SS-PW technology.
Figure 1 describes the P2MP reference model which is derived from
[RFC3985] to support P2MP emulated services.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
|<-------------P2MP PW------------->|
Native | | Native
ROOT Service | |<----P2MP PSN tunnel --->| | Service LEAF
V (AC) V V V V (AC) V
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ |
| |PE1 | | P |=========|PE2 |AC2 | +----+
| | | | ......PW1.......>|---------->|CE2 |
| | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+ |
+----+ | AC1 | | | . |=========|PE3 |AC3 | +----+
|CE1 |-------->|........PW1.............PW1.......>|---------->|CE3 |
+----+ | | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+AC4 | +----+
| | | | . |=========|PE4 |---------->|CE4 |
| | | | ......PW1.......>| | +----+
| | | | |=========| |AC5 | +----+
| | | | | | |---------->|CE5 |
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ | +----+
Figure 1 P2MP PW Reference Model
This architecture applies to the case where a P2MP PSN tunnel extends
between edge nodes of a single PSN domain to transport a
unidirectional P2MP PW with endpoints at these edge nodes. In this
model a single copy of each PW packet is sent over the PW on the P2MP
PSN tunnel and is received by all Leaf PEs due to the P2MP nature of
the PSN tunnel. The P2MP PW SHOULD be traffic optimized, i.e., only
one copy of a P2MP PW packet or PSN tunnel (underlying layer) is sent
on any single link along the P2MP path. P routers participate in P2MP
PSN tunnel operation but not in the signaling of P2MP PWs.
The Reference Model outlines the basic pieces of a P2MP PW. However,
several levels of replication needs to be considered when designing a
P2MP PW solution:
- Ingress PE replication to CEs: traffic is replicated to a set of
local receiver CEs
- P router replication in the core: traffic replicated by means of
P2MP PSN tunnel (P2MP LSP)
- Egress PE replication to CEs: traffic replicated to local receiver
CEs
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
Theoretically, it is also possible to consider Ingress PE replication
in the core; that is, all traffic is replicated to a set of P2P PSN
transport tunnels at ingress, not using P router replication at all.
However, this approach may easily lead to more than one-stream
bandwidth consumption at a single link, particularly if the PSN
tunnels logically go over the same physical link. Hence this
approach is not preferred.
Specific operations that MUST be performed at the PE on the native
data units are not described here since the required pre-processing
(Forwarder (FWRD) and Native Service Processing (NSP)) defined in
section 4.2 of [RFC3985] are also applicable to P2MP PW.
P2MP PWs are generally unidirectional, but a Root PE may need to
receive unidirectional P2P return traffic from any Leaf PE. For that
purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY support an optional return path from
each Leaf PE to Root PE.
3.2. P2MP PW and Underlying Layer
The definition of MPLS multicast encapsulation [RFC5332] specifies
the procedure to carry MPLS packets that are to be replicated and a
copy of the packet sent to each of the specified next hops. This
notion is also applicable to P2MP PW (as a MPLS) packet carried by a
P2MP PSN tunnel.
To be more precise, a P2MP PSN tunnel corresponds to a "point-to-
multipoint data link or tunnel" described in [RFC5332] Section 3.
Similarly, P2MP PW labels correspond to "the top labels (before
applying the data link or tunnel encapsulation) of all MPLS packets
that are transmitted on a particular point-to-multipoint data link or
tunnel."
In P2MP PW architecture, PW label with PW-PDU [RFC3985] is replicated
by underlying P2MP PSN tunnel layer in SS-PW network model. In other
words, it is intended to utilize PSN technology designed for
efficient multicast/broadcast transport. Note that PW label is
unchanged and hidden in switching by transit P routers as long as the
model of SS-PW is taken.
In a solution, a P2MP PW MUST be supported over a single P2MP PSN
tunnel as underlying layer of traffic distribution. Figure 2 gives
an example of P2MP PW topology relying on a single P2MP LSP. The
PW tree is composed of one Root PE (i1) and several Leaf PEs (e1, e2,
e3, e4).
The mechanisms for establishing the PSN tunnel are outside the scope
of this document, as long as they enable the essential attributes of
the service to be emulated.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
i1
/
/ \
/ \
/ \
/\ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ / \
e1 e2 e3 e4
Figure 2 Example of P2MP Underlying Layer for P2MP PW
A single P2MP PSN tunnel MUST be able to serve more than one P2MP PW
traffic in an aggregated way, i.e., multiplexing.
A P2MP PW solution MAY support different P2MP PSN tunneling
technology (e.g., MPLS over GRE [RFC4023], or P2MP MPLS LSP) or
different setup protocols. (e.g., MLDP [RFC6388], and P2MP RSVP-TE
[RFC4875]).
The P2MP LSP associated to the P2MP PW can be selected either by user
configuration or by dynamically using a multiplexing/demultiplexing
mechanism.
The P2MP PW multiplexing SHOULD be used based on the overlap rate
between P2MP LSP and P2MP PW. As an example, an existing P2MP LSP
may attach more leaves than the ones defined as Leaf PEs for a given
P2MP PW. It may be attractive to reuse it to minimize new
configuration, but using this P2MP LSP would imply non-
Leaf PEs (i.e. not part of the P2MP PW) to receive unwanted traffic.
Note: no special configuration is needed for non-Leaf PEs to drop
those unwanted traffic because they do not have forwarding
information entry unless they process corresponding P2MP PWs set-up
operation (e.g. signaling).
The operator SHOULD determine whether the P2MP PW can accept
partially multiplexing with P2MP LSP, and a minimum congruency rate
may be defined. The Root PE can determine whether P2MP PW can
multiplex to a P2MP LSP according to the congruency rate. The
congruency rate SHOULD take into account several items, such as:
- the amount of overlap between the number of Leaf PEs of P2MP PW
and existing egress PE routers of a P2MP LSP. If there is a
complete overlap, the congruency is perfect and the rate is 100%.
- at the expense of the additional traffic (e.g. other VPNs)
supported over the P2MP LSP.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
With this procedure a P2MP PW is nested within a P2MP LSP. This
allows multiplexing several PWs over a common P2MP LSP. Prior to the
P2MP PW signaling phase, the Root PE determines which P2MP LSP will
be used for this P2MP PW. The PSN Tunnel can be an existing PSN
tunnel or the Root PE can create a new P2MP PSN tunnel. In addition,
if ideal congruency rate is desired, if the P2MP PW has one or more
extra leaf nodes that are not covered by the existing P2MP LSP, the
P2MP LSP SHOULD be modified or re-created to cover them.
3.3. P2MP PW Construction
[RFC5332] introduces two approaches to assign MPLS label (meaning PW
label in P2MP PW context): Upstream-Assigned[RFC5331] and
Downstream-Assigned. However, it is out of scope of this document
which one should be used in PW construction. It is left to the
specification of the solution work.
The following requirements apply to the establishment of P2MP PWs:
- PE nodes MUST be configurable with the P2MP PW identifiers and
ACs.
- A discovery mechanism SHOULD allow the Root PE to discover the
Leaf PEs, or vice versa.
- Solutions SHOULD allow single-sided operation at the Root PE for
the selection of some AC(s) at the Leaf PE(s) to be attached to
the PW tree so that the Root PE controls the Leaf attachment.
The Root PE SHOULD support a method to be informed about whether a
Leaf PE has successfully attached to the PW tree.
3.4. P2MP PW Signaling Requirements
3.4.1. P2MP PW Identifier
The P2MP PW MUST be uniquely identified. This unique P2MP PW
identifier MUST be used for all signaling procedures related to this
PW (PW setup, Monitoring, etc).
3.4.2. PW type mismatch
The Root PE and Leaf PEs of a P2MP PW MUST be configured with the
same PW type as defined in [RFC4446] for P2P PW. In case of a
different type, a PE SHOULD abort attempts to attach the Leaf PE to
the P2MP PW.
3.4.3. Interface Parameters sub-TLV
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
Some interface parameters [RFC4446] related to the AC capability have
been defined according to the PW type and are signaled during the PW
setup.
Where applicable, a solution is REQUIRED to ascertain whether the AC
at the Leaf PE is capable of supporting traffic coming from the AC at
the Root PE.
In case of a mismatch, the passive PE (Root or Leaf PE, depending on
the signaling process) SHOULD support mechanisms to reject attempts
to attach the Leaf PE to the P2MP PW.
3.4.4. Leaf Grafting/Pruning
Once the PW tree is established, the solution MUST allow the addition
or removal of a Leaf PE, or a subset of leaves to/from the existing
tree, without any impact on the PW tree (data and control planes) for
the remaining Leaf PEs.
The addition or removal of a Leaf PE MUST also allow the P2MP PSN
tunnel to be updated accordingly. This may cause the P2MP PSN tunnel
to add or remove the corresponding Leaf PE.
3.4.5. Failure Detection and Reporting
Since the underlying layer has an End-to-End P2MP topology between
the Root PE and the Leaf PEs, the failure reporting and processing
procedures are implemented only on the edge nodes.
Failure events may cause one or more Leaf PEs to become detached from
the PW tree. These events MUST be reported to the Root PE, using
appropriate out-of-band or inband Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) messages for monitoring.
It MUST be possible for the operator to choose the out-of-band or
inband Monitoring tools or both to monitor the Leaf PE status.
The solution SHOULD allow the Root PE to be informed of Leaf PEs
failure for management purposes.
Based on these failure notifications, solutions MUST allow the Root
PE to update the remaining leaves of the PW tree.
- A solution MUST support in-band status notification mechanism
to detect failures:
unidirectional point-to-multipoint traffic failure. This MUST
be realized by enhancing existing unicast PW methods, such as VCCV
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
for seamless and familiar operation defined in [RFC5085].
- In case of failure, it MUST correctly report which Leaf PEs are
affected. This MUST be realized by enhancing existing PW
methods, such as LDP Status Notification. The notification
message SHOULD include the type of fault (P2MP PW, AC or PSN
tunnel).
- A Leaf PE MAY be notified of the status of the Root PE's AC.
- A solution MUST support OAM message mapping [RFC6310] at the
Root PE and Leaf PE if a failure is detected on the source CE.
3.4.6. Protection and Restoration
It is assumed that if recovery procedures are required, the P2MP PSN
tunnel will support standard MPLS-based recovery techniques
(typically based on RSVP-TE). In that case a mechanism SHOULD be
implemented to avoid race conditions between recovery at the PSN
level and recovery at the PW level.
An alternative protection scheme MAY rely on the PW layer.
Leaf PEs MAY be protected via a P2MP PW redundancy mechanism. In the
example depicted below, a standby P2MP PW is used to protect the
active P2MP PW. In that protection scheme the AC at the Root PE MUST
serve both P2MP PWs. In this scenario, the condition when to do the
switchover SHOULD be implemented, e.g. one or all Leaf failure of
active P2MP PW will trigger the whole P2MP PW's switchover.
CE1
|
ROOT active PE1 standby
P2MP PW .../ \....P2MP PW
/ \
P2 P3
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
LEAF PE4 PE5 PE6 PE7
| | | |
| \ / |
\ CE2 /
\ /
------CE3-----
Figure 3: Example of P2MP PW redundancy for protecting Leaf PEs
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
Note that some of the nodes/links in this figure can be physically
shared, which depends on the service provider policy of network
redundancy.
The Root PE MAY be protected via a P2MP PW redundancy mechanism. In
the example depicted below, a standby P2MP PW is used to protect the
active P2MP. A single AC at the Leaf PE MUST be used to attach the
CE to the primary and the standby P2MP PW. The Leaf PE MUST support
protection mechanisms in order to select the active P2MP PW.
CE1
/ \
| |
ROOT active PE1 PE2 standby
P2MP PW1 | | P2MP PW2
| |
P2 P3
/ \/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
LEAF PE4 PE5
| |
CE2 CE3
Figure 4: Example of P2MP PW redundancy for protecting Root PEs
3.4.7. Scalability
The solution SHOULD scale at worst linearly for message size, memory
requirements, and processing requirements, with the number of
Leaf PEs.
Increasing the number of P2MP PWs between a Root PE and a given set
of Leaf PEs SHOULD NOT cause the P router to increase the number of
entries in its forwarding table by the same or greater proportion.
Multiplexing P2MP PWs to P2MP PSN Tunnels achieves this.
4. Backward Compatibility
Solutions MUST be backward compatible with current PW standards.
Solutions SHOULD utilize existing capability advertisement and
negotiation procedures for the PEs implementing P2MP PW endpoints.
The implementation of OAM mechanisms also implies the advertisement
of PE capabilities to support specific OAM features.
The solution MAY allow advertising P2MP PW OAM capabiltities.
A solution MUST NOT allow a P2MP PW to be established
to PEs that do not support P2MP PW functionality. It MUST have a
mechanism to report an error for incompatible PEs.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
In some cases, upstream traffic is needed from downstream CEs to
upstream CEs. The P2MP PW solution SHOULD allow a return path (i.e.
from the Leaf to the Root) that provides upstream connectivity.
In particular, the same ACs MAY be shared between downstream and
upstream directions. For downstream, a CE receives traffic
originated by the Root PE over its AC. For upstream, the CE MAY also
send traffic destined to the same Root PE over the same AC.
5. Security Considerations
The security requirements common to PW are raised in Section 10 of
[RFC3916]. P2MP PW is a variant of the initial P2P PW definition,
and those requirements also apply to P2MP PW. The security
considerations from [RFC5920], [RFC3985] and [RFC6941] also apply
respectively to IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP deployment scenario.
Some issues specifically due to P2MP topology MUST be addressed in
the definition of the solution:
- The solution SHOULD provide means to guarantee the traffic delivery
to receivers (Integrity, Confidentially)
- The solution SHOULD support means to protect the P2MP PW as a whole
against attacks that would lead to any kind of denial-of-service.
Specifically, it would be desirable to consider safeguard mechanisms
to avoid any negative impact on the whole PW Tree under the attack
against its particular receiver(s). Considerations about both control
plane and data plane are necessary.
6.IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA action.
7. Contributing Authors
Philippe Niger
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
Email: philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112
EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
Lei Wang
Telenor
Snaroyveien 30
Fornebu 1331
Norway
Email: lei.wang@telenor.com
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Simon Delord
Telstra
380 Flinders lane. Melbourne
Email: simon.delord@gmail.com
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent France
Route de Villejust
91620 Nozay
France
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr
Lizhong Jin
ZTE Corporation
889, Bibo Road
Shanghai, 201203, China
Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com
8. Acknowledgments
The authors thank the following people: the authors of [RFC4461]
since the structure and content of this document were, for some
sections, largely inspired by [RFC4461], JL Le Roux and A. Cauvin
for the discussions, comments and support, Adrian Farrel for
his Routing Area Director review, and IESG reviewers.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC3916] Xiao, X., McPherson, D., and P. Pate, "Requirements for
Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 3916,
September 2004.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
October 2009.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
[RFC6310] Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Martini, L., Morrow, M.,
Nadeau, T., and Y(J). Stein, "Pseudowire (PW) Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping",
RFC 6310, July 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]
Kamite, Y., Jounay, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D.,
and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual
Private Multicast Service (VPMS)", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-
frmwk-requirements-05 (work in progress), October 2012.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC
4023, March 2005.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC5254] Bitar, N., Bocci, M., and L. Martini, "Requirements for
Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)",
RFC 5254, October 2008.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC
5331, August 2008.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6941] Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., Graveman, R.,
"MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security Framework",
RFC 6941, April 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Frederic Jounay (editor)
Orange CH
4 rue caudray 1020 Renens
Switzerland
Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch
Yuji Kamite (editor)
NTT Communications Corporation
Granpark Tower
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet Draft P2MP PW Requirements June 2014
Giles Heron
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9 New Square
Bedfont Lakes
Feltham
Middlesex
TW14 8HA
United Kingdom
Email: giheron@cisco.com
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent Telecom Ltd
Voyager Place
Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead
Berks
United Kingdom
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before
November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in
some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the
right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF
Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the
person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,
and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC
or to translate it into languages other than English.
Jounay et al. Expires December 20, 2014 [Page 17]
