[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7152

Network Working Group                       Raymond Key (editor), Huawei
Internet Draft                              Simon Delord, Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Informational           Frederic Jounay, Orange France Telecom
Expires: April 2012                               Lu Huang, China Mobile
                                               Zhihua Liu, China Telecom
                                           Manuel Paul, Deutsche Telekom
                                        Ruediger Kunze, Deutsche Telekom
                                                 Nick Del Regno, Verizon
                                        Joshua Rogers, Time Warner Cable


                                                        October 15, 2011


              Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in VPLS
                    draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-00


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 April 15, 2012.


Abstract

   This document provides functional requirements for Metro Ethernet
   Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) support in Virtual Private LAN
   Service (VPLS). It is intended that potential solutions will use
   these requirements as guidelines.






Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction....................................................3
   2. Virtual Private LAN Service.....................................3
   3. MEF Multipoint Ethernet Services................................3
   3.1. Similarity between E-LAN and E-Tree...........................3
   3.2. Difference between E-LAN and E-Tree...........................3
   3.3. E-Tree Use Cases..............................................4
   3.4. Generic E-Tree Service........................................4
   4. Problem Statement...............................................5
   4.1. Motivation....................................................5
   4.2. Leaf-to-Leaf Communication Restriction........................5
   5. Requirements....................................................6
   5.1. Functional Requirements.......................................6
   5.2. Applicability.................................................6
   5.3. Backward Compatibility........................................7
   6. Security Consideration..........................................7
   7. IANA Considerations.............................................7
   8. Acknowledgements................................................7
   9. References......................................................8
   9.1. Normative References..........................................8
   9.2. Informative References........................................8
   Appendix
   A. Frequently Asked Questions......................................9
   A.1. Are E-Tree requirements addressed in the
        VPMS requirement draft?.......................................9
   A.2. Are there any potential deployment scenarios
        for a "VPLS Only" solution?..................................10
   Authors' Addresses................................................13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements....................14


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].

















Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


1. Introduction

   This document provides functional requirements for Metro Ethernet
   Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) support in Virtual Private LAN
   Service (VPLS). It is intended that potential solutions will use
   these requirements as guidelines.

   Considerable number of service providers have adopted VPLS to provide
   MEF Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services to customers. Service Providers
   currently need a simple and effective solution to emulate E-Tree
   services in addition to E-LAN services on their MPLS networks.

2. Virtual Private LAN Service

   VPLS is a L2VPN service that provides multipoint-to-multipoint
   connectivity for Ethernet across an IP or MPLS-enabled IP Packet
   Switched Network. VPLS emulates the Ethernet VLAN functionality of
   traditional Ethernet network.

   VPLS is a current IETF standard, please refer to [RFC4761] [RFC4762].

   Data frame is Ethernet frame.

   Data forwarding is MAC-based forwarding, which includes MAC address
   learning and aging.

3. MEF Multipoint Ethernet Services

   MEF has defined two multipoint Ethernet Service types:
     - E-LAN (Ethernet LAN), multipoint-to-multipoint service
     - E-Tree (Ethernet Tree), rooted-multipoint service

   For full specification, please refer to [MEF6.1] [MEF10.2].

3.1. Similarity between E-LAN and E-Tree

   Data frame is Ethernet frame.

   Data forwarding can be MAC-based forwarding or something else, to be
   specified by service provider as service frame delivery attributes
   in the particular service definition.

   A generic E-LAN/E-Tree service is always bidirectional in the sense
   that ingress frames can originate at any endpoint in the service.

3.2. Difference between E-LAN and E-Tree

   Within the context of a multipoint Ethernet service, each endpoint is
   designated as either a Root or a Leaf. A Root can communicate with
   all other endpoints in the same multipoint Ethernet service, however
   a Leaf can only communicate with Roots but not Leafs.



Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


   The only difference between E-LAN and E-Tree is:
     - E-LAN has Root endpoints only, which implies there is no
       communication restriction between endpoints
     - E-Tree has both Root and Leaf endpoints, which implies there is a
       need to enforce communication restriction between Leaf endpoints

3.3. E-Tree Use Cases

   Table 1 below presents some major E-Tree use cases.

       +---------------------------+--------------+------------+
       | Use Case                  | Root         | Leaf       |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 1 | Hub & Spoke VPN           | Hub Site     | Spoke Site |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 2 | Wholesale Access          | Customer's   | Customer's |
   |   |                           | Interconnect | Subscriber |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 3 | Mobile Backhaul           | RAN NC       | RAN BS     |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 4 | IEEE 1588 PTPv2           | PTP Server   | PTP Client |
   |   | Clock Synchronisation     |              |            |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 5 | Internet Access           | BNG Router   | Subscriber |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 6 | Broadcast Video           | Video Source | Subscriber |
   |   | (unidirectional only)     |              |            |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 7 | Broadcast/Multicast Video | Video Source | Subscriber |
   |   | plus Control Channel      |              |            |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+
   | 8 | Device Management         | Management   | Managed    |
   |   |                           | System       | Device     |
   +---+---------------------------+--------------+------------+

                     Table 1: E-Tree Use Cases

   Common to all use cases, direct layer 2 Leaf-to-Leaf communication is
   not required. For Mobile backhaul, this may not be valid for LTE X2
   interfaces in the future.

   If direct layer 2 Leaf-to-Leaf communication is not allowed due to
   security concern, then E-Tree should be used to prohibit
   communication between Leaf endpoints, otherwise E-LAN is also a
   feasible option.

3.4. Generic E-Tree Service

   A generic E-Tree service supports multiple Root endpoints. The need
   for multiple Root endpoints is usually driven by redundancy
   requirement. Whether a particular E-Tree service needs to support
   single or multiple Roots depends on the target application.


Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


   A generic E-Tree service supports all the following traffic flows:
     - Ethernet Unicast from Root to Leaf
     - Ethernet Unicast from Leaf to Root
     - Ethernet Unicast from Root to Root
     - Ethernet Broadcast/Multicast from Root to Roots & Leafs
     - Ethernet Broadcast/Multicast from Leaf to Roots
   A particular E-Tree service may need to support all the above or only
   a subset depending on the target application.

4. Problem Statement

4.1. Motivation

   VPLS can be used to emulate MEF E-LAN service over MPLS network
   provided that the E-LAN service uses MAC-based forwarding as service
   frame delivery attributes.

   Considerable number of service providers have adopted VPLS to provide
   MEF E-LAN services to customers. Service Providers currently need a
   simple and effective solution to emulate E-Tree services in addition
   to E-LAN services on their MPLS networks.

4.2. Leaf-to-Leaf Communication Restriction

   Current standard VPLS treats all ACs equal (i.e. not classified into
   Root or Leaf) and provides any-to-any connectivity among all ACs. The
   current standard VPLS does not include any mechanism of communication
   restriction between specific ACs, therefore is insufficient for
   emulating generic E-Tree service over MPLS network.

   A problem occurs when there are two or more PEs with both Root AC and
   Leaf AC.

   Let's look at the scenario illustrated in Figure 1 below. VPLS is
   used to emulate an E-Tree service over a MPLS network.

                     <------------E-Tree------------>
                    +---------+            +---------+
                    |   PE1   |            |   PE2   |
   +---+            |  +---+  |            |  +---+  |            +---+
   |CE1+-----AC1----+--+   |  |            |  |   +--+----AC3-----+CE3|
   +---+  (Root AC) |  | V |  |  Ethernet  |  | V |  | (Root AC)  +---+
                    |  | S +--+-----PW-----+--+ S |  |
   +---+            |  | I |  |            |  | I |  |            +---+
   |CE2+-----AC2----+--+   |  |            |  |   +--+----AC4-----+CE4|
   +---+  (Leaf AC) |  +---+  |            |  +---+  | (Leaf AC)  +---+
                    +---------+            +---------+

   Figure 1: Problem Scenario for Leaf-to-Leaf Communication Restriction





Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


   When PE2 receives a frame from PE1 via the Ethernet PW,
     - PE2 does not know which AC on PE1 is the ingress AC
     - PE2 does not know whether the ingress AC is a Leaf AC or not
     - PE2 does not have sufficient information to enforce the
       Leaf-to-Leaf communication restriction

   Examples:
     - CE2 sends a Broadcast/Multicast frame to PE1 via AC2
     - CE2 sends a Unicast frame to PE1 via AC2, destination address in
       Ethernet header equal to CE4's MAC address

   Note: Figure 1 is a hypothetical case solely for explaining the
   problem, and not meant to represent a typical E-Tree service.

   There are some possible ways to get around this problem that do not
   require extension to the current standard VPLS but they all come with
   significant design complexity or deployment constraints, please refer
   to [Draft ETree Frwk] Appendix A.

5. Requirements

5.1. Functional Requirements

   A solution MUST prohibit communication between any two Leaf ACs in a
   VPLS instance.

   A solution MUST allow multiple Root ACs in a VPLS instance.

   A solution MUST allow Root AC and Leaf AC of a VPLS instance co-exist
   on any PE.

5.2. Applicability

   There are two distinct VPLS standards, performing similar functions
   in different manners.

     - [RFC4761], commonly known as BGP-VPLS

     - [RFC4762], commonly known as LDP-VPLS

   A solution MUST identify which VPLS standards the solution is
   applicable to, [RFC4761] or [RFC4762] or both.

   Service providers may use single or multiple technologies to deliver
   an end-to-end E-Tree service.

     - Case 1: Single technology "VPLS Only"

     - Case 2: Multiple technologies "VPLS + Others"
         - e.g. VPLS + Ethernet network, VPLS + OTN




Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


     - Case 3: Single/multiple technologies "No VPLS"
         - e.g. Ethernet network, Ethernet network + OTN
         - out of scope for this document

   A solution MUST identify which of the above cases the solution is
   applicable to. For Case 2, further details may be required to specify
   the applicable deployment scenarios.

5.3. Backward Compatibility

   A solution SHOULD minimise the impact on existing VPLS solution,
   especially for the MEF E-LAN services already in operation.

   A solution SHOULD be backward compatible with the existing VPLS
   solution. It SHOULD allow a case where a common VPLS instance is
   composed of both PEs supporting the solution and PEs not supporting
   it, and the Leaf-to-Leaf communication restriction is enforced
   within the scope of the compliant PEs.

6. Security Considerations

   This will be added in later version of this document.

7. IANA Considerations

   This will be added in later version of this document.

8. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Lizhong Jin, Lucy Yong, Yuji Kamite
   and Wim Henderickx for their valuable input and support.























Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [MEF6.1]     Metro Ethernet Forum, Ethernet Services Definitions -
                Phase 2, April 2008

   [MEF10.2]    Metro Ethernet Forum, Ethernet Services Attributes
                Phase 2, October 2009

   [RFC2119]    Bradner, S., Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997

   [RFC4761]    Kompella & Rekhter, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
                Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling, January 2007

   [RFC4762]    Lasserre & Kompella, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
                Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling,
                January 2007

9.2. Informative References

   [Draft ETree Frwk]
                Key, et al., A Framework for E-Tree Service over MPLS
                Network, draft-key-l2vpn-etree-frwk-05.txt (work in
                progress), April 2011

   [Draft VPMS Frmwk]
                Kamite, et al., Framework and Requirements for Virtual
                Private Multicast Service (VPMS),
                draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-04.txt (work in
                progress), July 2011






















Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


Appendix A. Frequently Asked Questions

A.1. Are E-Tree requirements addressed in the VPMS requirement draft?

   VPMS is Virtual Private Multicast Service. VPMS requirement draft
   refers to [Draft VPMS Frmwk].

   The focus of VPMS is to provide point-to-multipoint connectivity.

   VPMS provides single coverage of receiver membership (i.e. there is
   no distinct differentiation for multiple multicast groups). A VPMS
   service supports single or multiple Root ACs. All traffic from a Root
   AC will be forwarded to all Leaf ACs (i.e. P2MP, from Root to all
   Leafs). Destination address in Ethernet frame is not used in data
   forwarding. As an optional capability, a VPMS service may support
   reverse traffic from a Leaf AC to a Root AC (i.e. P2P, from Leaf to
   Root).

   In contrast, the focus of MEF E-Tree is that a Leaf can only
   communicate with Roots but not Leafs.

   A generic MEF E-Tree service supports multiple Root endpoints.
   Whether a particular E-Tree service needs to support single or
   multiple Root endpoints depends on the target application.

   A generic MEF E-Tree service supports all the following traffic
   flows:
     - Ethernet Unicast bidirectional Root to/from Root
     - Ethernet Unicast bidirectional Root to/from Leaf
     - Ethernet Broadcast/Multicast unidirectional Root to all Roots &
       Leafs
     - Ethernet Broadcast/Multicast unidirectional Leaf to all Roots.
   A particular E-Tree service may need to support all the above or only
   a subset depending on the target application.

   IETF's VPMS definition and MEF's E-Tree definition are significantly
   different.

   Only for special case E-Tree service where
     - No Unicast traffic from Root destined for a specific Leaf (or
       there is no concern if such Unicast traffic are forwarded to all
       Leafs)
     - No traffic between Roots
   VPMS will be able to meet the requirement. An example is E-Tree
   service for content delivery application.

   For generic E-Tree service, VPMS will not be able to meet the
   requirements.






Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


A.2. Are there any potential deployment scenarios for a "VPLS Only"
     solution?

   This refers to Section 5.2. Applicability, Case 1: Single technology
   "VPLS Only".

   Yes, there are potential deployment scenarios for a "VPLS Only"
   solution, some examples below.

   Example 1 -

                                                   Enhanced VPLS with
              <-----Physical P2P Service------><-----E-Tree Support-----
                                               +---------+
              +---+                            |   PE1   |
   +---+      |NTU|                            |  +---+  |
   |CE1+------+---+--V1-----------------AC1----+--+   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+                  (Root AC) |  | V |  |
                                               |  |   |  | Ethernet
              +---+                            |  | S +--+----PW--->PE2
   +---+      |NTU|                            |  |   |  |
   |CE2+------+---+--V2-----------------AC2----+--+ I |  |
   +---+ Root +---+                  (Root AC) |  |   |  |
                                               |  |   |  |
              +---+                            |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|                            |  |   |  |
   |CE3+------+---+--V3-----------------AC3----+--+   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+                  (Root AC) |  |   |  |
                                               |  |   |  |
              +---+                            |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|                            |  |   |  |
   |CE4+------+---+--V4-----------------AC4----+--+   |  |
   +---+ Leaf +---+                  (Leaf AC) |  |   |  |
                                               |  |   |  |
              +---+                            |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|                            |  |   |  |
   |CE5+------+---+--V5-----------------AC5----+--+   |  |
   +---+ Leaf +---+                  (Leaf AC) |  +---+  |
                                               +---------+















Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 10]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


   Example 2 -

                     Logical P2P Service           Enhanced VPLS with
              <-------via Access Switch-------><-----E-Tree Support-----
                         +---------+           +---------+
                         | Access  |           |   PE1   |
              +---+      | Switch  |           |         |
   +---+      |NTU|      |         |           |  +---+  |
   |CE1+------+---+--V1--+--VLAN1--+--V1--AC1--+--+   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+      |         | (Root AC) |  | V |  |
                         +---------+           |  |   |  | Ethernet
                                               |  | S +--+----PW--->PE2
                         +---------+           |  |   |  |
                         | Access  |           |  | I |  |
              +---+      | Switch  |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |         |           |  |   |  |
   |CE2+------+---+--V2--+--VLAN2--+--V2--AC2--+--+   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+      |         | (Root AC) |  |   |  |
                         |         |           |  |   |  |
              +---+      |         |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |         |           |  |   |  |
   |CE3+------+---+--V3--+--VLAN3--+--V3--AC3--+--+   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+      |         | (Root AC) |  |   |  |
                         |         |           |  |   |  |
              +---+      |         |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |         |           |  |   |  |
   |CE4+------+---+--V4--+--VLAN4--+--V4--AC4--+--+   |  |
   +---+ Leaf +---+      |         | (Leaf AC) |  |   |  |
                         |         |           |  |   |  |
              +---+      |         |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |         |           |  |   |  |
   |CE5+------+---+--V5--+--VLAN5--+--V5--AC5--+--+   |  |
   +---+ Leaf +---+      |         | (Leaf AC) |  +---+  |
                         +---------+           +---------+




















Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 11]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


   Example 3 -

                     Ethernet Switching            Enhanced VPLS with
              <------with Split Horizon-------><-----E-Tree Support-----
                         +---------+           +---------+
                         | Access  |           |   PE1   |
                         | Switch  |           |         |
                         |         |           |         |
                         |  +---+  |           |  +---+  |
              +---+      |  | V |  |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |  | L |  |           |  | V |  |
   |CE1+------+---+--V1--+--+ A +--+--V1--AC1--+--+   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+      |  | N |  | (Root AC) |  | S |  |
                         |  | 1 |  |           |  |   |  | Ethernet
                         |  +---+  |           |  | I +--+----PW--->PE2
                         +---------+           |  |   |  |
                                               |  |   |  |
                         +---------+           |  |   |  |
                         | Access  |           |  |   |  |
                         | Switch  |           |  |   |  |
              +---+      |         |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |  +---+  |           |  |   |  |
   |CE2+------+---+--V2--+--+ V |  |           |  |   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+      |  | L |  |           |  |   |  |
                         |  | A +--+--V2--AC2--+--+   |  |
              +---+      |  | N |  | (Root AC) |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |  | 2 |  |           |  |   |  |
   |CE3+------+---+--V2--+--+   |  |           |  |   |  |
   +---+ Root +---+      |  +---+  |           |  |   |  |
                         |         |           |  |   |  |
              +---+      |         |           |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |  +---+  |           |  |   |  |
   |CE4+------+---+--V4--+SH+ V |  |           |  |   |  |
   +---+ Leaf +---+      |  | L |  |           |  |   |  |
                         |  | A +--+--V4--AC4--+--+   |  |
              +---+      |  | N |  | (Leaf AC) |  |   |  |
   +---+      |NTU|      |  | 4 |  |           |  |   |  |
   |CE5+------+---+--V4--+SH+   |  |           |  |   |  |
   +---+ Leaf +---+      |  +---+  |           |  +---+  |
                         +---------+           +---------+

   Note:
     - Group Roots and Leafs into two separate VLANs on Access Switch
     - SH means member of split horizon group on Access Switch










Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 12]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Raymond Key (editor)
   Huawei
   Email: raymond.key@ieee.org

   Simon Delord
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Email: simon.delord@gmail.com

   Frederic Jounay
   Orange France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex, France
   Email: frederic.jounay@orange.com

   Lu Huang
   China Mobile
   Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District
   Beijing 100053, China
   Email: huanglu@chinamobile.com

   Zhihua Liu
   China Telecom
   109 Zhongshan Ave., Guangzhou
   510630, China
   Email: zhliu@gsta.com

   Manuel Paul
   Deutsche Telekom
   Winterfeldtstr. 21-27
   10781 Berlin, Germany
   Email: manuel.paul@telekom.de

   Ruediger Kunze
   Deutsche Telekom
   Winterfeldtstr. 21-27
   10781 Berlin, Germany
   Email: ruediger.kunze@telekom.de

   Nick Del Regno
   Verizon
   400 International Pkwy
   Richardson, TX 75081, USA
   Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com

   Joshua Rogers
   Time Warner Cable
   11921 N. MoPac Expwy
   Austin, TX 78759, USA
   Email: josh.rogers@twcable.com



Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 13]

Internet Draft         Requirement E-Tree in VPLS           October 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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.








































Key, et al.                Expires April 2012                  [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/