Internet DRAFT - draft-jiang-l2vpn-etree-bgp
draft-jiang-l2vpn-etree-bgp
Internet Working Group Y. Jiang
L. Yong
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track M. Paul
Deutsche Telekom
F. Jounay
Orange CH
F. Balus
W. Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
A. Sajassi
Cisco
Expires: August 2012 February 29, 2012
E-Tree Support in VPLS with BGP Signaling
draft-jiang-l2vpn-etree-bgp-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2012.
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft E-Tree in BGP February 2012
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Abstract
This document describes the extension to BGP signaling for the E-Tree
support in BGP VPLS when the dual-VLAN model is used as in [Vpls-
etree]. The BGP VPLS messages and their procedures remain almost the
same as in [RFC4761], only a new extended community for E-Tree is
proposed.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................. 2
2. Conventions used in this document ......................... 3
3. Terminology ............................................... 3
4. BGP Extensions for E-Tree Support ......................... 3
5. Security Considerations ................................... 5
6. IANA Considerations ....................................... 5
7. References ................................................ 5
7.1. Normative References ................................... 5
8. Acknowledgments ........................................... 6
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 7
1. Introduction
Dual-VLAN can be used to support generic E-Tree services both in the
Ethernet and in the VPLS. The solution proposed in [Vpls-etree] is
fully compatible with the IEEE bridge architecture and the IETF PWE3
technology, and VPLS scalability and simplicity is also well kept.
With this mechanism, it is also convenient to deploy a converged E-
Tree service across both Ethernet and MPLS networks.
LDP signaling of E-Tree support in a PW is specified in Section 6 of
[Vpls-etree], it can also be used together with BGP auto-discovery
[RFC6074].
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft E-Tree in BGP February 2012
This document further describes the BGP signaling extension to BGP
VPLS for the E-Tree support and its processing procedures.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Terminology
E-Tree: a Rooted-Multipoint EVC service according to the definition
in MEF
Root VLAN, a VLAN ID used to indicate all the frames that are
originated at a root AC
Leaf VLAN, a VLAN ID used to indicate all the frames that are
originated at a leaf AC
4. BGP Extensions for E-Tree Support
In the dual-VLAN VPLS PE model per [Vpls-etree], the PEs need to
exchange their local VLANs when PW is set up by automatic signaling.
A new E-Tree extended community is proposed for E-Tree signaling in
BGP VPLS:
+------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Root VLAN (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Leaf VLAN (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+
| Reserved |P|
+------------------------------------+
Figure 1 E-Tree Extended Community
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft E-Tree in BGP February 2012
Where:
o Root VLAN ID is the value of the local root VLAN.
o Leaf VLAN ID is the value of the local leaf VLAN.
o Reserved, 15 bits MUST be set to zero on transmit and be ignored
on receive.
o P is a Leaf-only bit, it is set to 1 to indicate that the PE is
attached with only leaves, and set to 0 otherwise.
The PEs attached with both leaves and roots must support BGP E-Tree
signaling as described in this document, and must support VLAN
mapping in their data planes. The traditional PE attached with only
roots may also participate in an E-Tree.
In BGP VPLS signaling, besides attaching a Layer2 Info Extended
Community as detailed in [RFC4761], an E-Tree Extended Community MUST
be further attached if a PE wishes to set up an E-Tree service. The
PE MUST include its local root VLAN ID and leaf VLAN ID in the E-Tree
Extended Community. A PE attached with only leaves of an E-Tree
SHOULD set the P bit in the E-Tree Extended Community to 1.
A PE that receives a BGP UPDATE message with an E-Tree Extended
Community from its peer PE must process it as follows (a PE which
does not recognize this attribute will silently ignore it):
1) if the root and leaf VLAN ID in the E-Tree Extended Community
match the local root and leaf VLAN ID, then continue to 3);
2) else {
if the bit V is cleared, then it MUST set VLAN-Mapping-Mode to
TRUE;
else the PE with the minimum IP address MUST set VLAN-Mapping-
Mode to TRUE;
}
3) If the P bit is set, then the PE SHOULD set the Optimized-Mode to
TRUE.
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft E-Tree in BGP February 2012
If a PE has sent an E-Tree Extended Community but does not receive
any E-Tree Extended Community from its peer, then set the Compatible-
Mode to TRUE for the corresponding PW to the peer.
Data plane in the VPLS is the same as described in Section 4.2 of
[RFC4761], and data plane processing for a PW is the same as
described in the end of Section 6 of [Vpls-etree].
5. Security Considerations
Besides security considerations as described in [RFC4448] and
[RFC4761], this solution prevents leaf to leaf communication in the
data plane of VPLS when its PEs are interconnected with PWs. In this
regard, security can be enhanced for customers with this solution.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a value for E-Tree in the registry of
BGP Extended Community.
Parameter ID Length Description
=======================================
TBD 16 E-Tree
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC4448] Martini, L., and et al, "Encapsulation Methods for
Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", RFC 4448, April
2006
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
4761, January 2007
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., et al, "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and
Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)",
RFC 6074, January 2011
[Vpls-etree] Jiang, et al., "VPLS PE Model for E-Tree Support",
draft-jiang-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-05 (work in progress),
October 2011
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft E-Tree in BGP February 2012
8. Acknowledgments
TBD.
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft E-Tree in BGP February 2012
Authors' Addresses
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129, China
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
Plano, TX 75075, USA
Email: lucyyong@huawei.com
Manuel Paul
Deutsche Telekom
Goslarer Ufer 35
10589 Berlin, Germany
Email: manuel.paul@telekom.de
Frederic Jounay
Orange CH
4 rue caudray 1020 Renens, SwitzerlandEmail:
frederic.jounay@orange.ch
Florin Balus
Alcatel-Lucent
701 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA, USA 94043
Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Jiang, et al Expires August 29, 2012 [Page 7]
