[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 4447

Network Working Group                                       Luca Martini
Internet Draft                                             Eric C. Rosen
Expiration Date: June 2004                           Cisco Systems, Inc.

Nasser El-Aawar                                               Toby Smith
Level 3 Communications, LLC.                       Laurel Networks, Inc.

Giles Heron
Tellabs
                                                           December 2003


               Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using LDP


                draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.

Abstract

   Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, ATM, ethernet) can be
   "emulated" over an IP and/or MPLS backbone by encapsulating the layer
   2 PDUs and then transmitting them over "pseudowires".  It is also
   possible to use pseudowires to provide SONET circuit emulation over
   an IP and/or MPLS network. This document specifies a protocol for
   establishing and maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to
   LDP.  Procedures for encapsulating layer 2 PDUs are specified in a
   set of companion documents.




Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 1]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003




Table of Contents

    1      Specification of Requirements  ..........................   3
    2      Introduction  ...........................................   3
    3      The Pseudowire Label  ...................................   5
    4      Details Specific to Particular Emulated Services  .......   6
    4.1    Frame Relay  ............................................   6
    4.2    ATM  ....................................................   6
    4.2.1  ATM AAL5 SDU VCC Transport  .............................   6
    4.2.2  ATM Transparent Cell Transport  .........................   7
    4.2.3  ATM n-to-one VCC and VPC Cell Transport  ................   7
    4.2.4  OAM Cell Support  .......................................   7
    4.2.5  ILMI Support  ...........................................   8
    4.2.6  ATM AAL5 PDU VCC Transport  .............................   9
    4.2.7  ATM one-to-one VCC and VPC Cell Transport  ..............   9
    4.3    Ethernet VLAN  ..........................................   9
    4.4    Ethernet  ...............................................   9
    4.5    HDLC and PPP  ...........................................  10
    4.6    IP Layer2 Transport  ....................................  10
    5      LDP  ....................................................  10
    5.1    The PWid FEC Element  ...................................  11
    5.2    The Generalized ID FEC Element  .........................  12
    5.2.1  Attachment Identifiers  .................................  13
    5.2.2  Encoding the Generalized ID FEC Element  ................  14
    5.2.3  Procedures  .............................................  15
    5.3    Signaling of Pseudo Wire Status  ........................  16
    5.3.1  Use of Label Mappings.  .................................  16
    5.3.2  Signaling PW status.  ...................................  17
    5.3.3  Pseudowire Status Negotiation Procedures  ...............  18
    5.4    Interface Parameters Field  .............................  19
    5.4.1  PW types for which the control word is REQUIRED  ........  21
    5.4.2  PW types for which the control word is NOT mandatory  ...  21
    5.4.3  Status codes  ...........................................  23
    5.5    LDP label Withdrawal procedures  ........................  23
    5.6    Sequencing Considerations  ..............................  24
    5.6.1  Label Mapping Advertisements  ...........................  24
    5.6.2  Label Mapping Release  ..................................  24
    6      Security Considerations  ................................  25
    7      References  .............................................  25
    8      Author Information  .....................................  26
    9      Additional Contributing Authors  ........................  27
   10      Appendix A - C-bit Handling Procedures Diagram  .........  30







Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 2]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


1. 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.

2. Introduction

   In [7], [9], and [11] it is explained how to encapsulate a layer 2
   Protocol Data Unit (PDU) for transmission over an IP and/or MPLS
   network.  Those specifications that a "pseudowire header", consisting
   of a demultiplexor field, will be prepended to the encapsulated PDU.
   The pseudowire demultiplexor field is put on before transmitting a
   packet on a pseudowire.  When the packet arrives at the remote
   endpoint of the pseudowire, the demultiplexor is what enables the
   receiver to identify the particular pseudowire on which the packet
   has arrived.  To actually transmit the packet from one pseudowire
   endpoint to another, the packet may need to travel through a "PSN
   tunnel"; this will require an additional header to be prepended to
   the packet.

   An accompanying document [8] also describes a method for transporting
   time division multiplexed (TDM) digital signals (TDM circuit
   emulation) over a packet-oriented MPLS network. The transmission
   system for circuit-oriented TDM signals is the Synchronous Optical
   Network (SONET)[5]/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) [6]. To
   support TDM traffic, which includes voice, data, and private leased
   line service, the pseudowires must emulate the circuit
   characteristics of SONET/SDH payloads. The TDM signals and payloads
   are encapsulated for transmission over pseudowires.  To this
   encapsulation is prepended a pseudowire demultiplexor and a PSN
   tunnel header.

   In this document, we specify the use of the MPLS Label Distribution
   Protocol, LDP [RFC3036], as a protocol a protocol for setting up and
   maintaining the pseudowires.  In particular, we define new TLVs for
   LDP, which enable LDP to identify pseudowires and to signal
   attributes of pseudowires.  We specify how a pseudowire endpoint uses
   these TLVs in LDP to bind a demultiplexor field value to a
   pseudowire, and how it informs the remote endpoint of the binding.
   We also specify procedures for reporting pseudowire status changes,
   passing additional information about the pseudowire as needed, and
   for releasing the bindings.

   In the protocol specified herein, the pseudowire demultiplexor field
   is an MPLS label. Thus the packets which are transmitted from one end
   of the pseudowire to the other are MPLS packets. Unless the
   pseudowire endpoints are immediately adjacent, these MPLS packets



Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 3]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   must be transmitted through a PSN tunnel. Any sort of PSN tunnel can
   be used, as long as it is possible to transmit MPLS packets through
   it. The PSN tunnel can itself be an LSP, or any other sort of tunnel
   which can carry MPLS packets. Procedures for setting up and
   maintaining the PSN tunnels are outside the scope of this document.

   This document deals only with the setup and maintenance of point-to-
   point pseudowires.   Neither point-to-multipoint nor multipoint-to-
   point pseudowires are discussed.

   QoS related issues are not discussed in this document.

   The following two figures describe the reference models which are
   derived from [12] to support the Ethernet PW emulated services.

           Native    |<----- Pseudo Wire ---->|    Native
           Layer2    |                        |    Layer2
          Service    |  |<-- PSN Tunnel -->|  |    Service
             |       V  V                  V  V       |
             |     +----+                  +----+     |
   +----+    |     | PE1|==================| PE2|     |    +----+
   |    |----------|............PW1.............|----------|    |
   | CE1|    |     |    |                  |    |     |    |CE2 |
   |    |----------|............PW2.............|----------|    |
   +----+    |     |    |==================|    |     |    +----+
        ^          +----+                  +----+     |    ^
        |      Provider Edge 1         Provider Edge 2     |
        |                                                  |
        |<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|

      Figure 1: PWE3 Reference Model

   +-------------+                                +-------------+
   |  Layer2     |                                |  Layer2     |
   |  Emulated   |                                |  Emulated   |
   |  Services   |         Emulated Service       |  Services   |
   |             |<==============================>|             |
   +-------------+           Pseudo Wire          +-------------+
   |Demultiplexor|<==============================>|Demultiplexor|
   +-------------+                                +-------------+
   |    PSN      |            PSN Tunnel          |    PSN      |
   |   MPLS      |<==============================>|   MPLS      |
   +-------------+                                +-------------+
   |  Physical   |                                |  Physical   |
   +-----+-------+                                +-----+-------+

      Figure 2: PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model




Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 4]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   For the purpose of this document, PE1 will be defined as the ingress
   router, and PE2 as the egress router. A layer 2 PDU will be received
   at PE1, encapsulated at PE1, transported, decapsulated at PE2, and
   transmitted out of PE2.


3. The Pseudowire Label

   Suppose it is desired to transport layer 2 PDUs from ingress LSR PE1
   to egress LSR PE2, across an intervening PSN. We assume that there is
   a PSN tunnel from PE1 to PE2. That is, we assume that PE1 can cause a
   packet to be delivered to PE2 by encapsulating the packet in a "PSN
   tunnel header" and sending the result to one of its adjacencies.  If
   the PSN tunnel is an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP), then putting on
   a PSN tunnel encapsulation is a matter of pushing on an additional
   MPLS label.

   We presuppose that an arbitrary number of pseudowires can be carried
   through a single PSN tunnel.  Thus it is never necessary to maintain
   state in the network core for individual pseudowires.  We do not
   presuppose that the PSN tunnels are point-to-point; although the
   pseudowires are point-to-point, the PSN tunnels may be multipoint-
   to-point.  We do not presuppose that PE2 will even be able to
   determine the PSN tunnel through which a received packet was
   transmitted.  (E.g., if the PSN tunnel is an LSP, and penultimate hop
   popping is used, when the packet arrives at PE2 it will contain no
   information identifying the tunnel.)

   When PE2 receives a packet over a pseudowire, it must be able to
   determine that the packet was in fact received over a pseudowire, and
   it must be able to associate that packet with a particular
   pseudowire.  PE2 is able to do this by examining the MPLS label which
   serves as the pseudowire demultiplexor field shown in Figure 2.  Call
   this label the "PW label".

   So when PE1 sends a layer 2 PDU to PE2, it first pushes a PW label on
   its label stack, thereby creating an MPLS packet.  It then (if PE1 is
   not adjacent to PE2) encapsulates that MPLS packet in a PSN tunnel
   header.  (If the PSN tunnel is an LSP, this is just a matter of
   pushing on a second label.)  The PW label is not visible again until
   the MPLS packet reaches PE2. PE2's disposition of the packet is based
   on the PW label.

   Note that the PW label must always be at the bottom of the packet's
   label stack and labels MUST be allocated from the per-platform label
   space.





Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 5]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   This document specifies a protocol for assigning and distributing the
   PW label.  This protocol is LDP, extended as specified in the
   remainder of this document.  An LDP session must be set up between
   the pseudowire endpoints.  LDP MUST be used in its "downstream
   unsolicited" mode.  LDP's "liberal label retention" mode SHOULD be
   used.

   In addition to the protocol specified herein, static assignment of PW
   labels MAY be used, and implementations of this protocol SHOULD
   provide support for static assignment.

   This document specifies all the procedures necessary to set up and
   maintain the pseudowires needed to support "unswitched" point-to-
   point services, where each endpoint of the pseudowire is provisioned
   with the identify of the other endpoint.  There are also  protocol
   mechanisms specified herein which can be used to support switched
   services, and which can be used to support other provisioning models.
   However, the use of the protocol mechanisms to support those other
   models and services is not described in this document.


4. Details Specific to Particular Emulated Services

4.1. Frame Relay

   When emulating a frame relay service, the Frame Relay PDUs are
   encapsulated according to the procedures defined in [7]. The PE MUST
   provide Frame Relay PVC status signaling to the Frame Relay network.
   If the PE detects a service affecting condition for a particular
   DLCI, as defined in [2] Q.933 Annex A.5 sited in IA FRF1.1, PE MUST
   communicate to the remote PE the status of the PW corresponds to the
   frame relay DLCI. The Egress PE SHOULD generate the corresponding
   errors and alarms as defined in [2] on the egress Frame relay PVC.


4.2. ATM

4.2.1. ATM AAL5 SDU VCC Transport

   ATM AAL5 CSPS-SDUs are encapsulated according to [9] ATM AAL5 CPCS-
   SDU mode. This mode allows the transport of ATM AAL5 CSPS-SDUs
   traveling on a particular ATM PVC across the network to another ATM
   PVC.








Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 6]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


4.2.2. ATM Transparent Cell Transport

   This mode is similar to the Ethernet port mode. Every cell that is
   received at the ingress ATM port on the ingress PE, PE1, is
   encapsulated according to [9], ATM cell mode n-to-one, and sent
   across the PW to the egress PE, PE2.  This mode allows an ATM port to
   be connected to only one other ATM port.  [9] ATM cell n-to-one mode
   allows for concatenation ( grouping ) of multiple cells into a single
   MPLS frame. Concatenation of ATM cells is OPTIONAL for transmission
   at the ingress PE, PE1. If the Egress PE PE2 supports cell
   concatenation the ingress PE, PE1, should only concatenate cells up
   to the "Maximum Number of concatenated ATM cells" parameter received
   as part of the FEC element.


4.2.3. ATM n-to-one VCC and VPC Cell Transport

   This mode is similar to the ATM AAL5 VCC transport except that cells
   are transported. Every cell that is received on a pre-defined ATM
   PVC, or ATM PVP, at the ingress ATM port on the ingress PE, PE1, is
   encapsulated according to [9], ATM n-to-one cell mode, and sent
   across the LSP to the egress PE PE2. Grouping of ATM cells is
   OPTIONAL for transmission at the ingress PE, PE1. If the Egress PE
   PE2 supports cell concatenation the ingress PE, PE1, MUST only
   concatenate cells up to the "Maximum Number of concatenated ATM cells
   in a frame" parameter received as part of the FEC element.


4.2.4. OAM Cell Support

   OAM cells MAY be transported on the VC LSP. When the PE is operating
   in AAL5 CPCS-SDU transport mode if it does not support transport of
   ATM cells, the PE MUST discard incoming MPLS frames on an ATM PW LSP
   that contain a PW label with the T bit set [9]. When operating in
   AAL5 SDU transport mode an PE that supports transport of OAM cells
   using the T bit defined in [9], or an PE operating in any of the cell
   transport modes MUST follow the procedures outlined in [9] in
   addition to the applicable procedures specified in [6].


4.2.4.1. SDU/PDU OAM Cell Emulation Mode

   A PE operating in ATM SDU, or PDU transport mode, that does not
   support transport of OAM cells across an LSP MAY provide OAM support
   on ATM PVCs using the following procedures:






Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 7]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


     - Loopback cells response

       If an F5 end-to-end OAM cell is received from a ATM VC, by either
       PE that is transporting this ATM VC, with a loopback indication
       value of 1, and the PE has a label mapping for the ATM VC, then
       the PE MUST decrement the loopback indication value and loop back
       the cell on the ATM VC. Otherwise the loopback cell MUST be
       discarded by the PE.

     - AIS Alarm.

       If an ingress PE, PE1, receives an AIS F4/F5 OAM cell, it MUST
       notify the remote PE of the failure. The remote PE , PE2, MUST in
       turn send F5 OAM AIS cells on the respective PVCs. Note that is
       the PE supports forwarding of OAM cells, then the received OAM
       AIS alarm cells MUTS be forwarded along the PW as well.

     - Interface failure.

       If the PE detects a physical interface failure, or the interface
       is administratively disabled, the PE MUST notify the remote PE
       for all VCs associated with the failure.

     - PSN/PW failure detection.

       If the PE detects a failure in the PW, by receiving a label
       withdraw for a specific PW ID, or the targeted LDP session fails,
       or a PW status TLV notification is received, then a propper AIS
       F5 OAM cell MUST be generated for all the affected atm PVCs. The
       AIS OAM alarm will be generated on the ATM output port of the PE
       that detected the failure.



4.2.5. ILMI Support

   An MPLS edge PE MAY provide an ATM ILMI to the ATM edge switch. If an
   ingress PE receives an ILMI message indicating that the ATM edge
   switch has deleted a VC, or if the physical interface goes down, it
   MUST send a PW status notification message for all PWs associated
   with the failure. When a PW label mapping is withdrawn, or PW status
   notification message is received the egress PE SHOULD notify its
   client of this failure by deleting the VC using ILMI.








Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 8]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


4.2.6. ATM AAL5 PDU VCC Transport

   ATM AAL5 CSPS-PDUs are encapsulated according to [9] ATM AAL5 CPCS-
   PDU mode. This mode allows the transport of ATM AAL5 CSPS-PDUs
   traveling on a particular ATM PVC across the network to another ATM
   PVC. This mode supports fragmentation of the ATM AAL5 CPCS-PDU in
   order to maintain the position of the OAM cells with respect to the
   user cells. Fragmentation may also be performed to maintain the size
   of the packet carrying the AAL5 PDU within the MTU of the link.


4.2.7. ATM one-to-one VCC and VPC Cell Transport

   This mode is similar to the ATM AAL5 n-to-one cell transport except
   an encapsulation method that maps one ATM VCC or one ATM VPC to one
   Pseudo-Wire is used. Every cell that is received on a pre-defined ATM
   PVC, or ATM PVP, at the ingress ATM port on the ingress PE, PE1, is
   encapsulated according to [9], ATM one-to-one cell mode, and sent
   across the LSP to the egress PE PE2. Grouping of ATM cells is
   OPTIONAL for transmission at the ingress PE, PE1. If the Egress PE
   PE2 supports cell concatenation the ingress PE, PE1, MUST only
   concatenate cells up to the "Maximum Number of concatenated ATM cells
   in a frame" parameter received as part of the FEC element.


4.3. Ethernet VLAN

   The Ethernet frame will be encapsulated according to the procedures
   in [11] tagged mode. It should be noted that if the VLAN identifier
   is modified by the egress PE, according to the procedures outlined
   above, the Ethernet spanning tree protocol might fail to work
   properly. If the PE detects a failure on the Ethernet physical port,
   or the port is administratively disabled, it MUST send PW status
   notification message for all PWs associated with the port. This mode
   uses service-delimiting tags to map input ethernet frames to
   respective PWs.


4.4. Ethernet

   The Ethernet frame will be encapsulated according to the procedures
   in [11] "ethernet raw mode". If the PE detects a failure on the
   Ethernet input port, or the port is administratively disabled, the PE
   MUST send a corresponding PW status notification message.







Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 9]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


4.5. HDLC and PPP

   HDLC and PPP frames are encapsulated according to the procedures in
   [10]. If the MPLS edge PE detects that the physical link has failed,
   or the port is administratively disabled, it MUST send a PW status
   notification message that corresponds to the HDLC or PPP PW.


4.6. IP Layer2 Transport

   This mode switches IP packets into a Peudo-Wire. the encapsulation
   used is according to [3]. IP interworking is implementation specific,
   part of the NSP function [12], and is outside the scope of this
   document.


5. LDP

   The PW label bindings are distributed using the LDP downstream
   unsolicited mode described in [1]. The PEs will establish an LDP
   session using the Extended Discovery mechanism described in [1,
   section 2.4.2 and 2.5].

   An LDP Label Mapping message contains a FEC TLV, a Label TLV, and
   zero or more optional parameter TLVs.

   The FEC TLV is used to indicate the meaning of the label.  In the
   current context, the FEC TLV would be used to identify the particular
   pseudowire that a particular label is bound to.  In this
   specification, we define two new FEC TLVs to be used for identifying
   pseudowires.  When setting up a particular pseudowire, only one of
   these FEC TLVs is used.  The one to be used will depend on the
   particular service being emulated and on the particular provisioning
   model being supported.

   LDP allows each FEC TLV to consist of a set of FEC elements.  For
   setting up and maintaining pseudowires, however, each FEC TLV MUST
   contain exactly one FEC element.

   LDP has several kinds of label TLVs.  For setting up and maintaining
   pseudowires, the Generic Label TLV MUST be used.










Martini, et al.                                                [Page 10]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


5.1. The PWid FEC Element

   The PWid FEC element may be used whenever both pseudowire endpoints
   have been provisioned with the same 32-bit identifier for the
   pseudowire.

   For this purpose a new type of FEC element is defined. The FEC
   element type is 128 [note1], and is defined 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    PW tlv     |C|         PW type             |PW info Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Group ID                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           PW ID                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Interface parameters                    |
   |                              "                                |
   |                              "                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


     - PW type

       A 15 bit quantity containing a value which represents the type of
       PW. Assigned Values are specified in "IANA Allocations for pseudo
       Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)" [13].

     - Control word bit (C)

       The  highest  order bit (C) of the PW type is used to flag the
       presence  of  a  control  word  ( defined in [7] ) as follows:

               bit 15 = 1 control word present on this VC.
               bit 15 = 0 no control word present on this VC.

       Please see the section "C-Bit Handling Procedures" for further
       explanation.

     - PW information length

       Length of the PW ID field and the interface parameters field in
       octets. If this value is 0, then it references all PWs using the
       specified group ID and there is no PW ID present, nor any
       interface parameters.




Martini, et al.                                                [Page 11]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


     - Group ID

       An arbitrary 32 bit value which represents a group of PWs that is
       used to create groups in the VC space. The group ID is intended
       to be used as a port index, or a virtual tunnel index. To
       simplify configuration a particular PW ID at ingress could be
       part of the virtual tunnel for transport to the egress router.
       The Group ID is very useful to send wild card label withdrawals,
       or PW wild card status notification messages to remote PEs upon
       physical port failure.

     - PW ID

       A non-zero 32-bit connection ID that together with the PW type,
       identifies a particular PW.  Note that the PW ID and the PW type
       must be the same at both endpoints.

     - Interface parameters

       This variable length field is used to provide interface specific
       parameters, such as CE-facing interface MTU.

       Note that as the "interface parameters" are part of the FEC, the
       rules of LDP make it impossible to change the interface
       parameters once the pseudowire has been set up.  Thus the
       interface parameters field must not be used to pass information,
       such as status information, which may change during the life of
       the pseudowire.  Optional parameter TLVs should be used for that
       purpose.

   Using the PWid FEC, each of the two pseudowire endpoints
   independently initiates the set up of a unidirectional LSP.  An
   outgoing LSP and an incoming LSP are bound together into a single
   pseudowire if they have the same PW ID  and PW type.


5.2. The Generalized ID FEC Element

   There are cases where the PWid FEC element cannot be used, because
   both endpoints have not been provisioned with a common 32-bit PWid.
   In such cases, the "Generalized ID FEC Element" is used instead.
   This is FEC type 129 (provisionally, subject to assignment by IANA).
   It differs from the PWid FEC element in that the PWid and the group
   id are eliminated, and their place is taken by a generalized
   identifier field as described below.  The Generalized ID FEC element
   includes a PW type field, a C bit, and an interface parameters field;
   these three fields are identical to those in the PWid FEC, and are
   used as discussed in the previous section.



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 12]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


5.2.1. Attachment Identifiers

   As discussed in [12], a pseudowire can be thought of as connecting
   two "forwarders".  The protocol used to setup a pseudowire must allow
   the forwarder at one end of a pseudowire to identify the forwarder at
   the other end.  We use the term "attachment identifier", or "AI", to
   refer to the field which the protocol uses to identify the
   forwarders.  In the PWid FEC, the PWid field serves as the AI.  In
   this section we specify a more general form of AI which is structured
   and of variable length.

   Every Forwarder in a PE must be associated with an Attachment
   Identifier (AI), either through configuration or through some
   algorithm.  The Attachment Identifier must be unique in the context
   of the PE router in which the Forwarder resides.  The combination <PE
   router, AI> must be globally unique.

   It is frequently convenient to a set of Forwarders as being members
   of a particular "group", where PWs may only be set up among members
   of a group.  In such cases, it is convenient to identify the
   Forwarders relative to the group, so that an Attachment Identifier
   would consist of  an Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) plus an
   Attachment Individual Identifier (AII).

   An Attachment  Group Identifier  may be thought  of as  a VPN-id, or
   a VLAN identifier, some  attribute which  is shared by  all the
   Attachment  VCs (or pools thereof) which are allowed to be connected.

   The details of how to construct the AGI and AII fields identifying
   the pseudowire endpoints are outside the scope of this specification.
   Different pseudowire application, and different provisioning models,
   will require different sorts of AGI and AII fields.  The
   specification of each such application and/or model must include the
   rules for constructing the AGI and AII fields.

   As previously discussed, a (bidirectional) pseudowire consists of a
   pair of unidirectional LSPs, one in each direction. If a particular
   pseudowire connects PE1 with PE2, the LSP in the PE1-->PE2 direction
   can be identified as:

           <PE1, <AGI, AII1>, PE2, <AGI, AII2>>,

   and the LSP in the PE2--PE1 direction can be identified by:

           <PE2, <AGI, AII2>, PE1, <AGI, AII1>>.

   Note that the AGI must be the same at both endpoints, but the AII
   will in general be different at each endpoint.  Thus from the



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 13]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   perspective of a particular PE, each pseudowire has a local or
   "Source AII", and a remote or "Target AII".  The pseudowire setup
   protocol can carry all three of these quantities:

     - Attachment Group Identifier (AGI).

     - Source Attachment Individual Identifier (SAII)

     - Target Attachment Individual Identifier (TAII)

   If the AGI is non-null, then the Source AI (SAI) consists of the AGI
   together with the SAII, and the Target AI (TAI) consists of the TAII
   together with the AGI.  If the AGI is null, then the SAII and TAII
   are the SAI and TAI respectively.

   The interpretation of the SAI and TAI is a local matter at the
   respective endpoint.

   The association of two unidirectional LSPs into a single
   bidirectional pseudowire depends on the SAI and the TAI.  Each
   application and/or provisioning model which uses the Generalized ID
   FEC element must specify the rules for performing this association.


5.2.2. Encoding the Generalized ID FEC Element

      FEC element type 129 is used.   The FEC element is encoded as
      follows:























Martini, et al.                                                [Page 14]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     129       |C|         PW Type             |VC info Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      AGI      |    Length         |  Value                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Value (contd.)                           ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     SAII      |    Length         |  Value                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Value (contd.)                           ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     TAII      |    Length         |  Value                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Value (contd.)                           ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                    Interface Parameters                       |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   This document does not specify the SAII,TAII,AGI type field values;
   specification of the type field values to use for a particular
   application is part of the specification of that application. IANA
   will assign these values based on IETF consensus.

   If a particular application does not need all three of these sub-
   elements, it may simply omit the ones it does not need.

   The SAII, TAII, and AGI are simply carried as octet strings.  The
   length byte specifies the size of the field, excluding the length
   byte itself. The null string can be sent by setting the length byte
   to 0.


5.2.3. Procedures

   In order for PE1 to begin signaling PE2, PE1 must know the address of
   the remote PE2, and a TAI.  This information may have been configured
   at PE1, or it may have been learned dynamically via some
   autodiscovery procedure.




Martini, et al.                                                [Page 15]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   To begin the signaling procedure, a PE (PE1) that has knowledge of
   the other endpoint (PE2) initiates the setup of the LSP in the
   incoming (PE2-->PE1) direction by sending a Label Mapping message
   containing the FEC type 129.  The FEC element includes the SAII, AGI,
   and TAII.

   What happens when PE2 receives such a Label Mapping message?

   PE2 interprets the message as a request to set up a PW whose endpoint
   (at PE2) is the Forwarder identified by the TAI.  From the
   perspective of the signaling protocol, exactly how PE2 maps AIs to
   Forwarders is a local matter.  In some VPWS provisioning models, the
   TAI might, e.g., be a string which identifies a particular Attachment
   Circuit, such as "ATM3VPI4VCI5", or it might, e.g., be a string such
   as "Fred" which is associated by configuration with a particular
   Attachment Circuit.  In VPLS, the TAI would be a VPN-id, identifying
   a particular VPLS instance.

   If PE2 cannot map the TAI to one of its Forwarders, then PE2 sends a
   Label Release message to PE1, with a Status Code meaning "invalid
   TAI", and the processing of the Mapping message is complete.

   If the Label Mapping Message has a valid TAI, PE2 must decide whether
   to accept it or not. The procedures for so deciding will depend on
   the particular type of Forwarder identified by the TAI. Of course,
   the Label Mapping message may be rejected due to standard LDP error
   conditions as detailed in [1].

   If PE2 decides to accept the Label Mapping message, then it has to
   make sure that an LSP is set up in the opposite (PE1-->PE2)
   direction.  If it has already signaled for the corresponding LSP in
   that direction, nothing more need be done.  Otherwise, it must
   initiate such signaling by sending a Label Mapping message to PE1.
   This is very similar to the Label Mapping message PE2 received, but
   with the SAI and TAI reversed.


5.3. Signaling of Pseudo Wire Status

5.3.1. Use of Label Mappings.

   The PEs MUST send PW label mapping messages to their peers as soon as
   the PW is configured and administratively enabled, regardless of the
   CE-facing interface state. The PW label should not be withdrawn
   unless the user administratively configures the CE-facing interface
   down (or the PW configuration is deleted entirely). A simple label
   withdraw method MAY also be supported as an alternative. In any case
   if the Label mapping is not available the PW MUST be considered in



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 16]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   the down state.



5.3.2. Signaling PW status.

   The PE devices use an LDP TLV to indicate status to their remote
   peers. This PW Status TLV contains more information than the
   alternative simple Label Withdraw message.

   The format of the PW Status TLV is:
    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 Status (0x0???)    |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Status Code                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Where status is a 4 octet bit field is specified in the PW IANA
   Allocations document [13]

   Each bit in the status code field can be set individually to indicate
   more then a single failure at once. Each fault can be cleared by
   sending an appropriate status message with the respective bit
   cleared. The presence of the lowest bit (PW Not Forwarding) acts only
   as a generic failure indication when there is a link-down event for
   which none of the other bits apply.

   The Status TLV is transported to the remote PW peer via the LDP
   notification message. The format of the Notification Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Notification   (0x0001)   |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Message ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             PW FEC TLV  or Generalized ID FEC Element         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         PW Status TLV                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The PW FEC TLV SHOULD not include the interface parameters as they
   are ignored in the context of this message. When a PE's CE-facing



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 17]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   interface encounters an error, use of the PW status message allows
   the PE to send a single status message, using a PW FEC TLV with only
   the group ID set, to denote this change in status for all affected PW
   connections.

   As mentioned above the Group ID field can be used to send a status
   notification for all PWs associated with a particular group ID. This
   procedure is OPTIONAL, and if it is implemented the LDP Notification
   message should be as follows: the PW information length field is set
   to 0, the PW ID field is not present, and the interface parameters
   field is not present. For the purpose of this document this is called
   the "wild card PW status notification procedure", and all PEs
   implementing this design are REQUIRED to accept such a notification
   message, but are not required to send it.


5.3.3. Pseudowire Status Negotiation Procedures

   When a PW is first setup the PEs MUST attempt to negotiate the usage
   of the PW status TLV. This is accomplished as follows:

   A PE that supports the PW Status TLV MUST include it in the initial
   label mapping signaling as part of the PW FEC and following the
   interface parameters field. The PW Status TLV will be used for the
   lifetime of the Pseudowire for PEs that support this TLV.

   If the PW Status TLV is not present in the initial PW FEC Message
   received by a PE, then the PW Status TLV will not be used and both
   PEs of the pseudowire will revert to the label withdraw procedure for
   signaling status changes.

   If PW status TLV is sent as part of the initial PW FEC Message, but
   the remote PE corresponding FEC advertisement does not include a PW
   status TLV, or the remote PE does not support the PW Status TLV then
   the PW will revert to the label withdraw method to signal PW status.
   Note that if the PW Status TLV is not supported it will automatically
   be ignored since the LDP ignore bit is set.

   If the negotiation process results in the usage of the PW status TLV,
   then the actual PW status is determined by the PW status TLV that was
   sent within the initial PW label mapping. Subsequent updates of PW
   status are conveyed through the notification message









Martini, et al.                                                [Page 18]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                 PWId FEC or Generalized ID FEC                +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Interface parameters                    |
   |                              "                                |
   |                              "                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|     PW Status (0x0???)    |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Status Code                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



5.4. Interface Parameters Field

   This field specifies interface specific parameters. When applicable,
   it MUST be used to validate that the PEs, and the ingress and egress
   ports at the edges of the circuit, have the necessary capabilities to
   interoperate with each other. The field structure is defined 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Parameter ID |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Variable Length Value                 |
   |                             "                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The parameter ID Values are specified in "IANA Allocations for pseudo
   Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)" [13].

   The Length field is defined as the length of the interface parameter
   including the parameter id and length field itself. Processing of the
   interface parameters should continue when encountering unknown
   interface parameters and they MUST be silently ignored.

     - Interface MTU

       A 2 octet value indicating the MTU in octets. This is the Maximum
       Transmission Unit, excluding encapsulation overhead, of the



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 19]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


       egress packet interface that will be transmitting the
       decapsulated PDU that is received from the MPLS network. This
       parameter is applicable only to PW types 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,14, and
       15 and is REQUIRED for these PW types. If this parameter does not
       match in both directions of a specific PW, that PW MUST NOT be
       enabled.

     - Maximum Number of concatenated ATM cells

       A 2 octet value specifying the maximum number of concatenated ATM
       cells that can be processed as a single PDU by the egress PE. An
       ingress PE transmitting concatenated cells on this PW can
       concatenate a number of cells up to the value of this parameter,
       but MUST NOT exceed it. This parameter is applicable only to PW
       types 3, 9, 0x0a, 0xc, and 0xd and is REQUIRED for these PWC
       types. This parameter does not need to match in both directions
       of a specific PW.

     - Optional Interface Description string

       This arbitrary, OPTIONAL, interface description string is used to
       send a human-readable administrative string describing the
       interface to the remote. This parameter is OPTIONAL, and is
       applicable to all PW types.  The interface description parameter
       string length is variable, and can be from 0 to 80 octets.
       Human-readable text MUST be provided in the UTF-8 charset using
       the Default Language [RFC2277].

     - Payload Bytes

       A 2 octet value indicating the number of TDM payload octets
       contained in all packets on the CEM stream, from 48 to 1,023
       octets. All of the packets in a given CEM stream have the same
       number of payload bytes. Note that there is a possibility that
       the packet size may exceed the SPE size in the case of an STS-1
       SPE, which could cause two pointers to be needed in the CEM
       header, since the payload may contain two J1 bytes for
       consecutive SPEs. For this reason, the number of payload bytes
       must be less than or equal to 783 for STS-1 SPEs.

     - CEP Options.

       An optional 16 Bit value of CEM Flags. See [8] for the definition
       of the bit values.







Martini, et al.                                                [Page 20]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


     - Requested VLAN ID.

       An Optional 16 bit value indicating the requested VLAN ID. This
       parameter MAY be used by an PE that is incapable of rewriting the
       802.1Q ethernet VLAN tag on output. If the ingress PE receives
       this request it MAY rewrite the VLAN ID tag in input to match the
       requested VLAN ID. If this is not possible, and the VLAN ID does
       not already match configured ingress VLAN ID the PW should not be
       enabled.This parameter is applicable only to PW type 4.

     - CEP/TDM bit rate.

       This 32-bit integer is mandatory for CEP. For other PWs carrying
       TDM traffic it is mandatory if the bit-rate cannot be directly
       inferred from the service type. If present, it expresses the bit
       rate of the attachment circuit as known to the advertizing PE in
       "units" of 64 kbit/s. I.e., the value 26 must be used for CEP
       carrying VT1.5 SPE, 35 - for CEP carrying a VT2 SPE, 99 - for VT6
       SPE, 783 - for STS-1 SPE and n*783 - for STS-nc, n = 3, 12, 48,
       192.  Attempts to establish a PWC between a pair of TDM ports
       with different bit-rates MUST be rejected with the appropriate
       status code (see section "Status codes" below).

     - Frame-Relay DLCI lenth.

       An optional 16 bit value indicating the lenght of the frame-relay
       DLCI field. This OPTIONAL interface paremeter can have value of 2
       , or 4, with the default being equal to 2. If this interface
       parameter is not present the default value of 2 is assumed.


5.4.1. PW types for which the control word is REQUIRED

   The Label Mapping messages which are sent in order to set up these
   PWs MUST have c=1. When a Label Mapping message for a PW of one of
   these types is received, and c=0, a Label Release MUST be sent, with
   an "Illegal C-bit" status code. In this case, the PW will not be
   enabled.


5.4.2. PW types for which the control word is NOT mandatory

   If a system is capable of sending and receiving the control word on
   PW types for which the control word is not mandatory, then each such
   PW endpoint MUST be configurable with a parameter that specifies
   whether the use of the control word is PREFERRED or NOT PREFERRED.
   For each PW, there MUST be a default value of this parameter. This
   specification does NOT state what the default value should be.



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 21]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   If a system is NOT capable of sending and receiving the control word
   on PWC types for which the control word is not mandatory, then it
   behaves as exactly as if it were configured for the use of the
   control word to be NOT PREFERRED.

   If a Label Mapping message for the PW has already been received, but
   no Label Mapping message for the PW has yet been sent, then the
   procedure is the following:

        -i. If the received Label Mapping message has c=0, send a Label
            Mapping message with c=0, and the control word is not used.
       -ii. If the received Label Mapping message has c=1, and the PW is
            locally configured such that the use of the control word is
            preferred, then send a Label Mapping message with c=1, and
            the control word is used.
      -iii. If the received Label Mapping message has c=1, and the PW is
            locally configured such that the use of the control word is
            not preferred or the control word is not supported, then act
            as if no Label Mapping message for the PW had been received
            (i.e., proceed to the next paragraph).

   If a Label Mapping message for the PW has not already been received
   (or if the received Label Mapping message had c=1 and either local
   configuration says that the use of the control word is not preferred
   or the control word is not supported), then send a Label Mapping
   message in which the c bit is set to correspond to the locally
   configured preference for use of the control word.  (I.e., set c=1 if
   locally configured to prefer the control word, set c=0 if locally
   configured to prefer not to use the control word or if the control
   word is not supported).

   The next action depends on what control message is next received for
   that PW.  The possibilities are:

        -i. A Label Mapping message with the same c bit value as
            specified in the Label Mapping message that was sent. PW
            setup is now complete, and the control word is used if c=1
            but not used if c=0.
       -ii. A Label Mapping message with c=1, but the Label Mapping
            message that was sent has c=0. In this case, ignore the
            received Label Mapping message, and continue to wait for the
            next control message for the PW.
      -iii. A Label Mapping message with c=0, but the Label Mapping
            message that was sent has c=1. In this case, send a Label
            Withdraw message with a "Wrong c-bit" status code, followed
            by a Label Mapping message that has c=0. PW setup is now
            complete, and the control word is not used.




Martini, et al.                                                [Page 22]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


       -iv. A Label Withdraw message with the "Wrong c-bit" status code.
            Treat as a normal Label Withdraw, but do not respond.
            Continue to wait for the next control message for the PW.

   If at any time after a Label Mapping message has been received, a
   corresponding Label Withdraw or Release is received, the action taken
   is the same as for any Label Withdraw or Release that might be
   received at any time.

   If both endpoints prefer the use of the control word, this procedure
   will cause it to be used. If either endpoint prefers not to use the
   control word, or does not support the control word, this procedure
   will cause it not to be used. If one endpoint prefers to use the
   control word but the other does not, the one that prefers not to use
   it is has no extra protocol to execute, it just waits for a Label
   Mapping message that has c=0.

   The diagram in Appendix A illustrates the above procedure.


5.4.3. Status codes

   RFC 3036 has a range of Status Code values which are assigned by IANA
   on a First Come, First Served basis. These additional status codes,
   and  assigned Values are specified in "IANA Allocations for pseudo
   Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)" [13].


5.5. LDP label Withdrawal procedures

   As mentioned above the Group ID field can be used to withdraw all PW
   labels associated with a particular group ID. This procedure is
   OPTIONAL, and if it is implemented the LDP label withdraw message
   should be as follows: the PW information length field is set to 0,
   the PW ID field is not present, and the interface parameters field is
   not present. For the purpose of this document this is called the
   "wild card withdraw procedure", and all PEs implementing this design
   are REQUIRED to accept such a withdraw message, but are not required
   to send it.

   The interface parameters field MUST NOT be present in any LDP PW
   label withdrawal message or release message. A wildcard release
   message MUST include only the group ID. A Label Release message
   initiated from the imposition router must always include the PW ID.







Martini, et al.                                                [Page 23]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


5.6. Sequencing Considerations

   In the case where the router considers the sequence number field in
   the control word, it is important to note the following when
   advertising labels


5.6.1. Label Mapping Advertisements

   After a label has been withdrawn by the disposition router and/or
   released by the imposition router, care must be taken to not re-
   advertise (re-use) the released label until the disposition router
   can be reasonably certain that old packets containing the released
   label no longer persist in the MPLS network.

   This precaution is required to prevent the imposition router from
   restarting packet forwarding with sequence number of 1 when it
   receives the same label mapping if there are still older packets
   persisting in the network with sequence number between 1 and 32768.
   For example, if there is a packet with sequence number=n where n is
   in the interval[1,32768] traveling through the network, it would be
   possible for the disposition router to receive that packet after it
   re-advertises the label. Since the label has been released by the
   imposition router, the disposition router SHOULD be expecting the
   next packet to arrive with sequence number to be 1. Receipt of a
   packet with sequence number equal to n will result in n packets
   potentially being rejected by the disposition router until the
   imposition router imposes a sequence number of n+1 into a packet.
   Possible methods to avoid this is for the disposition router to
   always advertise a different PW label, or for the disposition router
   to wait for a sufficient time before attempting to re-advertised a
   recently released label. This is only an issue when sequence number
   processing at the disposition router is enabled.


5.6.2. Label Mapping Release

   In situations where the imposition router wants to restart forwarding
   of packets with sequence number 1, the router shall 1) Send to
   disposition router a label mapping release, and 2) Send to
   disposition router a label mapping request. When sequencing is
   supported, advertisement of a PW label in response to a label mapping
   request MUST also consider the issues discussed in the section on
   Label Mapping Advertisements.







Martini, et al.                                                [Page 24]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


6. Security Considerations

   This document does not affect the underlying security issues of MPLS.


7. References

   [1] "LDP Specification." L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A.
        Fredette, B. Thomas. January 2001. RFC3036

   [2] ITU-T Recommendation Q.933, and Q.922 Specification for Frame
   Mode Basic call control, ITU Geneva 1995

   [3] "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter, D. Tappan, G.
        Fedorkow, D. Farinacci, T. Li, A. Conta. RFC3032

   [4] "IEEE 802.3ac-1998" IEEE standard specification.

   [5] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical
   Network Formats," ANSI T1.105-1995.

   [6] ITU Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface For The
   Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", 1996.

   [7] "Frame Relay over Pseudo-Wires", draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-
   01.txt. ( work in progress )

   [8] "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over Packet (CEP)",
      draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-01.txt ( Work in progress )

   [9] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of ATM Cells/Frame Over IP
   and MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-05.txt ( work in
   progress )

   [10] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/HDLC Frames Over IP
   and MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-01.txt. ( work in
   progress )

   [11] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet Frames Over
   IP/MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-05.txt. ( work in
   progress )

   [12] "PWE3 Architecture" Bryant, et al., draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-04.txt
   ( work in progress ), August 2003.

   [13] "IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
   Martini, Townsley, draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-02.txt ( work in
   progress ), February 2003



Martini, et al.                                                [Page 25]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


   [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
   IANA Considerations section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

   [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
   Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

   [note1] FEC element type 128 is pending IANA approval.

   [note2] Status codes assigment is pending IANA approval.


8. Author Information


   Luca Martini
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
   Englewood, CO, 80112
   e-mail: lmartini@cisco.com


   Nasser El-Aawar
   Level 3 Communications, LLC.
   1025 Eldorado Blvd.
   Broomfield, CO, 80021
   e-mail: nna@level3.net


   Giles Heron
   Tellabs
   Abbey Place
   24-28 Easton Street
   High Wycombe
   Bucks
   HP11 1NT
   UK
   e-mail: giles.heron@tellabs.com


   Eric C. Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   e-mail: erosen@cisco.com







Martini, et al.                                                [Page 26]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003



   Dan Tappan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   e-mail: tappan@cisco.com


9. Additional Contributing Authors


   Dimitri Stratton Vlachos
   Mazu Networks, Inc.
   125 Cambridgepark Drive
   Cambridge, MA 02140
   e-mail: d@mazunetworks.com


   Jayakumar Jayakumar,
   Cisco Systems Inc.
   225, E.Tasman, MS-SJ3/3,
   San Jose, CA, 95134
   e-mail: jjayakum@cisco.com


   Alex Hamilton,
   Cisco Systems Inc.
   285 W. Tasman, MS-SJCI/3/4,
   San Jose, CA, 95134
   e-mail: tahamilt@cisco.com


   Steve Vogelsang
   Laurel Networks, Inc.
   Omega Corporate Center
   1300 Omega Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15205
   e-mail: sjv@laurelnetworks.com


   John Shirron
   Omega Corporate Center
   1300 Omega Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15205
   Laurel Networks, Inc.
   e-mail: jshirron@laurelnetworks.com





Martini, et al.                                                [Page 27]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003



   Toby Smith
   Omega Corporate Center
   1300 Omega Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15205
   Laurel Networks, Inc.
   e-mail: tob@laurelnetworks.com


   Andrew G. Malis
   Tellabs
   90 Rio Robles Dr.
   San Jose, CA 95134
   e-mail: Andy.Malis@tellabs.com


   Vinai Sirkay
   Vivace Networks, Inc.
   2730 Orchard Parkway
   San Jose, CA 95134
   e-mail: sirkay@technologist.com


   Vasile Radoaca
   Nortel Networks
   600  Technology Park
   Billerica MA 01821
   e-mail: vasile@nortelnetworks.com


   Chris Liljenstolpe
   Cable & Wireless
   11700 Plaza America Drive
   Reston, VA 20190
   e-mail: chris@cw.net


   Dave Cooper
   Global Crossing
   960 Hamlin Court
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   e-mail: dcooper@gblx.net









Martini, et al.                                                [Page 28]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003



   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net













































Martini, et al.                                                [Page 29]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003


10. Appendix A - C-bit Handling Procedures Diagram

                   ------------------
               Y   | Received Label |       N
            -------|  Mapping Msg?  |--------------
            |      ------------------             |
        --------------                            |
        |            |                            |
     -------      -------                         |
     | C=0 |      | C=1 |                         |
     -------      -------                         |
        |            |                            |
        |    ----------------                     |
        |    | Control Word |     N               |
        |    |    Capable?  |-----------          |
        |    ----------------          |          |
        |          Y |                 |          |
        |            |                 |          |
        |   ----------------           |          |
        |   | Control Word |  N        |          |
        |   |  Preferred?  |----       |          |
        |   ----------------   |       |          |
        |          Y |         |       |          |
        |            |         |       |   ----------------
        |            |         |       |   | Control Word |
        |            |         |       |   |  Preferred?  |
        |            |         |       |   ----------------
        |            |         |       |     N |     Y |
        |            |         |       |       |       |
      Send         Send      Send    Send    Send    Send
       C=0          C=1       C=0     C=0     C=0     C=1
                               |       |       |       |
                            ----------------------------------
                            | If receive the same as sent,   |
                            | PW setup is complete. If not:  |
                            ----------------------------------
                               |       |       |       |
                              ------------------- -----------
                              |     Receive     | | Receive |
                              |       C=1       | |   C=0   |
                              ------------------- -----------
                                       |               |
                                 Wait for the        Send
                                 next message     Wrong C-Bit
                                                       |
                                                  Send Label
                                               Mapping Message




Martini, et al.                                                [Page 30]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt    December 2003





















































Martini, et al.                                                [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/