rfc7267
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Martini, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7267 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 6073 M. Bocci, Ed.
Category: Standards Track F. Balus, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
June 2014
Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires
Abstract
RFC 5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending
the reach of pseudowires (PWs) across multiple Packet Switched
Network domains. A multi-segment PW is defined as a set of two or
more contiguous PW segments that behave and function as a single
point-to-point PW. This document describes extensions to the PW
control protocol to dynamically place the segments of the multi-
segment pseudowire among a set of Provider Edge (PE) routers. This
document also updates RFC 6073 by updating the value of the Length
field of the PW Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7267.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs 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.
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.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. Scope ......................................................4
1.2. Specification of Requirements ..............................4
1.3. Terminology ................................................4
1.4. Architecture Overview ......................................5
2. Applicability ...................................................6
2.1. Changes to Existing PW Signaling ...........................6
3. PW Layer 2 Addressing ...........................................6
3.1. Attachment Circuit Addressing ..............................7
3.2. S-PE Addressing ............................................8
4. Dynamic Placement of MS-PWs .....................................8
4.1. Pseudowire Routing Procedures ..............................8
4.1.1. AII PW Routing Table Lookup Aggregation Rules .......9
4.1.2. PW Static Route .....................................9
4.1.3. Dynamic Advertisement with BGP .....................10
4.2. LDP Signaling .............................................11
4.2.1. Multiple Alternative Paths in PW Routing ...........13
4.2.2. Active/Passive T-PE Election Procedure .............14
4.2.3. Detailed Signaling Procedures ......................15
5. Procedures for Failure Handling ................................16
5.1. PSN Failures ..............................................16
5.2. S-PE Failures .............................................17
5.3. PW Reachability Changes ...................................17
6. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) ..............18
7. Security Considerations ........................................18
8. IANA Considerations ............................................19
8.1. Correction ................................................19
8.2. LDP TLV Type Name Space ...................................19
8.3. LDP Status Codes ..........................................20
8.4. BGP SAFI ..................................................20
9. References .....................................................20
9.1. Normative References ......................................20
9.2. Informative References ....................................21
10. Contributors ..................................................22
11. Acknowledgements ..............................................23
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope
[RFC5254] describes the service provider requirements for extending
the reach of pseudowires across multiple Packet Switched Network
(PSN) domains. This is achieved using a multi-segment pseudowire
(MS-PW). An MS-PW is defined as a set of two or more contiguous
pseudowire (PW) segments that behave and function as a single point-
to-point PW. This architecture is described in [RFC5659].
The procedures for establishing PWs that extend across a single PSN
domain are described in [RFC4447], while procedures for setting up
PWs across multiple PSN domains or control plane domains are
described in [RFC6073].
The purpose of this document is to specify extensions to the
pseudowire control protocol [RFC4447], and [RFC6073] procedures, to
enable multi-segment PWs to be dynamically placed. The procedures
follow the guidelines defined in [RFC5036] and enable the reuse of
existing TLVs, and procedures defined for Single-Segment Pseudowires
(SS-PWs) in [RFC4447]. Dynamic placement of point-to-multipoint
(P2MP) PWs is for further study and outside the scope of this
document.
1.2. Specification of Requirements
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].
1.3. Terminology
[RFC5659] provides terminology for multi-segment pseudowires.
This document defines the following additional terms:
- Source Terminating Provider Edge (ST-PE): A Terminating Provider
Edge (T-PE) that assumes the active signaling role and initiates
the signaling for multi-segment PWs.
- Target Terminating Provider Edge (TT-PE): A Terminating Provider
Edge (T-PE) that assumes the passive signaling role. It waits and
responds to the multi-segment PW signaling message in the reverse
direction.
- Forward Direction: ST-PE to TT-PE.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
- Reverse Direction: TT-PE to ST-PE.
- Pseudowire Routing (PW routing): The dynamic placement of the
segments that compose an MS-PW, as well as the automatic selection
of Switching PEs (S-PEs).
1.4. Architecture Overview
The following figure shows the reference model, derived from
[RFC5659], to support PW emulated services using multi-segment PWs.
Native |<---------Multi-Segment Pseudowire-------->| Native
Service | PSN PSN | Service
(AC) | |<--Tunnel-->| |<--Tunnel-->| | (AC)
| V V 1 V V 2 V V |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+---+ | |T-PE1|============|S-PE1|============|T-PE2| | +---+
| |------|...... PW.Seg't 1....X....PW.Seg't 3.......|-------| |
|CE1| | | | | | | | | |CE2|
| |------|...... PW.Seg't 2....X....PW.Seg't 4.......|-------| |
+---+ | | |============| |============| | | +---+
^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^
| Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 |
| | |
| | |
| PW switching point |
| |
|<-------------------- Emulated Service ------------------>|
Figure 1: MS-PW Reference Model
The PEs that provide services to CE1 and CE2 are Terminating PE1
(T-PE1) and Terminating PE2 (T-PE2), respectively. A PSN tunnel
extends from T-PE1 to Switching PE1 (S-PE1), and a second PSN tunnel
extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 . PWs are used to connect the attachment
circuits (ACs) attached to PE1 to the corresponding ACs attached to
T-PE2.
A PW segment on PSN Tunnel 1 is connected to a PW segment on PSN
Tunnel 2 at S-PE1 to complete the multi-segment PW (MS-PW) between
T-PE1 and T-PE2. S-PE1 is therefore the PW switching point and is
referred to as the switching provider edge (S-PE). PW Segment 1 and
PW Segment 3 are segments of the same MS-PW, while PW Segment 2 and
PW Segment 4 are segments of another MS-PW. PW segments of the same
MS-PW (e.g., PW Segment 1 and PW Segment 3) MUST be of the same PW
type, and PSN tunnels can be of the same or a different technology.
An S-PE switches an MS-PW from one segment to another based on the PW
identifiers (PWid, or Attachment Individual Identifier (AII)). How
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
the PW protocol data units (PDUs) are switched at the S-PE depends on
the PSN tunnel technology: in the case of a Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) PSN to another MPLS PSN, PW switching involves a
standard MPLS label swap operation.
Note that although Figure 1 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
transit more than one S-PE along its path. Although [RFC5659]
describes MS-PWs that span more than one PSN, this document does not
specify how the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is used for PW
control [RFC4447] in an inter-AS (Autonomous System) environment.
2. Applicability
This document describes the case where the PSNs carrying the MS-PW
are only MPLS PSNs using the Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (PWid)
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) element (also known as FEC 129).
Interactions with an IP PSN using the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
version 3 (L2TPv3) as described in Section 8 of [RFC6073] are left
for further study.
2.1. Changes to Existing PW Signaling
The procedures described in this document make use of existing LDP
TLVs and related PW signaling procedures described in [RFC4447] and
[RFC6073]. The following optional TLV is also defined:
- A Bandwidth TLV to address QoS Signaling requirements (see
Section 4.2).
This document also updates the value of the Length field of the PW
Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14.
3. PW Layer 2 Addressing
Single-segment pseudowires on an MPLS PSN can use attachment circuit
identifiers for a PW using FEC 129. In the case of a dynamically
placed MS-PW, there is a requirement for the attachment circuit
identifiers to be globally unique, for the purposes of reachability
and manageability of the PW. Referencing Figure 1 above, individual
globally unique addresses MUST be allocated to all the ACs and S-PEs
of an MS-PW.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
3.1. Attachment Circuit Addressing
The attachment circuit addressing is derived from AII Type 2
[RFC5003], as shown here:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type=02 | Length | Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global ID (continued) | Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (continued) | AC ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AC ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: AII Type 2 TLV Structure
The fields are defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC5003].
Addressing schemes based on AII Type 2 permit varying levels of AII
summarization, thus reducing the scaling burden on PW routing. PW
addressing based on AII Type 2 is suitable for point-to-point
provisioning models where auto-discovery of the address at the TT-PE
is not required. That is, it is known a priori by provisioning.
Implementations of the following procedure MUST interpret the AII
type to determine the meaning of the address format of the AII,
irrespective of the number of segments in the MS-PW. All segments of
the PW MUST be signaled with the same AII type.
A unique combination of Global ID, Prefix, and AC ID parts of the
AII Type 2 are assigned to each AC. In general, the same Global ID
and Prefix are be assigned for all ACs belonging to the same T-PE.
This is not a strict requirement, however. A particular T-PE might
have more than one Prefix assigned to it, and likewise a fully
qualified AII with the same Global ID/Prefix but different AC IDs
might belong to different T-PEs.
For the purpose of MS-PWs, the AII MUST be globally unique across all
PSNs that are spanned by the MS-PW.
The AII for a local attachment circuit of a given T-PE of an MS-PW
and the AII of the corresponding attachment circuit on a far-end T-PE
(with respect to the LDP signaling) are known as the Source
Attachment Individual Identifier (SAII) and Target Attachment
Individual Identifier (TAII) as per [RFC6074].
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
3.2. S-PE Addressing
Each S-PE MUST be assigned an address that uniquely identifies it
from a pseudowire perspective, in order to populate the PW Switching
Point PE (SP-PE) TLV specified in [RFC6073]. For this purpose, at
least one Attachment Identifier (AI) address of the format similar to
AII Type 2 [RFC5003] composed of the Global ID, and Prefix part,
only, MUST be assigned to each S-PE.
If an S-PE is capable of dynamic MS-PW signaling but is not assigned
with an S-PE address, then on receiving a dynamic MS-PW Label Mapping
message the S-PE MUST return a Label Release with the "Resources
Unavailable" (0x38) status code.
4. Dynamic Placement of MS-PWs
[RFC6073] describes a procedure for concatenating multiple
pseudowires together. This procedure requires each S-PE to be
manually configured with the information required for each segment of
the MS-PW. The procedures in the following sections describe a
method to extend [RFC6073] by allowing the automatic selection of
predefined S-PEs and dynamically establishing an MS-PW between two
T-PEs.
4.1. Pseudowire Routing Procedures
The AII Type 2 described above contains a Global ID, Prefix, and
AC ID. The TAII is used by S-PEs to determine the next SS-PW
destination for LDP signaling.
Once an S-PE receives an MS-PW Label Mapping message containing a
TAII with an AII that is not locally present, the S-PE performs a
lookup in a PW AII routing table. If this lookup results in an IP
address for the next-hop PE with reachability information for the AII
in question, then the S-PE will initiate the necessary LDP messaging
procedure to set up the next PW segment. If the PW AII routing table
lookup does not result in an IP address for a next-hop PE, the
destination AII has become unreachable, and the PW setup MUST fail.
In this case, the next PW segment is considered unprovisioned, and a
Label Release MUST be returned to the T-PE with a status message of
"AII Unreachable".
If the TAII of an MS-PW Label Mapping message received by a PE
contains the Prefix matching the locally provisioned prefix on that
PE but an AC ID that is not provisioned, then the LDP liberal label
retention procedures apply, and the Label Mapping message is
retained.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
To allow for dynamic end-to-end signaling of MS-PWs, information MUST
be present in S-PEs to support the determination of the next PW
signaling hop. Such information can be provisioned (equivalent to a
static route) on each S-PE, or disseminated via regular routing
protocols (e.g., BGP).
4.1.1. AII PW Routing Table Lookup Aggregation Rules
All PEs capable of dynamic MS-PW path selection MUST build a PW AII
routing table to be used for PW next-hop selection.
The PW addressing scheme (AII Type 2 as defined in [RFC5003])
consists of a Global ID, a 32-bit Prefix, and a 32-bit Attachment
Circuit ID.
An aggregation scheme similar to that used for classless IPv4
addresses can be employed. A length mask (8 bits) is specified as a
number ranging from 0 to 96 that indicates which Most Significant
Bits (MSBs) are relevant in the address field when performing the PW
address-matching algorithm.
0 31 32 63 64 95 (bits)
+-----------+--------+--------+
| Global ID | Prefix | AC ID |
+-----------+--------+--------+
Figure 3: PW Addressing Scheme
During the signaling phase, the content of the (fully qualified)
TAII Type 2 field from the FEC 129 TLV is compared against routes
from the PW routing table. Similar to the IPv4 case, the route with
the longest match is selected, determining the next signaling hop and
implicitly the next PW segment to be signaled.
4.1.2. PW Static Route
For the purpose of determining the next signaling hop for a segment
of the pseudowire, the PEs MAY be provisioned with fixed-route
entries in the PW next-hop routing table. The static PW entries will
follow all the addressing rules and aggregation rules described in
the previous sections. The most common use of PW static provisioned
routes is this example of the "default" route entry as follows:
Global ID = 0 Prefix = 0 AC ID = 0, Prefix Length = 0
Next Signaling Hop = {IP Address of next-hop S-PE or T-PE}
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
4.1.3. Dynamic Advertisement with BGP
Any suitable routing protocol capable of carrying external routing
information MAY be used to propagate MS-PW path information among
S-PEs and T-PEs. However, T-PEs and S-PEs MAY choose to use the
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271] with the Multiprotocol
Extensions as defined in [RFC4760] to propagate PW address
information throughout the PSN. PW address information is only
propagated by PEs that are capable of PW switching. Therefore, the
multiprotocol BGP neighbor topology MUST coincide with the topology
of T-PEs and S-PEs.
Contrary to Layer 2 VPN signaling methods that use BGP for
auto-discovery [RFC6074], in the case of the dynamically placed
MS-PW, the source T-PE knows a priori (by provisioning) the AC ID on
the terminating T-PE that signaling should use. Hence, there is no
need to advertise a "fully qualified" 96-bit address on a per-PW
attachment circuit basis. Only the T-PE Global ID, Prefix, and
prefix length need to be advertised as part of well-known BGP
procedures; see [RFC4760].
Since PW Endpoints are provisioned in the T-PEs, the ST-PE will use
this information to obtain the first S-PE hop (i.e., first BGP next
hop) to where the first PW segment will be established. Any
subsequent S-PEs will use the same information (i.e., the next BGP
next hop(s)) to obtain the next signaling hop(s) on the path to the
TT-PE.
The PW dynamic path Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) is
advertised in BGP UPDATE messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and
MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes [RFC4760]. The {AFI, SAFI} value pair
used to identify this NLRI is (AFI=25, SAFI=6). A route target MAY
also be advertised along with the NLRI.
The Next Hop field of the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute SHALL be
interpreted as an IPv4 address whenever the length of the NextHop
address is 4 octets, and as an IPv6 address whenever the length of
the NextHop address is 16 octets.
The NLRI field in the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI is a prefix
comprising an 8-octet Route Distinguisher, the Global ID, the Prefix,
and the AC ID, and encoded as defined in Section 4 of [RFC4760].
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
This NLRI is structured as follows:
Bit
0 7 8 71 72 103 104 135 136 167
+------+----------------+-----------+--------+--------+
|Length| Route Dist | Global ID | Prefix | AC ID |
+------+----------------+-----------+--------+--------+
Figure 4: NLRI Field Structure
The Length field is the prefix length of the Route Distinguisher +
Global ID + Prefix + AC ID in bits.
Except for the default PW route, which is encoded as a 0-length
Prefix, the minimum value of the Length field is 96 bits. Lengths of
128 bits to 159 bits are invalid, as the AC ID field cannot be
aggregated. The maximum value of the Length field is 160 bits. BGP
advertisements received with invalid Prefix lengths MUST be rejected
as having a bad packet format.
4.2. LDP Signaling
The LDP signaling procedures are described in [RFC4447] and expanded
in [RFC6073]. No new LDP signaling components are required for
setting up a dynamically placed MS-PW. However, some optional
signaling extensions are described below.
One of the requirements that MUST be met in order to achieve the QoS
objectives for a PW on a segment is that a PSN tunnel MUST be
selected that can support at least the required class of service and
that has sufficient bandwidth available.
Such PSN tunnel selection can be achieved where the next hop for a PW
segment is explicitly configured at each PE, whether the PE is a T-PE
or an S-PE in the case of a segmented PW, without dynamic path
selection (as per [RFC6073]). In these cases, it is possible to
explicitly configure the bandwidth required for a PW so that the T-PE
or S-PE can reserve that bandwidth on the PSN tunnel.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
Where dynamic path selection is used and the next hop is therefore
not explicitly configured by the operator at the S-PE, a mechanism to
signal the bandwidth for the PW from the T-PE to the S-PEs is
required. This is accomplished by including an optional PW Bandwidth
TLV. The PW Bandwidth TLV is specified as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| PW BW TLV (0x096E) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forward SENDER_TSPEC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reverse SENDER_TSPEC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: PW Bandwidth TLV Structure
The PW Bandwidth TLV fields are as follows:
- TLV Length: The length of the value fields in octets. Value = 64.
- Forward SENDER_TSPEC = the SENDER_TSPEC for the forward direction
of the PW, as defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC2210].
- Reverse SENDER_TSPEC = the SENDER_TSPEC for the reverse direction
of the PW, as defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC2210].
The complete definitions of the content of the SENDER_TSPEC objects
are found in Section 3.1 of [RFC2210]. The forward SENDER_TSPEC
refers to the data path in the direction ST-PE to TT-PE. The reverse
SENDER_TSPEC refers to the data path in the direction TT-PE to ST-PE.
In the forward direction, after a next-hop selection is determined, a
T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine
an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. If such a
tunnel exists, the MS-PW signaling procedures are invoked with the
inclusion of the PW Bandwidth TLV. When the PE searches for a PSN
tunnel, any tunnel that points to a next hop equivalent to the next
hop selected will be included in the search (the LDP address TLV is
used to determine the next-hop equivalence).
When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is
selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the
PSN. The resources described in the reverse SENDER_TSPEC are
allocated from the PSN toward the originator of the message or
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
previous hop. When resources are allocated from the PSN for a
specific PW, the allocation SHOULD account for the resource usage of
the PW.
In the case where PSN resources towards the previous hop are not
available, the following procedure MUST be followed:
i. The PSN MAY allocate more QoS resources, e.g., bandwidth, to the
PSN tunnel.
ii. The S-PE MAY attempt to set up another PSN tunnel to accommodate
the new PW QoS requirements.
iii. If the S-PE cannot get enough resources to set up the segment in
the MS-PW, a Label Release MUST be returned to the previous hop
with a status message of "Bandwidth resources unavailable".
In the latter case, the T-PE receiving the status message MUST also
withdraw the corresponding PW Label Mapping message for the opposite
direction if it has already been successfully set up.
If an ST-PE receives a Label Mapping message, the following procedure
MUST be followed:
If the ST-PE has already sent a Label Mapping message for this PW,
then the ST-PE MUST check to see if this Label Mapping message
originated from the same LDP peer to which the corresponding Label
Mapping message for this particular PW was sent. If it is the same
peer, the PW is established. If it is a different peer, then the
ST-PE MUST send a Label Release message with a status code of "PW
Loop Detected" to the PE that originated the LDP Label Mapping
message.
If the PE has not yet sent a Label Mapping message for this
particular PW, then it MUST send the Label Mapping message to this
LDP peer, regardless of what the PW TAII routing lookup result is.
4.2.1. Multiple Alternative Paths in PW Routing
A next-hop selection for a specific PW may find a match with a PW
route that has multiple next hops associated with it. Multiple next
hops may be either configured explicitly as static routes or learned
through BGP routing procedures. Implementations at an S-PE or T-PE
MAY use selection algorithms, such as CRC32 on the FEC TLV or flow-
aware transport of PWs [RFC6391], for load balancing of PWs across
multiple next hops, so that each PW has a single next hop. The
details of such selection algorithms are outside the scope of this
document.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
4.2.2. Active/Passive T-PE Election Procedure
When an MS-PW is signaled, each T-PE might independently initiate
signaling the MS-PW. This could result in a different path being
used by each direction of the PW. To avoid this situation, one T-PE
MUST initiate PW signaling (i.e., take an active role), while the
other T-PE waits to receive the LDP Label Mapping message before
sending the LDP Label Mapping message for the reverse direction of
the PW (i.e., take a passive role). The active T-PE (the ST-PE) and
the passive T-PE (the TT-PE) MUST be identified before signaling
begins for a given MS-PW. Both T-PEs MUST use the same method for
identifying which is active and which is passive.
A T-PE SHOULD determine whether it assumes the active role or the
passive role using procedures similar to those of [RFC5036],
Section 2.5.2, Bullet 2. The T-PE compares the Source Attachment
Individual Identifier (SAII) [RFC6074] with the Target Attachment
Individual Identifier (TAII) [RFC6074] as unsigned integers, and if
the SAII > TAII, the T-PE assumes the active role. Otherwise, it
assumes the passive role.
The following procedure for comparing the SAII and TAII as unsigned
integers SHOULD be used:
- If the SAII Global ID > TAII Global ID, then the T-PE is active
- else if the SAII Global ID < TAII Global ID, then the T-PE is
passive
- else if the SAII Prefix > TAII Prefix, then the T-PE is active
- else if the SAII Prefix < TAII Prefix, then the T-PE is
passive
- else if the SAII AC ID > TAII AC ID, then the T-PE is
active
- else if the SAII AC ID < TAII AC ID, then the T-PE is
passive
- else there is a configuration error
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
4.2.3. Detailed Signaling Procedures
On receiving a Label Mapping message, the S-PE MUST inspect the FEC
TLV. If the receiving node has no local AII matching the TAII for
that Label Mapping message, then the Label Mapping message SHOULD be
forwarded on to another S-PE or T-PE. The S-PE will check to see if
the FEC is already installed for the forward direction:
- If the FEC is already installed and the received Label Mapping was
received from the same LDP peer to which the forward LDP Label
Mapping was sent, then this Label Mapping represents signaling in
the reverse direction for this MS-PW segment.
- If the FEC is already installed and the received Label Mapping was
received from a different LDP peer to which the forward LDP Label
Mapping was sent, then the received Label Mapping MUST be released
with a status code of "PW Loop Detected".
- If the FEC is not already installed, then this represents signaling
in the forward direction.
The following procedures are then executed, depending on whether the
Label Mapping was determined to be for the forward or the reverse
direction of the MS-PW.
For the forward direction:
i. Determine the next-hop S-PE or T-PE according to the procedures
above. If next-hop reachability is not found in the S-PE's PW
AII routing table, then a Label Release MUST be sent with
status code "AII Unreachable". If the next-hop S-PE or T-PE is
found and is the same LDP peer that sent the Label Mapping
message, then a Label Release MUST be returned with status code
"PW Loop Detected". If the SAII in the received Label Mapping
is local to the S-PE, then a Label Release MUST be returned
with status code "PW Loop Detected".
ii. Check to see if a PSN tunnel exists to the next-hop S-PE or
T-PE. If no tunnel exists to the next-hop S-PE or T-PE, the
S-PE MAY attempt to set up a PSN tunnel.
iii. Check to see if a PSN tunnel exists to the previous hop. If no
tunnel exists to the previous-hop S-PE or T-PE, the S-PE MAY
attempt to set up a PSN tunnel.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
iv. If the S-PE cannot get enough PSN resources to set up the
segment to the next-hop or previous-hop S-PE or T-PE, a Label
Release MUST be returned to the T-PE with a status message of
"Resources Unavailable".
v. If the Label Mapping message contains a Bandwidth TLV, allocate
the required resources on the PSN tunnels in the forward and
reverse directions according to the procedures above.
vi. Allocate a new PW label for the forward direction.
vii. Install the FEC for the forward direction.
viii. Send the Label Mapping message with the new forward label and
the FEC to the next-hop S-PE/T-PE.
For the reverse direction:
i. Install the FEC received in the Label Mapping message for the
reverse direction.
ii. Determine the next signaling hop by referencing the LDP sessions
used to set up the PW in the forward direction.
iii. Allocate a new PW label for the next hop in the reverse
direction.
iv. Install the FEC for the next hop in the reverse direction.
v. Send the Label Mapping message with a new label and the FEC to
the next-hop S-PE/ST-PE.
5. Procedures for Failure Handling
5.1. PSN Failures
Failures of the PSN tunnel MUST be handled by PSN mechanisms. An
example of such a PSN mechanism is MPLS fast reroute [RFC4090]. If
the PSN is unable to re-establish the PSN tunnel, then the S-PE
SHOULD follow the procedures defined in Section 10 of [RFC6073].
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
5.2. S-PE Failures
For defects in an S-PE, the procedures defined in [RFC6073] SHOULD be
followed. A T-PE or S-PE may receive an unsolicited Label Release
message from another S-PE or T-PE with various failure codes, such as
"Loop Detected", "PW Loop Detected", "Resources Unavailable", "Bad
Strict Node Error", or "AII Unreachable". All these failure codes
indicate a generic class of PW failures at an S-PE or T-PE.
If an unsolicited Label Release message with such a failure status
code is received at a T-PE, then it is RECOMMENDED that the T-PE
attempt to re-establish the PW immediately. However, the T-PE MUST
throttle its PW setup message retry attempts with an exponential
backoff in situations where PW setup messages are being constantly
released. It is also RECOMMENDED that a T-PE detecting such a
situation take action to notify an operator.
S-PEs that receive an unsolicited Label Release message with a
failure status code SHOULD follow this procedure:
i. If the Label Release is received from an S-PE or T-PE in the
forward or reverse signaling direction, then the S-PE MUST tear
down both segments of the PW. The status code received in the
Label Release message SHOULD be propagated when sending the Label
Release for the next segment.
5.3. PW Reachability Changes
In general, an established MS-PW will not be affected by next-hop
changes in AII reachability information.
If there is a next-hop change in AII reachability information in the
forward direction, the T-PE MAY elect to tear down the MS-PW by
sending a Label Withdraw message to the downstream S-PE or T-PE. The
teardown MUST also be accompanied by an unsolicited Label Release
message and will be followed by an attempt by the T-PE to
re-establish the MS-PW.
If there is a change in the AII reachability information in the
forward direction at an S-PE, the S-PE MAY elect to tear down the
MS-PW in both directions. A label withdrawal is sent in each
direction followed by an unsolicited Label Release. The unsolicited
Label Release messages MUST be accompanied by the status code "AII
Unreachable". This procedure is OPTIONAL. Note that this procedure
is likely to be disruptive to the emulated service. PW Redundancy
[RFC6718] MAY be used to maintain the connectivity used by the
emulated service in the case of a failure of the PSN or S-PE.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
A change in AII reachability information in the reverse direction has
no effect on an MS-PW.
6. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
The OAM procedures defined in [RFC6073] may also be used for
dynamically placed MS-PWs. A PW Switching Point PE TLV [RFC6073] is
used to record the switching points that the PW traverses.
In the case of an MS-PW where the PW Endpoints are identified by
using globally unique AII addresses based on FEC 129, there is no
pseudowire identifier (PWid) defined on a per-segment basis. Each
individual PW segment is identified by the address of the adjacent
S-PE(s) in conjunction with the SAII and TAII.
In this case, the following TLV type (0x06) MUST be used in place of
type 0x01 in the PW Switching Point PE TLV:
Type Length Description
---- ------ -----------------------------------
0x06 14 L2 PW address of PW Switching Point
The above sub-TLV MUST be included in the PW Switching Point PE TLV
once per individual PW switching point, following the same rules and
procedures as those described in [RFC6073]. A more detailed
description of this sub-TLV is also given in Section 7.4.1 of
[RFC6073]. However, the length value MUST be set to 14 ([RFC6073]
states that the length value is 12, but this does not correctly
represent the actual length of the TLV).
7. Security Considerations
This document specifies extensions to the protocols already defined
in [RFC4447] and [RFC6073]. The extensions defined in this document
do not affect the security considerations for those protocols, but
[RFC4447] and [RFC6073] do impose a set of security considerations
that are applicable to the protocol extensions specified in this
document.
It should be noted that the dynamic path selection mechanisms
specified in this document enable the network to automatically select
the S-PEs that are used to forward packets on the MS-PW. Appropriate
tools, such as the Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
trace mechanisms specified in [RFC6073], can be used by an operator
of the network to verify the path taken by the MS-PW and therefore be
satisfied that the path does not represent an additional security
risk.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
Note that the PW control protocol may be used to establish and
maintain an MS-PW across administrative boundaries. Section 13 of
[RFC6073] specifies security considerations applicable to LDP used in
this manner, including considerations for establishing the integrity
of, and authenticating, LDP control messages. These considerations
also apply to the protocol extensions specified in this document.
Note that the protocols for dynamically distributing AII reachability
information may have their own security considerations. However,
those protocol specifications are outside the scope of this document.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Correction
IANA has corrected a minor error in the "Pseudowire Switching Point
PE sub-TLV Type" registry. The entry 0x06 "L2 PW address of the PW
Switching Point" has been corrected to Length 14 and the reference
changed to [RFC6073] and this document as follows:
Type Length Description Reference
---- ------ ----------------------------------- ------------------
0x06 14 L2 PW Address of PW Switching Point [RFC6073][RFC7267]
8.2. LDP TLV Type Name Space
This document defines one new LDP TLV type. IANA already maintains a
registry for LDP TLV types, called the "TLV Type Name Space"
registry, within the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters"
registry as defined by [RFC5036]. IANA has assigned the following
value.
Value Description Reference Notes/Registration Date
------ ------------- ------------- -----------------------
0x096E Bandwidth TLV This document
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
8.3. LDP Status Codes
This document defines three new LDP status codes. IANA maintains a
registry of these codes, called the "Status Code Name Space"
registry, in the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters"
registry as defined by [RFC5036]. The IANA has assigned the
following values.
Range/Value E Description Reference
----------- ----- ------------------------------- -------------
0x00000037 0 Bandwidth resources unavailable This document
0x00000038 0 Resources Unavailable This document
0x00000039 0 AII Unreachable This document
8.4. BGP SAFI
IANA has allocated a new BGP SAFI for "Network Layer Reachability
Information used for Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires"
in the IANA "SAFI Values" registry [RFC4760] within the "Subsequent
Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" registry. The IANA has
assigned the following value.
Value Description Reference
----- ------------------------------------------- -------------
6 Network Layer Reachability Information This document
used for Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment
Pseudowires
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, January 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
January 2006.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
January 2007.
[RFC5254] Bitar, N., Ed., Bocci, M., Ed., and L. Martini, Ed.,
"Requirements for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-
to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 5254, October 2008.
[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
October 2009.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
January 2011.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, November 2011.
[RFC6718] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire
Redundancy", RFC 6718, August 2012.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
10. Contributors
The editors gratefully acknowledge the following people for their
contributions to this document:
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02145
US
EMail: nabil.bitar@verizon.com
Himanshu Shah
Ciena Corp.
35 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
US
EMail: hshah@ciena.com
Mustapha Aissaoui
Alcatel-Lucent
600 March Road
Kanata
ON, Canada
EMail: mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com
Jason Rusmisel
Alcatel-Lucent
600 March Road
Kanata
ON, Canada
EMail: Jason.rusmisel@alcatel-lucent.com
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
US
EMail: agmalis@gmail.com
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
Chris Metz
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
EMail: chmetz@cisco.com
David McDysan
Verizon
22001 Loudoun County Pkwy.
Ashburn, VA 20147
US
EMail: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
Jeff Sugimoto
Alcatel-Lucent
701 E. Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
EMail: jeffery.sugimoto@alcatel-lucent.com
Mike Loomis
Alcatel-Lucent
701 E. Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
EMail: mike.loomis@alcatel-lucent.com
11. Acknowledgements
The editors also gratefully acknowledge the input of the following
people: Paul Doolan, Mike Duckett, Pranjal Dutta, Ping Pan, Prayson
Pate, Vasile Radoaca, Yeongil Seo, Yetik Serbest, and Yuichiro Wada.
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 7267 Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PWs June 2014
Authors' Addresses
Luca Martini (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO 80112
US
EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
Matthew Bocci (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Voyager Place
Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead
Berks, UK
EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
Florin Balus (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
701 E. Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
EMail: florin@nuagenetworks.net
Martini, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
ERRATA
