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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5659

Network Working Group                                         M.Bocci
Internet Draft                                          Alcatel-Lucent

                                                             S.Bryant
                                                         Cisco Systems

Intended Status: Informational
Expires: August 2009                                 February 23, 2009


    An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge


                     draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-06.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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




Bocci et al            Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Abstract

   This document describes an architecture for extending pseudowire
   emulation across multiple packet switched network segments. Scenarios
   are discussed where each segment of a given edge-to-edge emulated
   service spans a different provider's PSN, and where the emulated
   service originates and terminates on the same providers PSN, but may
   pass through several PSN tunnel segments in that PSN. It presents an
   architectural framework for such multi-segment pseudowires, defines
   terminology, and specifies the various protocol elements and their
   functions.

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 RFC-2119 [1].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction................................................3
      1.1. Motivation and Context..................................3
      1.2. Non-Goals of this Document..............................6
      1.3. Terminology............................................6
   2. Applicability...............................................7
   3. Protocol Layering model......................................8
      3.1. Domain of MS-PW Solutions...............................8
      3.2. Payload Types..........................................9
   4. Multi-Segment Pseudowire Reference Model.....................9
      4.1. Intra-Provider Connectivity Architecture...............10
         4.1.1. Intra-Provider Switching Using ACs................11
         4.1.2. Intra-Provider Switching Using PWs................11
      4.2. Inter-Provider Connectivity Architecture...............11
         4.2.1. Inter-Provider Switching Using ACs................11
         4.2.2. Inter-Provider Switching Using PWs................12
   5. PE Reference Model.........................................12
      5.1. Pseudowire Pre-processing..............................12
         5.1.1. Forwarding........................................12
         5.1.2. Native Service Processing.........................13
   6. Protocol Stack reference Model..............................13
   7. Maintenance Reference Model.................................14
   8. PW Demultiplexer Layer and PSN Requirements.................15
      8.1. Multiplexing..........................................15


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


      8.2. Fragmentation.........................................16
   9. Control Plane..............................................16
      9.1. Setup and Placement of MS-PWs..........................16
      9.2. Pseudowire Up/Down Notification........................17
      9.3. Misconnection and Payload Type Mismatch................17
   10. Management and Monitoring..................................17
   11. Congestion Considerations..................................18
   12. IANA Considerations........................................19
   13. Security Considerations....................................19
   14. Acknowledgments...........................................22
   15. References................................................23
      15.1. References...........................................23
   Author's Addresses............................................23
   Intellectual Property Statement................................24
   Disclaimer of Validity........................................24
   Copyright Statement...........................................24
   Acknowledgment................................................24

1. Introduction

   RFC 3985 [2] defines the architecture for pseudowires, where a
   pseudowire (PW) both originates and terminates on the edge of the
   same packet switched network (PSN). The PW passes through a maximum
   of one PSN tunnel between the originating and terminating PEs. This
   is now known as a single-segment pseudowire (SS-PW).

   This document extends the architecture in RFC 3985 to enable point to
   point pseudowires to be extended through multiple PSN tunnels. These
   are known as multi-segment pseudowires (MS-PWs). Use cases for multi-
   segment pseudowires (MS-PWs), and the consequent requirements, are
   defined in [3].

1.1. Motivation and Context

   RFC 3985 addresses the case where a PW spans a single segment between
   two PEs. Such PWs are termed single-segment pseudowires (SS-PWs) and
   provide point-to-point connectivity between two edges of a provider
   network. However, there is now a requirement to be able to construct
   multi-segment pseudowires. These requirements are specified in [3],
   and address three main problems:

   i.   How to constrain the density of the mesh of PSN tunnels when
         the number of PEs grows to many hundreds or thousands, while
         minimizing the complexity of the PEs and P routers.

   ii.  How to provide PWs across multiple PSN routing domains or areas
         in the same provider.


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   iii. How to provide PWs across multiple provider domains, and
         different PSN types.

   Consider a single PW domain, such as that shown in Figure 1. There
   are 4 PEs, and PWs must be provided from any PE to any other PE.  PWs
   can be supported by establishing a full mesh of PSN tunnels between
   the PEs, requiring a full mesh of LDP signaling adjacencies between
   the PEs. PWs can therefore be established between any PE and any
   other PE via a single, direct PSN tunnel that is switched only by
   intermediate P-routers (not shown in the figure). In this case, each
   PW is a SS-PW. A PE must terminate all the pseudowires that are
   carried on the PSN tunnels that terminate on that PE according to the
   architecture of RFC 3985. This solution is adequate for small numbers
   of PEs, but the number of PEs, PSN tunnels and signaling adjacencies
   will grow in proportion to the square of the number of PEs.

   A more efficient solution for large numbers of PEs, in particular for
   the control plane, is to support a partial mesh of PSN tunnels
   between the PEs, as shown in Figure 1. For example, consider a PW
   service whose endpoints are PE1 and PE4. Pseudowires for this can
   take the path PE1->PE2->PE4, and rather than terminating at PE2, be
   switched between ingress and egress PSN tunnels on that PE. This
   requires a capability in PE2 that can concatenate PW segments PE1-PE2
   to PW segments PE2-PE4. The end-to-end PW is known as a multi-segment
   PW.

                                ,,..--..,,_
                            .-``           `'.,
                    +-----+`                   '+-----+
                    | PE1 |---------------------| PE2 |
                    |     |---------------------|     |
                    +-----+      PSN Tunnel     +-----+
                    / ||                          || \
                   /  ||                          ||  \
                  |   ||                          ||   |
                  |   ||         PSN              ||   |
                  |   ||                          ||   |
                   \  ||                          ||  /
                    \ ||                          || /
                     \||                          ||/
                    +-----+                     +-----+
                    | PE3 |---------------------| PE4 |
                    |     |---------------------|     |
                    +-----+`'.,_           ,.'` +-----+
                                `'''---''``
    Figure 1 PWs Spanning a Single PSN with Partial Mesh of PSN Tunnels



Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   Figure 1 shows a simple flat PSN topology. However, large provider
   networks are typically not flat, consisting of many domains that are
   connected together to provide edge-to-edge services. The elements in
   each domain are specialized for a particular role, for example
   supporting different PSN types or using different routing protocols.

   An example application is shown in Figure 2. Here, the provider's
   network is divided into three domains: Two access domains and the
   core domain. The access domains represent the edge of the provider's
   network at which services are delivered. In the access domain,
   simplicity is required in order to minimize the cost of the network.
   The core domain must support all of the aggregated services from the
   access domains, and the design requirements here are for scalability,
   performance, and information hiding (i.e. minimal state). The core
   must not be exposed to the state associated with large numbers of
   individual edge-to-edge flows. That is, the core must be simple and
   fast.

   In a traditional layer 2 network, the interconnection points between
   the domains are where services in the access domains are aggregated
   for transport across the core to other access domains. In an IP
   network, the interconnection points could also represent interworking
   points between different types of IP networks e.g. those with MPLS
   and those without, and also points where network policies can be
   applied.

         <-------- Edge to Edge Emulated Services ------->

             ,'    .      ,-`       `',       ,'    .
            /       \   .`             `,    /       \
           /        \  /                 ,  /        \
    AC  +----+     +----+               +----+       +----+    AC
     ---| PE |-----| PE |---------------| PE |-------| PE |---
        |  1 |     |  2 |               | 3  |       | 4  |
        +----+     +----+               +----+       +----+
           \        /  \                 /  \        /
            \       /  \      Core       `   \       /
             `,    `     .             ,`     `,    `
               '-'`       `.,       _.`         '-'`
            Access 1         `''-''`         Access 2

                    Figure 2 Multi-Domain Network Model

   A similar model can also be applied to inter-provider services, where
   a single PW spans a number of separate provider networks in order to
   connect ACs residing on PEs in disparate provider networks. In this
   case, each provider will typically maintain their own PE at the


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   border of their network in order to apply policies such as security
   and QoS to PWs entering their network. Thus, the connection between
   the domains will normally be a link between two PEs on the border of
   each provider's network.

   Consider the application of this model to PWs. PWs use tunneling
   mechanisms such as MPLS to enable the underlying PSN to emulate
   characteristics of the native service. One solution to the multi-
   domain network model above is to extend PSN tunnels edge-to-edge
   between all of the PEs in access domain 1 and all of the PEs in
   access domain 2, but this requires a large number of PSN tunnels as
   described above, and also exposes the access and the core of the
   network to undesirable complexity. An alternative is to constrain the
   complexity to the network domain interconnection points (PE2 and PE3
   in the example above). Pseudowires between PE1 and PE4 would then be
   switched between PSN tunnels at the interconnection points, enabling
   PWs from many PEs in the access domains to be aggregated across only
   a few PSN tunnels in the core of the network. PEs in the access
   domains would only need to maintain direct signaling sessions, and
   PSN tunnels, with other PEs in their own domain, thus minimizing
   complexity of the access domains.

1.2. Non-Goals of this Document

   The following are non-goals for this document:

   o The on-the-wire specification of PW encapsulations

   o The detailed specification of mechanisms for establishing and
      maintaining multi-segment pseudo-wires.

1.3. Terminology

   The terminology specified in RFC 3985 [2] and RFC 4026 [4] applies.
   In addition, we define the following terms:

   o PW Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE).  A PE where the customer-
      facing attachment circuits (ACs) are bound to a PW forwarder. A
      Terminating PE is present in the first and last segments of a MS-
      PW. This incorporates the functionality of a PE as defined in RFC
      3985.

   o Single-Segment Pseudowire (SS-PW). A PW setup directly between two
      T-PE devices. Each PW in one direction of a SS-PW traverses one
      PSN tunnel that connects the two T-PEs.




Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   o Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW).  A static or dynamically
      configured set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave
      and function as a single point-to-point PW. Each end of a MS-PW by
      definition MUST terminate on a T-PE.

   o PW Segment. A part of a single-segment or multi-segment PW, which
      traverses one PSN tunnel in each direction between two PE devices,
      T-PEs and/or S-PEs.

   o PW Switching Provider Edge (S-PE).  A PE capable of switching the
      control and data planes of the preceding and succeeding PW
      segments in a MS-PW. The S-PE terminates the PSN tunnels of the
      preceding and succeeding segments of the MS-PW. It is therefore a
      PW switching point for a MS-PW. A PW Switching Point is never the
      S-PE and the T-PE for the same MS-PW. A PW switching point runs
      necessary protocols to setup and manage PW segments with other PW
      switching points and terminating PEs. A S-PE can exist anywhere
      where a PW must be processed or policy applied. It is therefore
      not limited to the edge of a provider network.

   o PW Switching. The process of switching the control and data planes
      of the preceding and succeeding PW segments in a MS-PW.

2. Applicability

   A MS-PW is a single PW that for technical or administrative reasons
   is segmented into a number of concatenated hops. From the perspective
   of a L2VPN, a MS-PW is indistinguishable from a SS-PW. Thus, the
   following are equivalent from the perspective of the T-PE

       +----+                                                  +----+
       |TPE1+--------------------------------------------------+TPE2|
       +----+                                                  +----+

       |<---------------------------PW----------------------------->|

       +----+              +---+           +---+               +----+
       |TPE1+--------------+SPE+-----------+SPE+---------------+TPE2|
       +----+              +---+           +---+               +----+


                        Figure 3 MS-PW Equivalence

   Although a MS-PW may require services such as node discovery and path
   signaling to construct the PW, it should not be confused with a L2VPN
   system, which also requires these services. A VPWS connects its
   endpoints via a set of PWs. MS-PW is a mechanism that abstracts the


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   construction of complex PWs from the construction of a L2VPN. Thus a
   T-PE might be an edge device optimized for simplicity and an S-PE
   might be an aggregation device designed to absorb the complexity of
   continuing the PW across the core of one or more service provider
   networks to another T-PE located at the edge of the network.

   As well as supporting traditional L2VPNs, an MS-PW is applicable to
   providing connectivity within a transport network based on packet
   switching technology e.g. MPLS Transport profile (MPLS-TP) [6]. Such
   a network uses pseudowires to support the transport and aggregation
   of all services. This application requires deterministic
   characteristics and behavior from the network. The operational
   requirements of such networks may need pseudowire segments that can
   be established and maintained in the absence of a control plane, and
   the operational independence of PW maintenance from the underlying
   PSN.

3. Protocol Layering model

   The protocol-layering model specified in RFC 3985 applies to MS-PWs
   with the following clarification: the pseudowires may be considered
   to be a separate layer to the PSN tunnel. That is, although a PW
   segment will follow the path of the PSN tunnel between S-PEs, the MS-
   PW is independent of the PSN tunnel routing, operations, signaling
   and maintenance. The design of PW routing domains should not imply
   that the underlying PSN routing domains are the same. However, MS-PWs
   will reuse the protocols of the PSN and may use information that is
   extracted from the PSN e.g. reachability.

3.1. Domain of MS-PW Solutions

   PWs provide the Encapsulation Layer, i.e. the method of carrying
   various payload types, and the interface to the PW Demultiplexer
   Layer. Other layers provide the following:

      . PSN tunnel setup, maintenance and routing

      . T-PE discovery

   Not all PEs may be capable of providing S-PE functionality.
   Connectivity to the next hop S-PE or T-PE must be provided by a PSN
   tunnel, according to [2]. The selection of which set of S-PEs to use
   to reach a given T-PE is considered to be within the scope of MS-PW
   solutions.





Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


3.2. Payload Types

   MS-PWs are applicable to all PW payload types. Encapsulations defined
   for SS-PWs are also used for MS-PW without change. Where the PSN
   types for each segment of an MS-PW are identical, the PW types of
   each segment must also be identical. However, if different segments
   run over different PSN types, the encapsulation may change but the PW
   segments must be of an equivalent PW type i.e. the S-PE must not need
   to process the PW payload to provide translation.

4. Multi-Segment Pseudowire Reference Model

   The PWE3 reference architecture for the single segment case is shown
   in [2]. This architecture applies to the case where a PSN tunnel
   extends between two edges of a single PSN domain to transport a PW
   with endpoints at these edges.



       Native  |<------Multi-Segment Pseudowire------>|  Native
       Service |         PSN              PSN         |  Service
        (AC)   |     |<-Tunnel->|     |<-Tunnel->|    |   (AC)
          |    V     V     1    V     V    2     V    V     |
          |    +----+           +-----+          +----+     |
   +----+ |    |TPE1|===========|SPE1 |==========|TPE2|     | +----+
   |    |------|..... PW.Seg't1.........PW.Seg't3.....|-------|    |
   | CE1| |    |    |           |     |          |    |     | |CE2 |
   |    |------|..... PW.Seg't2.........PW.Seg't4.....|-------|    |
   +----+ |    |    |===========|     |==========|    |     | +----+
        ^      +----+           +-----+          +----+       ^
        |   Provider Edge 1        ^        Provider Edge 2   |
        |                          |                          |
        |                          |                          |
        |                  PW switching point                 |
        |                                                     |
        |<------------------ Emulated Service --------------->|

                      Figure 4 MS-PW Reference Model

   Figure 4 extends this architecture to show a multi-segment case. The
   PEs that provide services to CE1 and CE2 are Terminating-PE1 (T-PE1)
   and Terminating-PE2 (T-PE2) respectively. A PSN tunnel extends from
   T-PE1 to switching-PE1 (S-PE1) across PSN1, and a second PSN tunnel
   extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 across PSN2. PWs are used to connect the
   attachment circuits (ACs) attached to PE1 to the corresponding ACs
   attached to T-PE2.



Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   Each PW segment on the tunnel across PSN1 is switched to a PW segment
   in the tunnel across PSN2 at S-PE1 to complete the multi-segment PW
   (MS-PW) between T-PE1 and T-PE2. S-PE1 is therefore the PW switching
   point. PW segment 1 and PW segment 3 are segments of the same MS-PW
   while PW segment 2 and PW segment 4 are segments of another MS-PW. PW
   segments of the same MS-PW (e.g., PW segment 1 and PW segment 3) must
   be of equivalent PW types, as described in Section 3.2. above, while
   PSN tunnels (e.g., PSN1 and PSN2) may be of the same or different PSN
   types. An S-PE switches an MS-PW from one segment to another based on
   the PW demultiplexer, i.e., PW label that may take one of the forms
   defined in RFC3985 Section 5.4.1 [2].

   Note that although Figure 4 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
   transit more one S-PE along its path. This architecture is applicable
   when the S-PEs are statically chosen, or when they are chosen using a
   dynamic path selection mechanism. Both directions of an MS-PW must
   traverse the same set of S-PEs on a reciprocal path. Note that
   although the S-PE path is therefore reciprocal, the path taken by the
   PSN tunnels between the T-PEs and S-PEs may not be reciprocal due to
   choices made by the PSN routing protocol.

4.1. Intra-Provider Connectivity Architecture

   There is a requirement to deploy PWs edge-to-edge in large service
   provider networks [3]. Such networks typically encompass hundreds or
   thousands of aggregation devices at the edge, each of which would be
   a PE. These networks may be partitioned into separate metro and core
   PW domains, where the PEs are interconnected by a sparse mesh of
   tunnels.

   Whether or not the network is partitioned into separate PW domains,
   there is also a requirement to support a partial mesh of traffic
   engineered PSN tunnels.

   The architecture shown in Figure 4 can be used to support such cases.
   PSN1 and PSN2 may be in different administrative domains or access,
   core or metro regions within the same provider's network. PSN 1 and
   PSN2 may also be of different types. For example, S-PEs may be used
   to connect PW segments traversing metro networks of one technology
   e.g. statically allocated labels, with segments traversing a MPLS
   core network.

   Alternatively, T-PE1, S-PE1 and T-PE2 may reside at the edges of the
   same PSN.





Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


4.1.1. Intra-Provider Switching Using ACs

   In this model, the PW reverts to the native service AC at the domain
   boundary PE. This AC is then connected to a separate PW on the same
   PE. In this case, the reference models of RFC 3985 apply to each
   segment and to the PEs. The remaining PE architectural considerations
   in this document do not apply to this case.



4.1.2. Intra-Provider Switching Using PWs

   In this model, PW segments are switched between PSN tunnels that span
   portions of a provider's network, without reverting to the native
   service at the boundary. For example, in Figure 4, PSN 1 and PSN 2
   would be portions of the same provider's network.

4.2. Inter-Provider Connectivity Architecture

   Inter-provider PWs may need to be switched between PSN tunnels at the
   provider boundary in order to minimize the number of tunnels required
   to provide PW-based services to CEs attached to each provider's
   network. In addition, the following may need to be implemented on a
   per-PW basis at the provider boundary:

      . Operations and Management (OAM),

      . Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA),

      . Security mechanisms.

   Further security related architectural considerations are described
   in Section 13.

4.2.1. Inter-Provider Switching Using ACs.

   In this model, the PW reverts to the native service at the provider
   boundary PE. This AC is then connected to a separate PW at the peer
   provider boundary PE. In this case, the reference models of RFC 3985
   apply to each segment and to the PEs. This is similar to the case in
   Section 4.1.1. , except that additional security and policy
   enforcement measures will be required. The remaining PE architectural
   considerations in this document do not apply to this case.






Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


4.2.2. Inter-Provider Switching Using PWs.

   In this model, PW segments are switched between PSN tunnels in each
   provider's network, without reverting to the native service at the
   boundary. This architecture is shown in Figure 5. Here, S-PE1 and S-
   PE2 are provider border routers. PW segment 1 is switched to PW
   segment 2 at S-PE1. PW segment 2 is then carried across an inter-
   provider PSN tunnel to S-PE2, where it is switched to PW segment 3 in
   PSN 2.

                |<------Multi-Segment Pseudowire------>|
                |       Provider         Provider      |
           AC   |    |<----1---->|     |<----2--->|    |  AC
            |   V    V           V     V          V    V  |
            |   +----+     +-----+     +----+     +----+  |
   +----+   |   |    |=====|     |=====|    |=====|    |  |    +----+
   |    |-------|......PW..........PW.........PW.......|-------|    |
   | CE1|   |   |    |Seg 1|     |Seg 2|    |Seg 3|    |  |    |CE2 |
   +----+   |   |    |=====|     |=====|    |=====|    |  |    +----+
        ^       +----+     +-----+     +----+     +----+       ^
        |       T-PE1       S-PE1       S-PE2     T-PE2        |
        |                     ^          ^                     |
        |                     |          |                     |
        |                  PW switching points                 |
        |                                                      |
        |                                                      |
        |<------------------- Emulated Service --------------->|

                  Figure 5 Inter-Provider Reference Model

5. PE Reference Model

5.1. Pseudowire Pre-processing

   Pseudowire preprocessing is applied in the T-PEs as specified in RFC
   3985. Processing at the S-PEs is specified in the following sections.

5.1.1. Forwarding

   Each forwarder in the S-PE forwards packets from one PW segment on
   the ingress PSN facing interface of the S-PE to one PW segment on the
   egress PSN facing interface of the S-PE.

   The forwarder selects the egress segment PW based on the ingress PW
   label. The mapping of ingress to egress PW label may be statically or
   dynamically configured. Figure 6 shows how a single forwarder is
   associated with each PW segment at the S-PE.


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


               +------------------------------------------+
               |                S-PE Device               |
               +------------------------------------------+
     Ingress   |             |             |              |   Egress
   PW instance |   Single    |             |    Single    | PW Instance
   <==========>X PW Instance +  Forwarder  + PW Instance  X<==========>
               |             |             |              |
               +------------------------------------------+

                      Figure 6 Point-to-Point Service

   Other mappings of PW to forwarder are for further study.

5.1.2. Native Service Processing

   There is no native service processing in the S-PEs.

6. Protocol Stack reference Model

   Figure 7 illustrates the protocol stack reference model for multi-
   segment PWs.

+----------------+                                  +----------------+
|Emulated Service|                                  |Emulated Service|
|(e.g., TDM, ATM)|<======= Emulated Service =======>|(e.g., TDM, ATM)|
+----------------+                                  +----------------+
|    Payload     |                                  |    Payload     |
|  Encapsulation |<=== Multi-segment Pseudowire ===>|  Encapsulation |
+----------------+            +--------+            +----------------+
|PW Demultiplexer|<PW Segment>|PW Demux|<PW Segment>|PW Demultiplexer|
+----------------+            +--------+            +----------------+
|   PSN Tunnel,  |<PSN Tunnel>|  PSN   |<PSN Tunnel>|  PSN Tunnel,   |
| PSN & Physical |            |Physical|            | PSN & Physical |
|     Layers     |            | Layers |            |    Layers      |
+-------+--------+            +--------+            +----------------+
        |            ..........   |   ..........            |
        |           /          \  |  /          \           |
        +==========/    PSN     \===/    PSN     \==========+
                   \  domain 1  /   \  domain 2  /
                    \__________/     \__________/
                     ``````````       ``````````

                 Figure 7 Multi-Segment PW Protocol Stack

   The MS-PW provides the CE with an emulated physical or virtual
   connection to its peer at the far end. Native service PDUs from the
   CE are passed through an Encapsulation Layer and a PW demultiplexer


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   is added at the sending T-PE. The PDU is sent over PSN domain via the
   PSN transport tunnel. The receiving S-PE swaps the existing PW
   demultiplexer for the demultiplexer of the next segment, and then
   sends the PDU over transport tunnel in PSN2. Where the ingress and
   egress PSN domains of the S-PE are of the same type e.g. they are
   both MPLS PSNs, a simple label swap operation is performed, as
   described in RFC 3031 [5] Section 3.13. However, where the ingress
   and egress PSNs are of different types, e.g. MPLS and L2TPv3, the
   ingress PW demultiplexer is removed (or popped), a mapping to the
   egress PW demultiplexer is performed, and then inserted (or pushed).

   Policies may also be applied to the PW at this point. Examples of
   such policies include: admission control, rate control, QoS mappings,
   and security. The receiving T-PE removes the PW demultiplexer and
   restores the payload to its native format for transmission to the
   destination CE.

   Where the encapsulation format is different e.g. MPLS and L2TPv3, the
   payload encapsulation may be transparently translated at the S-PE.

7. Maintenance Reference Model

   Figure 8 shows the maintenance reference model for multi-segment
   pseudowires.
























Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


         |<------------- CE (end-to-end) Signaling ------------>|
         |                                                      |
         |       |<-------- MS-PW/T-PE Maintenance ----->|      |
         |       |  |<---PW Seg't-->| |<--PW Seg't--->|  |      |
         |       |  |   Maintenance | | Maintenance   |  |      |
         |       |  |               | |               |  |      |
         |       |  |     PSN       | |     PSN       |  |      |
         |       |  | |<-Tunnel1->| | | |<-Tunnel2->| |  |      |
         |       V  V V Signaling V V V V Signaling V V  V      |
         V       +----+           +-----+           +----+      V
    +----+       |TPE1|===========|SPE1 |===========|TPE2|      +----+
    |    |-------|......PW.Seg't1.........PW Seg't3......|------|    |
    | CE1|       |    |           |     |           |    |      |CE2 |
    |    |-------|......PW.Seg't2.........PW Seg't4......|------|    |
    +----+       |    |===========|     |===========|    |      +----+
      ^          +----+           +-----+           +----+         ^
      |        Terminating           ^            Terminating      |
      |      Provider Edge 1         |          Provider Edge 2    |
      |                              |                             |
      |                      PW switching point                    |
      |                                                            |
      |<--------------------- Emulated Service ------------------->|

                Figure 8 MS-PW Maintenance Reference Model

   RFC 3985 specifies the use of CE (end-to-end) and PSN tunnel
   signaling, and PW/PE maintenance. CE and PSN tunnel signaling is as
   specified in RFC 3985. However, in the case of MS-PWs, signaling
   between the PEs now has both an edge-to-edge and a hop-by-hop
   context. That is, signaling and maintenance between T-PEs and S-PEs
   and between adjacent S-PEs is used to set up, maintain, and tear down
   the MS-PW segments, which include the coordination of parameters
   related to each switching point, as well as the MS-PW end points.

8. PW Demultiplexer Layer and PSN Requirements

8.1. Multiplexing

   The purpose of the PW demultiplexer layer at the S-PE is to
   demultiplex PWs from ingress PSN tunnels and to multiplex them into
   egress PSN tunnels. Although each PW may contain multiple native
   service circuits, e.g. multiple ATM VCs, the S-PEs do not have
   visibility of, and hence do not change, this level of multiplexing
   because they contain no NSP.





Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


8.2. Fragmentation

   If fragmentation is to be used in an MS-PW, T-PEs and S-PEs must
   satisfy themselves that fragmented PW payloads can be correctly
   reassembled for delivery to the destination attachment circuit.

   An S-PE is not required to make any attempt to reassemble a
   fragmented PW payload. However, it may choose to do so if, for
   example, it knows that a downstream PW segment does not support
   reassembly.

   An S-PE may fragment a PW payload using [7].

9. Control Plane

9.1. Setup and Placement of MS-PWs

   For multi-segment pseudowires, the intermediate PW switching points
   may be statically provisioned, or they may be chosen dynamically.

   For the static case, there are two options for exchanging the PW
   labels:

   o By configuration at the T-PEs or S-PEs

   o By signaling across each segment using a dynamic maintenance
      protocol.

   A multi-segment pseudowire may thus consist of segments where the
   labels are statically configured and segments where the labels are
   signaled.

   For the signaled case, there are two options for selecting the path
   of the MS-PW:

   o T-PEs determine the full path of the PW through intermediate
      switching points. This may be either static or based on a dynamic
      PW path selection mechanism.

   o Each T-PE and S-PE makes a local decision as to which next-hop S-
      PE to choose to reach the target T-PE. This choice is made either
      using locally configured information, or by using a dynamic PW
      path selection mechanism.






Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


9.2. Pseudowire Up/Down Notification

   Since a multi-segment PW consists of a number of concatenated PW
   segments, the emulated service can only be considered as being up
   when all of the constituting PW segments and PSN tunnels (if used)
   are functional and operational along the entire path of the MS-PW.

   If a native service requires bi-directional connectivity, the
   corresponding emulated service can only be signaled as being
   operational up when the PW segments and PSN tunnels (if used), are
   functional and operational in both directions.

   RFC 3985 describes the need for failure and other status notification
   mechanisms for PWs. These considerations also apply to multi-segment
   pseudowires. In addition, if a failure notification mechanism is
   provided for consecutive segments of the same PW, the S-PE must be
   able to propagate such notifications between the consecutive
   concatenated segments.

9.3. Misconnection and Payload Type Mismatch

   Misconnection and payload type mismatch can occur with PWs.
   Misconnection can breach the integrity of the system.  Payload
   mismatch can disrupt the customer network.  In both instances, there
   are security and operational concerns.

   The services of the underlying tunneling mechanism or the PW control
   and OAM protocols can be used to ensure that the identity of the PW
   next hop is as expected. As part of the PW setup, a PW-TYPE
   identifier is exchanged. This is then used by the forwarder and the
   NSP of the T-PEs to verify the compatibility of the ACs. This can
   also be used by S-PEs to ensure that concatenated segments of a given
   MS-PW are compatible, or that a MS-PW is not misconnected into a
   local AC. In addition, it is possible to perform an end-to-end
   connection verification to check the integrity of the PW, to verify
   the identity of S-PEs and check the correct connectivity at S-PEs,
   and to verify the identity of the T-PE.

10. Management and Monitoring

   The management and monitoring as described in RFC 3985 applies here.

   The MS-PW architecture introduces two additional considerations
   related to management and monitoring.

   The first is that each S-PE is a new point at which defects may occur
   along the path of the PW. In order to troubleshoot MS-PWs, management


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   and monitoring should be able to operate on a subset of the segments
   of an MS-PW, as well as edge-to-edge. That is, connectivity
   verification mechanisms should be able to troubleshoot and
   differentiate the connectivity between T-PEs and intermediate S-PEs,
   as well as T-PE to T-PE.

   The second is that the set of S-PEs and P-routers along the MS-PW
   path may be less optimal than a path between the T-PEs chosen solely
   by the underlying PSN routing protocols. This is because the S-PEs
   are chosen by the MS-PW path selection mechanism and not by the PSN
   routing protocols. Troubleshooting mechanisms should therefore be
   provided to verify the set of S-PEs that are traversed by a MS-PW to
   reach a T-PE.

   Some of the S-PEs and the T-PEs for an MS-PW may reside in different
   service provider's PSN domain from that of the operator who initiated
   the establishment of the MS-PW. These situations may necessitate the
   use of remote management of the MS-PW, which is able to securely
   operate across provider boundaries.





11. Congestion Considerations

   The following congestion considerations apply to MS-PWs. These are in
   addition to the considerations for PWs described in RFC 3985 [2] and
   in the respective RFCs specifying each PW type.

   Editors note: Add reference to draft-ietf-pwe3-congestion-frmwk-
   01.txt, or its successor, prior to publication.

   The control plane and the data plane fate-share in traditional IP
   networks. The implication of this is that congestion in the data
   plane can cause degradation of the operation of the control plane.
   Under quiescent operating conditions it is expected that the network
   will be designed to avoid such problems. However, MS-PW mechanisms
   should also consider what happens when congestion does occur, when
   the network is stretched beyond its design limits, for example during
   unexpected network failure conditions.

   Although congestion within a single provider's network can be
   mitigated by suitable engineering of the network so that the traffic
   imposed by PWs can never cause congestion in the underlying PSN, a
   significant number of MS-PWs are expected to be deployed for inter-
   provider services. In this case, there may be no way of a provider


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   who initiates the establishment of a MS-PW at a T-PE guaranteeing
   that it will not cause congestion in a downstream PSN. A specific PSN
   may be able to protect itself from excess PW traffic by policing all
   PWs at the S-PE at the provider border. However, this may not
   effective when the PSN tunnel across a provider utilizes the transit
   services of another provider that cannot distinguish PW traffic from
   ordinary, TCP-controlled, IP traffic.

   Each segment of an MS-PW therefore needs to implement congestion
   detection and congestion control mechanisms where it is not possible
   to explicitly provision sufficient capacity to avoid congestion.

   In many cases, only the T-PEs may have sufficient information about
   each PW to fairly apply congestion control. Therefore, T-PEs need to
   be aware which of their PWs are causing congestion in a downstream
   PSN and their native service characteristics and to apply congestion
   control accordingly. S-PEs therefore need to propagate PSN congestion
   state information between their downstream and upstream directions.
   If the MS-PW transits many S-PEs, it may take some time for
   congestion state information to propagate from the congested PSN
   segment to the source T-PE, thus delaying the application of
   congestion control. Congestion control in the S-PE at the border of
   the congested PSN can enable a more rapid response and thus
   potentially reduce the duration of congestion.

   In addition to protecting the operation of the underlying PSN,
   consistent QoS and traffic engineering mechanisms should be used on
   each segment of a MS-PW to support the requirements of the emulated
   service. The QoS treatment given to a PW packet at an S-PE may be
   derived from context information of the PW (e.g. traffic or QoS
   parameters signaled to the S-PE by an MS-PW control protocol), or
   from PSN-specific QoS flags in the PSN tunnel label or PW
   demultiplexer e.g. TC bits in either the LSP or PW label for an MPLS
   PSN or the DS field of the outer IP header for L2TPv3.



12. IANA Considerations

   This document does not contain any IANA actions.

13. Security Considerations

   The security considerations described in RFC 3985 [2] apply here.





Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   Detailed security requirements for MS-PWs are specified in [3]. This
   section describes the architectural implications of those
   requirements.

   The security implications for T-PEs are similar to those for PEs in
   single segment pseudowires. However, S-PEs represent a point in the
   network where the PW label is exposed to additional processing.
   Additional consideration needs to be given to the security of the S-
   PEs, both at the data plane and the control plane, particularly when
   these are dynamically selected and/or when the MS-PW transits the
   networks of multiple operators.

   An implicit trust relationship exists between the initiator of an MS-
   PW, the T-PEs, and the S-PEs along the MS-PW's path. That is, the T-
   PE trusts the S-PEs to process and switch PWs without compromising
   the security or privacy of the PW service. An S-PE SHOULD NOT select
   a next-hop S-PE or T-PE unless it knows it would be considered
   eligible, as defined in [3], by the originator of the MS-PW. For
   dynamically placed MS-PWs, this can be achieved by allowing the T-PE
   to explicitly specify the path of the MS-PW. When the MS-PW is
   dynamically created by the use of a signaling protocol, an S-PE or T-
   PE SHOULD determine the authenticity of the peer entity from which it
   receives the request, and its compliance with policy.

   Where a MS-PW crosses a border between one provider and another
   provider, the MS-PW segment endpoints (S-PEs or T-PEs), or P-routers
   for the PSN tunnel, typically reside on the same nodes as the ASBRs
   interconnecting the two providers. In either case, an S-PE in one
   provider is connected to a limited number of trusted T-PEs or S-PEs
   in the other provider. The number of such trusted T-PEs or S-PEs is
   bounded and not anticipated to create a scaling issue for the control
   plane authentication mechanisms.

   Directly interconnecting the S-PEs/T-PEs using a physically secure
   link, and enabling signaling and routing authentication between the
   S-PEs/T-PEs, eliminates the possibility of receiving a MS-PW
   signaling message or packet from an untrusted peer. The S-PEs/T-PEs
   represent security policy enforcement points for the MS-PW, while the
   ASBRs represent security policy enforcement points for the provider's
   PSNs. This architecture is illustrated in Figure 9.








Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


               |<------------- MS-PW ---------------->|
               |       Provider         Provider      |
          AC   |    |<----1---->|     |<----2--->|    |  AC
           |   V    V           V     V          V    V  |
           |   +----+     +-----+     +----+     +----+  |
   +---+   |   |    |=====|     |=====|    |=====|    |  |    +---+
   |   |-------|......PW..........PW.........PW.......|-------|   |
   |CE1|   |   |    |Seg 1|     |Seg 2|    |Seg 3|    |  |    |CE2|
   +---+   |   |    |=====|     |=====|    |=====|    |  |    +---+
       ^       +----+     +-----+  ^  +----+     +----+       ^
       |       T-PE1       S-PE1   |   S-PE2     T-PE2        |
       |                    ASBR   |    ASBR                  |
       |                           |                          |
       |                  Physically secure link              |
       |                                                      |
       |                                                      |
       |<------------------- Emulated Service --------------->|

         Figure 9 Directly Connected Inter-Provider Reference Model



   Alternatively, the P-routers for the PSN tunnel may reside on the
   ASBRs, while the S-PEs or T-PEs reside behind the ASBRs within each
   provider's network. A limited number of trusted inter-provider PSN
   tunnels interconnect the provider networks. This is illustrated in
   Figure 10.

             |<-------------- MS-PW -------------------->|
             |          Provider          Provider       |
         AC  |    |<------1----->|   |<-----2------->|   |  AC
          |  V    V              V   V               V   V  |
          |  +---+     +---+  +--+   +--+  +---+     +---+  |
   +---+  |  |   |=====|   |===============|   |=====|   |  |   +---+
   |   |-----|.....PW............PW..............PW......|------|   |
   |CE1|  |  |   |Seg 1|   |    Seg 2      |   |Seg 3|   |  |   |CE2|
   +---+  |  |   |=====|   |===============|   |=====|   |  |   +---+
       ^     +---+     +---+  +--+ ^ +--+  +---+     +---+      ^
       |      T-PE1    S-PE1  ASBR | ASBR  S-PE2     T-PE2      |
       |                           |                            |
       |                           |                            |
       |                Trusted Inter-AS PSN Tunnel             |
       |                                                        |
       |                                                        |
       |<------------------- Emulated Service ----------------->|

       Figure 10 Indirectly Connected Inter-Provider Reference Model


Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


   Particular consideration needs to be given to Quality of Service
   requests because the inappropriate use of priority may impact any
   service guarantees given to other PWs. Consideration also needs to be
   given to the avoidance of spoofing the PW demultiplexer.

   Where an S-PE provides interconnection between different providers,
   similar considerations to those applied to ASBRs apply. In particular
   peer entity authentication SHOULD be used.

   Where an S-PE also supports T-PE functionality, mechanisms should be
   provided to ensure that MS-PWs to switched correctly to the
   appropriate outgoing PW segment, rather than a local AC. Other
   mechanisms for PW end point verification may also be used to confirm
   the correct PW connection prior to enabling the attachment circuits.

14. Acknowledgments

   The authors gratefully acknowledge the input of Mustapha Aissaoui,
   Dimitri Papadimitrou, Sasha Vainshtein, and Luca Martini.





























Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


15. References

15.1. References

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

   [2]  Bryant, S. and Pate, P. (Editors), "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-
         to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005

   [3]  Martini, L. Bitar, N. and Bocci, M (Editors), "Requirements for
         Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC
         5254, October 2008

   [4]  Andersson, L. and Madsen, T., "Provider Provisioned Virtual
         Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005

   [5]  Rosen, E. Viswanathan, A. and Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
         Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001

   [6]  Bryant, S. & Andersson, L. "JWT Report on MPLS Architectural
         Considerations for a Transport profile", draft-bryant-mpls-tp-
         jwt-report-00, Internet Draft, July 2008

   [7]  Malis, A. and Townsley, M., "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
         (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623, August 2006



Author's Addresses

   Matthew Bocci
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road,
   Maidenhead, Berks, UK
   Phone: +44 1633 413600
   Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com

   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco
   250, Longwater,
   Green Park,
   Reading, RG2 6GB,
   United Kingdom.
   Email: stbryant@cisco.com




Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft     Multi-Segment PWE3 Architecture    February 23, 2009


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.












































Bocci & Bryant         Expires August 23, 2009               [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/