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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6624

Network Working Group                               K. Kompella (Editor)
Internet Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: July 2004                                  January 2004
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-00.txt

                       Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels


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.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.


Abstract

   Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) based on Frame Relay or ATM circuits
   have been around a long time.  While these VPNs work well, the costs
   of maintaining separate networks for Internet traffic and VPNs and
   the administrative burden of provisioning these VPNs have led Service
   Providers to look for alternative solutions.  In this document, we
   present a VPN solution where from the customer's point of view, the
   VPN is based on Layer 2 circuits, but the Service Provider maintains
   and manages a single network for IP, IP VPNs, and Layer 2 VPNs.






Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 1]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


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 [KEYWORDS].


1. Introduction

   The first corporate networks were based on dedicated leased lines
   interconnecting the various offices of the corporation.  Such
   networks offered connectivity and little else: they didn't scale
   well, they were expensive for the service providers (and hence for
   their customers), and provisioning them was a slow and arduous task.

   The first Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) were based on Layer 2
   circuits: X.25, Frame Relay and ATM (see [VPN]).  Layer 2 VPNs were
   easier to provision, and virtual circuits allowed the service
   provider to share a common infrastructure for all the VPNs.  These
   features were passed on to the customers in terms of cost savings.
   However, while Layer 2 VPNs were a significant step forward from
   dedicated lines, they still had their drawbacks.  First, they tied
   the service provider VPN infrastructure to a single medium (e.g.,
   ATM).  This became even more of a burden if the Internet
   infrastructure was to share the same physical links.  Second, the
   Internet infrastructure and the VPN infrastructure, even if they
   shared the same physical network, needed separate administration and
   maintenance.  Third, while provisioning was much easier than for
   dedicated lines, it was still complex.  This was especially evident
   in the effort to add a site to an existing VPN.

   This document offers a solution that preserves the advantages of a
   Layer 2 VPN while allowing the Service Provider to maintain and
   manage a single network for IP, IP VPNs ([IPVPN]) and Layer 2 VPNs,
   and reducing the provisioning problem significantly.  In particular,
   adding a site to an existing VPN in most cases requires configuring
   just the Provider Edge router connected to the new site.

   To ease the restriction that all sites within a single VPN connect
   via the same layer 2 technology, this document proposes a limited
   form of layer 2 interworking, restricted to IP only as the layer 3
   protocol.

   The solution we propose scales well because the amount of forwarding
   state maintained in the core routers of the Service Provider Network
   is independent of the number of layer 2 VPNs provisioned over the SP
   network.  This is achieved by using tunnels to carry the data, with a
   "demultiplexing field" that identifies individual VCs.  These tunnels



Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 2]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   could be MPLS, GRE, or any other tunnel technology that offers a
   demultiplexing field; the signaling of these tunnels is outside the
   scope of this document.  The specific approach taken here is to use a
   32-bit demultiplexing field formatted as an MPLS label; other sizes
   and formats are clearly possible, and will be defined as needed.

   This approach combines auto-discovery of VPN sites with the
   signalling of the demultiplexing fields for L2VPN PVCs.  This is
   possible because the mechanism used for auto-discovery (BGP) is also
   capable of distributing Layer 2 information as well as the
   demultiplexing field.

   The rest of this section discusses the relative merits of Layer 2 and
   Layer 3 VPNs.  Section 4 describes the operation of a Layer 2 VPN.
   Section 5 describes IP-only layer 2 interworking.  Section 6
   describes how the L2 packets are transported across the SP network.
   Section 7 discusses BGP as a mechanism for auto-discovery and
   signalling of Layer 2 VPNs.

1.1. Terminology

   We assume that the reader is familiar with Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (MPLS [MPLS]) and the Border Gateway Protocol version 4
   (BGP [BGP]).

   The terminology we use follows.  A "customer" is a customer of a
   Service Provider seeking to interconnect the various "sites"
   (independently connected networks) through the Service Provider's
   network, while maintaining privacy of communication and address
   space.  The device in a customer site that connects to a Service
   Provider router is termed the CE (customer edge device); this device
   may be a router or a switch.  The Service Provider router to which a
   CE connects is termed a PE.  A router in the Service Provider's
   network which doesn't connect directly to any CE is termed P.  These
   definitions follow those given in [IPVPN].

   We also introduce three new terms:

   VPN Label - the demultiplexing field which identifies an L2VPN PVC to
   the edge of the SP network, i.e., the PE.

   Tunnel - a PE-to-PE tunnel that is used to carry multiple types of
   data.  P routers in the SP core forward this data based on the tunnel
   header and not on the data within, thus limiting the Layer 2 state to
   the PE routers who host the Layer 2 circuit.

   CE ID - a number that uniquely identifies a CE within an L2 VPN.
   More accurately, the CE ID identifies a physical connection from the



Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 3]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   CE device to the PE.  Say a CE connected to a PE over a DS-3 for
   Frame Relay access to a VPN; this DS-3 would need a CE ID.  The CE
   would also have N DLCIs over this DS-3 to speak to N other sites in
   the VPN.

   A CE may be connected to multiple PEs (or multiply connected to a
   PE), in which case it would have a CE ID for each connection.  If
   these connections are in the same VPN, the CE IDs would have to be
   different.  A CE may also be part of many L2 VPNs; it would need one
   (or more) CE ID(s) for each L2 VPN of which it is a member.

   For the case of inter-Provider L2 VPNs, there needs to be some
   coordination of allocation of CE IDs.  One solution is to allocate
   ranges for each SP.  Other solutions may be forthcoming.

1.2. Advantages of Layer 2 VPNs

   We define a Layer 2 VPN as one where a Service Provider provides a
   layer 2 network to the customer.  As far as the customer is
   concerned, they have (say) Frame Relay circuits connecting the
   various sites; each CE is configured with a DLCI with which to talk
   to other CEs.  Within the Service Provider's network, though, the
   layer 2 packets are transported within tunnels, which could be MPLS
   Label-Switched Paths (LSPs) or GRE tunnels, as examples.

   The Service Provider does not participate in the customer's layer 3
   network, in particular, in the routing, resulting in several
   advantages to the SP as a whole and to PE routers in particular.

1.2.1. Separation of Administrative Responsibilities

   In a Layer 2 VPN, the Service Provider is responsible for Layer 2
   connectivity; the customer is responsible for Layer 3 connectivity,
   which includes routing.  If the customer says that host x in site A
   cannot reach host y in site B, the Service Provider need only
   demonstrate that site A is connected to site B.  The details of how
   routes for host y reach host x are the customer's responsibility.

   Another very important factor is that once a PE provides Layer 2
   connectivity to its connected CE, its job is done.  A misbehaving CE
   can at worst flap its interface.  On the other hand, a misbehaving CE
   in a Layer 3 VPN can flap its routes, leading to instability of the
   PE router or even the entire SP network.  This means that the Service
   Provider must aggressively damp route flaps from a CE; this is common
   enough with external BGP peers, but in the case of VPNs, the scale of
   the problem is much larger; also, the CE-PE routing protocol may not
   be BGP, and thus not have BGP's flap damping control.




Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 4]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


1.2.2. Migrating from Traditional Layer 2 VPNs

   Since "traditional" Layer 2 VPNs (i.e., real Frame Relay circuits
   connecting sites) are indistinguishable from tunnel-based VPNs from
   the customer's point-of-view, migrating from one to the other raises
   few issues.  With Layer 3 VPNs, special care has to be taken that
   routes within the traditional VPN are not preferred over the Layer 3
   VPN routes (the so-called "backdoor routing" problem, whose solution
   requires protocol changes that are somewhat ad hoc).

1.2.3. Privacy of Routing

   In a Layer 2 VPN, the privacy of customer routing is a natural
   fallout of the fact that the Service Provider does not participate in
   routing.  The SP routers need not do anything special to keep
   customer routes separate from other customers or from the Internet;
   there is no need for per-VPN routing tables, and the additional
   complexity this imposes on PE routers.

1.2.4. Layer 3 Independence

   Since the Service Provider simply provides Layer 2 connectivity, the
   customer can run any Layer 3 protocols they choose.  If the SP were
   participating in customer routing, it would be vital that the
   customer and SP both use the same layer 3 protocol(s) and routing
   protocols.

   Note that IP-only layer 2 interworking doesn't have this benefit as
   it restricts the layer 3 to IP only.

1.2.5. PE Scaling

   In the Layer 2 VPN scheme described below, each PE transmits a single
   small chunk of information about every CE that the PE is connected to
   to every other PE.  That means that each PE need only maintain a
   single chunk of information from each CE in each VPN, and keep a
   single "route" to every site in every VPN.  This means that both the
   Forwarding Information Base and the Routing Information Base scale
   well with the number of sites and number of VPNs.  Furthermore, the
   scaling properties are independent of the customer: the only germane
   quantity is the total number of VPN sites.

   This is to be contrasted with Layer 3 VPNs, where each CE in a VPN
   may have an arbitrary number of routes that need to be carried by the
   SP.  This leads to two issues.  First, both the information stored at
   each PE and the number of routes installed by the PE for a CE in a
   VPN can be (in principle) unbounded, which means in practice that a
   PE must restrict itself to installing routes associated with the VPNs



Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 5]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   that it is currently a member of.  Second, a CE can send a large
   number of routes to its PE, which means that the PE must protect
   itself against such a condition.  Thus, the SP must enforce limits on
   the number of routes accepted from a CE; this in turn requires the PE
   router to offer such control.

   The scaling issues of Layer 3 VPNs come into sharp focus at a BGP
   route reflector (RR).  An RR cannot keep all the advertised routes in
   every VPN since the number of routes will be too large.  The
   following solutions/extensions are needed to address this issue:

      1) RRs could be partitioned so that each RR services a subset of
         VPNs so that no single RR has to carry all the routes.
      2) An RR could use a preconfigured list of Route-Targets for its
         inbound route filtering.  The RR may also need to install
         Outbound Route Filters [BGP-ORF] which contain the above list
         of Route-Targets on each of its peers so that they do not send
         unnecessary VPN routes.  This method also requires significant
         extensions along with the fact that multiple RRs are needed to
         service different sets of VPNs.

1.2.6. Ease of Configuration

   Configuring traditional Layer 2 VPNs was a burden primarily because
   of the O(n*n) nature of the task.  If there are n CEs in a Frame
   Relay VPN, say full-mesh connected, n*(n-1)/2 DLCI PVCs must be
   provisioned across the SP network.  At each CE, (n-1) DLCIs must be
   configured to reach each of the other CEs.  Furthermore, when a new
   CE is added, n new DLCI PVCs must be provisioned; also, each existing
   CE must be updated with a new DLCI to reach the new CE.

   In our proposal, PVCs are tunnelled across the SP network.  The
   tunnels used are provisioned independent of the L2VPNs, using
   signalling protocols (in case of MPLS, LDP or RSVP-TE can be used),
   or set up by configuration; and the number of tunnels is independent
   of the number of L2VPNs.  This reduces a large part of the
   provisioning burden.

   Furthermore, we assume that DLCIs at the CE edge are relatively
   cheap; and VPN labels in the SP network are cheap.  This allows the
   SP to "over-provision" VPNs: for example, allocate 50 CEs to a VPN
   when only 20 are needed.  With this over-provisioning, adding a new
   CE to a VPN requires configuring just the new CE and its associated
   PE; existing CEs and their PEs need not be re-configured. Note that
   if DLCIs at the CE edge are expensive, e.g. if these DLCIs are
   provisioned across a switched network, one could provision them as
   and when needed, at the expense of extra configuration. This need not
   still result in extra state in the SP network, i.e. an intelligent



Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 6]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   implementation can allow overprovisioning of the pool of VPN labels.

1.3. Advantages of Layer 3 VPNs

   Layer 3 VPNs ([IPVPN] in particular) offer a good solution when the
   customer traffic is wholly IP, customer routing is reasonably simple,
   and the customer sites connect to the SP with a variety of Layer 2
   technologies.

1.3.1. Layer 2 Independence

   One major restriction in a Layer 2 VPN is that the Layer 2 medium
   with which the various sites of a single VPN connect to the SP must
   be uniform.  On the other hand, the various sites of a Layer 3 VPN
   can connect to the SP with any supported media; for example, some
   sites may connect with Frame Relay circuits, and others with
   Ethernet.

   This restriction of layer 2 VPN is alleviated by the IP-only layer 2
   interworking proposed in this document.  This comes at the cost of
   losing the layer 3 independence.

   A corollary to this is that the number of sites that can be in a
   Layer 2 VPN is determined by the number of Layer 2 circuits that the
   Layer 2 technology provides.  For example, if the Layer 2 technology
   is Frame Relay with 2-octet DLCIs, a CE can connect to at most about
   a thousand other CEs in a VPN.

1.3.2. SP Routing as Added Value

   Another problem with Layer 2 VPNs is that the CE router in a VPN must
   be able to deal with having N routing peers, where N is the number of
   sites in the VPN.  This can be alleviated by manipulating the
   topology of the VPN.  For example, a hub-and-spoke VPN architecture
   means that only one CE router (the hub) needs to deal with N
   neighbors.  However, in a Layer 3 VPN, a CE router need only deal
   with one neighbor, the PE router.  Thus, the SP can offer Layer 3
   VPNs as a value-added service to its customers.

   Moreover, with layer 2 VPNs it is up to a customer to build and
   operate the whole network.  With Layer 3 VPNs, a customer is just
   responsible for building and operating routing within each site,
   which is likely to be much simpler than building and operating
   routing for the whole VPN.  That, in turn, makes Layer 3 VPNs more
   suitable for customers who don't have sufficient routing expertise,
   again allowing the SP to provide added value.

   As mentioned later, multicast routing and forwarding is another



Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 7]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   value-added service that an SP can offer.

1.3.3. Class-of-Service

   Class-of-Service issues have been addressed for Layer 3 VPNs.  Since
   the PE router has visibility into the network layer (IP), the PE
   router can take on the tasks of CoS classification and routing.  This
   restriction on layer 2 VPNs is again eased in the case of IP-only
   layer 2 interworking, as the PE router has visibility into the
   network layer (IP).

1.4. Multicast Routing

   There are two aspects to multicast routing that we will consider.  On
   the protocol front, supporting IP multicast in a Layer 3 VPN requires
   PE routers to participate in the multicast routing instance of the
   customer, and thus keep some related state information.

   In the Layer 2 VPN case, the CE routers run native multicast routing
   directly.  The SP network just provides pipes to connect the CE
   routers; PEs are unaware whether the CEs run multicast or not, and
   thus do not have to participate in multicast protocols or keep
   multicast state information.

   On the forwarding front, in a Layer 3 VPN, CE routers do not
   replicate multicast packets; thus, the CE-PE link carries only one
   copy of a multicast packet.  Whether replication occurs at the
   ingress PE, or somewhere within the SP network depends on the
   sophistication of the Layer 3 VPN multicast solution.  The simple
   solution where a PE replicates packets for each of its CEs may place
   considerable burden on the PE.  More complex solutions may require
   VPN multicast state in the SP network, but may significantly reduce
   the traffic in the SP network by delaying packet replication until
   needed.

   In a Layer 2 VPN, packet replication occurs at the CE.  This has the
   advantage of distributing the burden of replication among the CEs
   rather than focusing it on the PE to which they are attached, and
   thus will scale better.  However, the CE-PE link will need to carry
   the multiple copies of multicast packets.

   Thus, just as in the case of unicast routing, the SP has the choice
   to offer a value-added service (multicast routing and forwarding) at
   some cost (multicast state and packet replication) using a Layer 3
   VPN, or to keep it simple and use a Layer 2 VPN.






Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 8]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


2. Contributors

   The following contributed to this document.

     Manoj Leelanivas, Juniper Networks
     Quaizar Vohra, Juniper Networks
     Javier Achirica, Telefonica
     Ronald Bonica, MCI
     Dave Cooper, Global Crossing
     Chris Liljenstolpe, C&W
     Eduard Metz, KPN Dutch Telecom
     Hamid Ould-Brahim, Nortel
     Chandramouli Sargor, CoSine
     Himanshu Shah, Ciena
     Vijay Srinivasan, CoSine
     Zhaohui Zhang, Juniper Networks


3. Operation of a Layer 2 VPN

   The following simple example of a customer with 4 sites connected to
   3 PE routers in a Service Provider network will hopefully illustrate
   the various aspects of the operation of a Layer 2 VPN.  For
   simplicity, we assume that a full-mesh topology is desired.

   In what follows, Frame Relay serves as the Layer 2 medium, and each
   CE has multiple DLCIs to its PE, each to connect to another CE in the
   VPN.  If the Layer 2 medium were ATM, then each CE would have
   multiple VPI/VCIs to connect to other CEs.  For PPP and Cisco HDLC,
   each CE would have multiple physical interfaces to connect to other
   CEs.  In the case of IP-only layer 2 interworking, each CE could have
   a mix of one or more of the above layer 2 mediums to connect to other
   CEs.

3.1. Network Topology

   Consider a Service Provider network with edge routers PE0, PE1, and
   PE2.  Assume that PE0 and PE1 are IGP neighbors, and PE2 is more than
   one hop away from PE0.

   Suppose that a customer C has 4 sites S0, S1, S2 and S3 that C wants
   to connect via the Service Provider's network using Frame Relay.
   Site S0 has CE0 and CE1 both connected to PE0.  Site S1 has CE2
   connected to PE0.  Site S2 has CE3 connected to PE1 and CE4 connected
   to PE2.  Site S3 has CE5 connected to PE2.  (See the Figure 1 below.)
   Suppose further that C wants to "over-provision" each current site,
   in expectation that the number of sites will grow to at least 10 in
   the near future.  However, CE4 is only provisioned with 9 DLCIs.



Kompella et al.                                                 [Page 9]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   (Note that the signalling mechanism discussed in section 7 will allow
   a site to grow in terms of connectivity to other sites at a later
   point of time at the cost of additional signalling, i.e., over-
   provisioning is not a must but a recommendation).

   Suppose finally that CE0 and CE2 have DLCIs 100 through 109 free; CE1
   and CE3 have DLCIs 200 through 209 free; CE4 has DLCIs 107, 209, 265,
   301, 414, 555, 654, 777 and 888 free; and CE5 has DLCIs 417-426.


3.2. Configuration

   The following sub-sections detail the configuration that is needed to
   provision the above VPN.  For the purpose of exposition, we assume
   that the customer will connect to the SP with Frame Relay circuits,
   and that the customer's IGP of choice is OSPF.

   While we focus primarily on the configuration that an SP has to do,
   we touch upon the configuration requirements of CEs as well.  The
   main point of contact in CE-PE configuration is that both must agree
   on the DLCIs that will be used on the interface connecting them.

   If the PE-CE connection is Frame Relay, it is recommended to run LMI
   between the PE and CE with the PE as DCE and the CE as DTE.  For the
   case of ATM VCs, OAM cells may be used; for PPP and Cisco HDLC,
   keepalives may be used.  The PPP and cisco hdlc keepalives could be
   between local and remote CE if both CEs connect via the same layer 2
   medium.

   In case of IP-only layer 2 interworking, if CE1, attached to PE0,
   connects to CE3, attached to PE1, via an L2VPN circuit, the layer 2
   medium between CE1 and PE0 is independent of the layer 2 medium
   between CE3 and PE1.  Each side will run its own layer 2 specific
   link management protocol, e.g., LMI, LCP, etc.  PE0 will inform PE1
   about the status of its local circuit to CE1 via the circuit status
   vector TLV defined in section 7.  Similarly PE1 will inform PE0 about
   the status of its local circuit to CE3.

3.2.1. CE Configuration

   Each CE that belongs to a VPN is given a "CE ID".  CE IDs must be
   unique in the context of a VPN.  We assume that the CE ID for CE-k is
   k.

   Each CE is configured to communicate with its corresponding PE with
   the set of DLCIs given above; for example, CE0 is configured with
   DLCIs 100 through 109.  OSPF is configured to run over each DLCI.  In
   general, a CE is configured with a list of circuits, all with the



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 10]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004



Figure 1: Example Network Topology


          S0                                                   S3
    ..............                                       ..............
    .            .                                       .            .
    .    +-----+ .                                       .            .
    .    | CE0 |-----------+                             .   +-----+  .
    .    +-----+ .         |                             .   | CE5 |  .
    .            .         |                             .   +--+--+  .
    .    +-----+ .         |                             .      |     .
    .    | CE1 |-------+   |                             .......|......
    .    +-----+ .     |   |                                   /
    .            .     |   |                                  /
    ..............     |   |                                 /
                       |   |         SP Network             /
                  .....|...|.............................../.....
                  .    |   |                              /     .
                  .  +-+---+-+       +-------+           /      .
                  .  |  PE0  |-------|   P   |--        |       .
                  .  +-+---+-+       +-------+  \       |       .
                  .   /    \                     \  +---+---+   .
                  .  |      -----+                --|  PE2  |   .
                  .  |           |                  +---+---+   .
                  .  |       +---+---+                 /        .
                  .  |       |  PE1  |                /         .
                  .  |       +---+---+               /          .
                  .  |            \                 /           .
                  ...|.............|.............../.............
                     |             |              /
                     |             |             /
                     |             |            /
         S1          |             |    S2     /
    ..............   |     ........|........../......
    .            .   |     .       |         |      .
    .    +-----+ .   |     .    +--+--+   +--+--+   .
    .    | CE2 |-----+     .    | CE3 |   | CE4 |   .
    .    +-----+ .         .    +-----+   +-----+   .
    .            .         .                        .
    ..............         ..........................

   same layer 2 encapsulation type, e.g., DLCIs, VCIs, physical PPP
   interface etc.  (IP-only layer 2 interworking allows a mix of layer 2
   encapsulation types).  The size of this list/set determines the
   number of remote CEs a given CE can communicate with.  Denote the
   size of this list/set as the CE's range.




Kompella et al.                                                [Page 11]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   Each CE also "knows" which DLCI connects it to each other CE.  A
   simple algorithm is to use the CE ID of the other CE as an index into
   the DLCI list this CE has (with zero-based indexing, i.e., 0 is the
   first index).  For example, CE0 is connected to CE3 through its
   fourth DLCI, 103; CE4 is connected to CE2 by the third DLCI in its
   list, namely 265.  This is the methodology used in the examples
   below; the actual methodology used to pick the DLCI to be used is a
   local matter; the key factor is that CE-k may communicate with CE-m
   using a different DLCI from the DLCI that CE-m uses to communicate to
   CE-k, i.e., the SP network effectively acts as a giant Frame Relay
   switch.  This is very important, as it decouples the DLCIs used at
   each CE site, making for much simpler provisioning.

3.2.2. PE Configuration

   Each PE is configured with the VPNs in which it participates.  Each
   VPN is configured with a Route Target community [IPVPN] which
   uniquely identifies the VPN within the SP network.  For each VPN, the
   PE has a list of CEs, which are members of that VPN.  For each CE,
   the PE knows the CE ID, its range and which DLCIs to expect from the
   CE.

3.2.3. Adding a New Site

   The first step in adding a new site to a VPN is to pick a new CE ID.
   If all current members of the VPN are over-provisioned, i.e., their
   range includes the new CE ID, adding the new site is a purely local
   task.  Otherwise, the sites whose range doesn't include the new CE ID
   and wish to communicate directly with the new CE must have their
   ranges increased by allocating additional local circuits to
   incorporate the new CE ID.

   The next step is ensuring that the new site has the required
   connectivity (see below).  This may require tweaking the connectivity
   mechanism; however, in several common cases, the only configuration
   needed is local to the PE to which the CE is attached.

   The rest of the configuration is a local matter between the new CE
   and the PE to which it is attached.

   It bears repeating that the key to making additions easy is over-
   provisioning and the algorithm for mapping a CE-id to a DLCI which is
   used for connecting to the corresponding CE.  However, what is being
   over-provisioned is the number of DLCIs/VCIs that connect the CE to
   the PE.  This is a local matter, and generally is not an issue.






Kompella et al.                                                [Page 12]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


3.3. PE Information Exchange

   When a PE is configured with all the needed information for a CE, it
   first of all chooses a contiguous set of n labels, where n is the
   CE's initial range.  Denote a contiguous set of labels by a label-
   block.  Call the smallest label in this label-block the label-base
   and the number of labels in the label-block as label-range.

   To allow a CE to grow its connectivity at a later point of time
   additional DLCIs might be added between the CE and its PE.  To
   advertise the additional capacity of a CE without disrupting existing
   connectivity to the site, a new label-block is picked with k labels,
   where k is the the number of additional circuits.  This process might
   be repeated several times as and when a CE's range needs growing.

   The PE then advertises for this CE all its label-blocks.  Each label-
   block is propagated in a separate BGP NLRI (see figure 3).  This is
   the basic Layer 2 VPN advertisement.  This same advertisement is sent
   to all other PEs.  Note that PEs that may not be part of the VPN can
   receive and keep this information, in case at some future point, a CE
   connected to the PE joins the VPN.

   So as to be able to distinguish between the multiple label-blocks of
   a given CE, notion of a block offset is introduced.  The block offset
   identifies the position of a given label-block in the set of label
   blocks of a given CE.  A remote site with CE ID m will connect to
   this CE using a label selected from one of the label blocks such that
   the following condition holds true for that label-block :

              block offset <= m < block offset + label-range

   If the PE-CE physical link goes down, or the CE configuration is
   removed, all its advertised label-blocks are withdrawn.

   Note that an implementation can easily allow allocation of a label-
   block which is larger than the actual number of DLCIs provisioned.
   This allows DLCIs to be provisioned as and when needed without
   increasing the state in the network, at the cost of extra signalling
   and configuration.

3.3.1. PE Advertisement Processing

   When a PE receives a Layer 2 VPN advertisement, it checks if the
   received Route Target community matches any VPN that it is a member
   of.  If not, the PE may store the advertisement for future use, or
   may discard it.  Since we use BGP as the auto-discovery and
   signalling protocol, a PE can use the BGP Route Refresh capability to
   learn all the discarded advertisements pertaining to a VPN at a later



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 13]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   time, when the VPN is configured on the PE.

   Otherwise, suppose the advertisement is from PE A for VPN X, CE m,
   and a label-block Lm.  Add this label-block to the existing label-
   blocks for CE m in VPN X.  For the purpose of further discussion we
   denote a label-block from CE m as Lm.  Denote Lm's block offset as
   LOm, label-base as LBm, and label-range as LRm.

   For each CE that the receiving PE B is connected to that is a member
   of VPN X, PE B does the following.

      0) Look up the configuration information associated with the CE.
         If the encapsulation type for VPN X in the advertisement does
         not match the configured encapsulation type for VPN X, stop.
         (Note that for IP-only layer 2 interworking a separate
         encapsulation type is defined).
      1) Say the configured CE ID is k, and the DLCI list is Dk[].
         A label-block of k is denoted by Lk.  Denote Lk's block offset
         as LOk, label-base as LBk, and label-range as LRk.
      2) Check if k = m.  If so, issue an error: "CE ID k has been
         allocated to two CEs in VPN X (check CE at PE A)".  Stop.
      3) Search among all the label-blocks from m  for one which
         satisfies LOm <= k < LOm + LRm.  If none found, issue a
         warning : "Cannot communicate with CE m (PE A) of VPN X:
         outside range" and stop.  Otherwise let Lm be the label-block
         found.
      4) Search among all the label-blocks of k  for one which
         satisfies LOk <= m < LOk + LRk.  If none found, issue a
         warning : "Cannot communicate with CE m (PE A) of VPN X:
         outside range" and stop.  Otherwise let Lk be the label-block
         found.
      5) Look in the appropriate table to see which label-stack will
         get to PE A.  This is the "tunnel" label-stack, Z.
      6) The DLCI that CE-k will use to talk to CE-m is Dk[m].  Then
         "VPN" label for sending packets to CE-m is (LBm + k - LOm) if
          The "VPN" label on which to expect packets from CE-m is
          (LBk + m - LOk).
      7) Install a "route" such that packets from CE-k with DLCI Dk[m]
         will be sent with tunnel label-stack Z, VPN label
         (LBm + k - LOm).  Also, install a route such that packets
          received with label (LBk + m - LOk) will be mapped to DLCI
          Dk[m] and be sent to CE k.
      8) Activate DLCI Dk[m] to the CE.  This can be done using LMI.

   If an advertisement is withdrawn, the appropriate DLCIs must be de-
   activated, and the corresponding routes must be removed from the
   forwarding table.




Kompella et al.                                                [Page 14]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


3.3.2. Example of PE Advertisement Processing

   Consider the example network of Figure 1.  Let S0, S1, S2 and S3
   belong to the same VPN, say VPN1.  Suppose PE2 receives an
   advertisement from PE0 for VPN1, CE ID 0 and a label block L0 with
   block offset LO0 = 0, label-range LR0 = 10 and label base LB0 = 1000.
   Since PE2 is connected to CE4 which is also in VPN1, PE2 does the
   following:

      0) Look up the configuration information associated with CE4.
         The advertised encapsulation type matches the configured
         encapsulation type (both are Frame Relay), so proceed.
      1) CE4 is configured with DLCI list D4[] is [ 107, 209, 265,
         301, 414, 555, 654, 777, 888].  A label-block L4 is allocated
         to CE4 with block offset LO4 = 0, label-range LR4 = 9 and
         a label-base LB4 = 4000
      2) CE0 and CE4 have ids 0 and 4 respectively, so step 2 of 4.3.1
         is skipped.
      3) Since CE4's id falls in the label-block L0 from CE0, i.e.
         LO0 <= 4 < LO0 + LR0, L0 is the label-block selected in step 3
         of 4.3.1
      4) Since CE0's id falls in the label-block L4 of CE4, i.e.
         LO4 <= 0 < LO4 + LR4, L4 is the label-block selected in step 4
         of 4.3.1
      5) Look in the appropriate table on PE2 to see which tunnel
         label-stack will get to PE0.  Let the label-stack be a single
         label, 10001.
      6) The DLCI that CE4 will use to talk to CE0 is D4[0], i.e., 107.
         The VPN label for sending packets to CE0 is (LB0 + 4 - LO0),
         i.e 1004.  The VPN label on which to expect packets from CE0
         is (LB4 + 0 - LO4), i.e., 4000.
      7) Install a "route" such that packets from CE4 with DLCI 107
         will be sent with  top label 10001, VPN label 1004.  Also,
         install a route such that packets received with label 4000 will
         be mapped to DLCI 107 and be sent to CE4.
      8) Activate DLCI 107 to CE4.

   Since CE5 is also attached to PE2, PE2 needs to do processing similar
   to the above for CE5.

   Similarly, when PE0 receives an advertisement from PE2 for VPN1, CE4,
   with and a label block L4 with block offset LO4 = 0, label-range LR4
   = 9 and label base LB4 = 4000.  PE0 processes the advertisement for
   CE0 (and CE1, which is also in VPN1).

      0) Look up the configuration information associated with CE0.
         The advertised encapsulation type matches the configured
         encapsulation type (both are Frame Relay), so proceed.



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 15]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


      1) CE0 is configured with a DLCI list D0[] is [100 - 109],
         Label-block L0 is allocated to CE0 with block offset LO0 = 0,
         label-range LR0 = 10 and a label-base LB0 = 1000 (which
         was advertised to PE2)
      2) CE0 and CE4 have ids 0 and 4 respectively, so step 2 of 4.3.1
         is skipped.
      3) Since CE0's id falls in the label-block L4 of CE4, i.e.
         LO4 <= 0 < LO4 + LR4, L4 is the label-block selected in step 4
         of 4.3.1
      4) Since CE4's id falls in the label-block L0 from CE0, i.e.
         LO0 <= 4 < LO0 + LR0, L0 is the label-block selected in step 3
         of 4.3.1
      5) Let the tunnel label-stack to reach PE2 be a single label,
         9999.
      6) The DLCI which CE0 will use to talk to CE4 is D0[4], i.e., 104.
         The VPN label for sending packets to CE4 is (LB4 + 0 - LO4),
         i.e., 4000.  The VPN label on which to expect packets from CE4
         is (LB0 + 4 - LO4), i.e., 1004.
      7) Install a "route" such that packets from CE0 with DLCI 104
         will be sent with top label 9999, VPN label 4000.  Also,
         install a route that packets received with label 1004 will be
         mapped to DLCI 104 and be sent to CE0.
      8) Activate DLCI 104 to CE0.

   Note that the VPN label of 4000, computed by PE0, for sending packets
   from CE0 to CE4 is the same as what PE2 computed as the incoming
   label for receiving packets originated at CE0 and destined to CE4.
   Similarly, the VPN label of 1004, computed by PE0, for receiving
   packets from CE4 to CE0 is same as what PE2 computed as the outgoing
   label for sending packets originated at CE4 and destined to CE0.

3.3.3. Generalizing the VPN Topology

   In the above, we assumed for simplicity that the VPN was a full mesh.
   To allow for more general VPN topologies, a mechanism based on
   filtering on BGP extended communities can be used (see section 7).















Kompella et al.                                                [Page 16]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


4. Layer 2 Interworking

   As defined so far in this document, all CE-PE connections for a given
   Layer 2 VPN must use the same layer 2 encapsulation, e.g., they must
   all be Frame Relay.  This is often a burdensome restriction.  One
   answer is to use an existing Layer 2 interworking mechanism, for
   example, Frame Relay-ATM interworking.

   In this document, we take a different approach: we postulate that the
   network layer is IP, and base Layer 2 interworking on that.  Thus,
   one can choose between pure Layer 2 VPNs, with a stringent Layer 2
   restriction but with Layer 3 independence, or a Layer 2 interworking
   VPNs, where there is no restriction on Layer 2, but Layer 3 must be
   IP.  Of course, a PE may choose to implement Frame Relay-ATM
   interworking.  For example, an ATM Layer 2 VPN could have some CEs
   connect via Frame Relay links, if their PE could translate Frame
   Relay to ATM transparent to the rest of the VPN.  This would be
   private to the CE-PE connection, and such a course is outside the
   scope of this document.

   For Layer 2 interworking as defined here, when an IP packet arrives
   at a PE, its Layer 2 address is noted, then all Layer 2 overhead is
   stripped, leaving just the IP packet.  Then, a VPN label is added,
   and the packet is encapsulated in the PE-PE tunnel (as required by
   the tunnel technology).  Finally, the packet is forwarded.  Note that
   the forwarding decision is made on the basis of the Layer 2
   information, not the IP header.  At the egress, the VPN label
   determines to which CE the packet must be sent, and over which
   virtual circuit; from this, the egress PE can also determine the
   Layer 2 encapsulation to place on the packet once the VPN label is
   stripped.

   An added benefit of restricting interworking to IP only as the layer
   3 technology is that the provider's network can provide IP Diffserv
   or any other IP based QOS mechanism to the L2VPN customer.  The
   ingress PE can set up IP/TCP/UDP based classifiers to do DiffServ
   marking, and other functions like policing and shaping on the L2
   circuits of the VPN customer.  Note the division of labor: the CE
   determines the destination CE, and encodes that in the Layer 2
   address.  The ingress PE thus determines the egress PE and VPN label
   based on the Layer 2 address supplied by the CE, but the ingress PE
   can choose the tunnel to reach the egress PE (in the case that there
   are different tunnels for each CoS/DiffServ code point), or the CoS
   bits to place in the tunnel (in the case where a single tunnel
   carries multiple CoS/DiffServ code points) based on its own
   classification of the packet.





Kompella et al.                                                [Page 17]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


5. Packet Transport

   When a packet arrives at a PE from a CE in a Layer 2 VPN, the layer 2
   address of the packet identifies to which other CE the packet is
   destined.  The procedure outlined above installs a route that maps
   the layer 2 address to a tunnel (which identifies the PE to which the
   destination CE is attached) and a VPN label (which identifies the
   destination CE).  If the egress PE is the same as the ingress PE, no
   tunnel or VPN label is needed.

   The packet may then be modified (depending on the layer 2
   encapsulation).  In case of IP-only layer 2 interworking, the layer 2
   header is completely stripped off till the IP header.  Then, a VPN
   label and tunnel encapsulation are added as specified by the route
   described above, and the packet is sent to the egress PE.

   If the egress PE is the same as the ingress, the packet "arrives"
   with no labels.  Otherwise, the packet arrives with the VPN label,
   which is used to determine which CE is the destination CE.  The
   packet is restored to a fully-formed layer 2 packet, and then sent to
   the CE.

5.1. Layer 2 MTU

   This document requires that the Layer 2 MTU configured on all the
   access circuits connecting CEs to PEs in an L2VPN be the same.  This
   can be ensured by passing the configured layer 2 MTU in the
   Layer2-info extended community when advertising L2VPN label-blocks.
   On receiving L2VPN label-block from remote PEs in a VPN, the MTU
   value carried in the layer2-info extendend community should be
   compared against the configured value for the VPN.  If they don't
   match, then the label-block should be ignored.

   The MTU on the Layer 2 access links MUST be chosen such that the size
   of the L2 frames plus the L2VPN header does not exceed the MTU of the
   SP network.  Layer 2 frames that exceed the MTU after encapsulation
   MUST be dropped.  For the case of IP-only layer 2 interworking the IP
   MTU on the layer 2 access link must be chosen such that the size of
   the IP packet and the L2VPN header does not exceed the MTU of the SP
   network.

5.2. Layer 2 Frame Format

   The modification to the Layer 2 frame depends on the Layer 2 type.
   This document requires that the encapsulation methods used in
   transporting of layer 2 frames over tunnels be the same as described
   in [L2-ENCAP], except in the case of IP-only Layer 2 Interworking
   which is described in section 6.2.



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 18]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


5.3. IP-only Layer 2 Interworking


Figure 2: Format of IP-only layer 2 interworking packet

   +----------------------------+
   | Tunnel |  VPN  |    IP     |     VPN label is the
   | Encap  | Label |  Packet   |     demultiplexing field
   +----------------------------+


   At the ingress PE, an L2 frame's L2 header is completely stripped off
   and is carried over as an IP packet within the SP network (Figure 2).
   The forwarding decision is still based on the L2 address of the
   incoming L2 frame.  At the egress PE, the IP packet is encapsulated
   back in an L2 frame and transported over to the destination CE.  The
   forwarding decision at the egress PE is based on the VPN label as
   before.  The L2 technology between egress PE and CE is independent of
   the L2 technology between ingress PE and CE.


6. Auto-discovery and Signalling of Layer 2 VPNs

   BGP version 4 ([BGP]) is used as the auto-discovery and signalling
   protocol for Layer 2 VPNs described in this document.

   In BGP, the Multiprotocol Extensions [BGP-MP] are used to carry
   L2-VPN signalling information.  [BGP-MP] defines the format of two
   BGP attributes (MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI) that can be used
   to announce and withdraw the announcement of reachability
   information.  We introduce a new address family identifier (AFI) for
   L2-VPN [to be assigned by IANA], a new subsequent address family
   identifier (SAFI) [to be assigned by IANA], and also a new NLRI
   format for carrying the individual L2-VPN label-block information.
   One or more NLRIs will be carried in the above-mentioned BGP
   attributes.  L2VPN  NLRIs MUST be accompanied by one or more extended
   communities.  This document proposes the reuse of ROUTE TARGET
   extended community defined in [EXT-COMM].  Its usage is exactly the
   same as in the case of [INETVPN].

   PEs receiving VPN information may filter advertisements based on the
   extended communities, thus controlling CE-to-CE connectivity.

   The format of the Layer 2 VPN NLRI is as shown in Figure 3 below.
   One or more such NLRIs can be carried in a single MP_REACH_NLRI or
   MP_REACH_NLRI attribute.  An L2VPN NLRI is uniquely identified by the
   RD, CE ID and the Label-block Offset.  So an L2VPN NLRI carried in
   MP_UNREACH_NLRI attribute must contain only these 3 fields other than



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 19]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   the length field.


Figure 3: BGP NLRI for L2 VPN Information

   +------------------------------------+
   |  Length (2 octets)                 |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Route Distinguisher  (8 octets)   |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  CE ID (2 octets)                  |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Label-block Offset (2 octets)     |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Label Base (3 octets)             |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Variable TLVs (0 to N octets)     |
   |              ...                   |
   +------------------------------------+


6.1. L2VPN NLRI Format

6.1.1. Length

   The Length field indicates the length in octets of the L2-VPN address
   information.

6.1.2. Route Distinguisher

   Has the same meaning as in [IPVPN].

6.1.3. CE ID

   A 16 bit number which uniquely identifies a CE in a VPN.

6.1.4. Label-Block Offset

   A 16 bit number which identifies the position of a label-block within
   a set of label-blocks of a given CE.  This enables a remote CE to
   select a label block when picking the VPN label for sending traffic
   destined to the CE this label-block corresponds to, such that :

                    label-block offset <= remote CE id.







Kompella et al.                                                [Page 20]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


6.1.5. Label base

   The label-base which is to be used for determining the VPN label for
   forwarding packets to the CE identified by CE ID

6.1.6. Sub-TLVs

   New sub-TLVs can be introduced as needed.

   L2VPN TLVs can be added to extend the information carried in the L2
   VPN NLRI.  In L2VPN TLVs, type is 1 octet, length is 2 octets and
   represents the size of the value field in bits.

6.1.7. Circuit Status Vector

   A new sub-TLV is introduced to carry the status of an L2VPN PVC
   between a pair of PEs.  This sub-TLV is a mandatory part of
   MP_REACH_NLRI.

   Note that an L2VPN PVC is bidirectional, composed of two simplex
   connection going in opposite directions.  A simplex connection
   consists of the 3 segments: 1) the local access circuit between the
   source CE and the ingress PE, 2) the tunnel LSP between the ingress
   and egress PEs, and 3) the access circuit between the egress PE and
   the destination CE.

   To monitor the status of a PVC, a PE needs to monitor the status of
   both simplex connections.  Since it knows that status of its access
   circuit, and the status of the tunnel towards the remote PE, it can
   inform the remote PE of these two.  Similarly, the remote PE can
   inform the status of its access circuit to its local CE and the
   status of the tunnel to the first PE.  Combining the local and the
   remote information, a PE can determine the status of a PVC.

   The basic unit of advertisement in L2VPN for a given CE is a label-
   block.  Each label within a label-block corresponds to a PVC on the
   CE.  So its natural to advertise the local status information for all
   PVCs corresponding to a label-block along with the label-block's
   NLRI.  This is done by introducing the circuit status vector TLV.
   The value field of this TLV is a bit-vector, each bit of which
   indicates the status of the PVC associated with the corresponding
   label in the label-block.  Bit value 0 indicates that the local
   circuit and the tunnel LSP to the remote PE is up, while a value of 1
   indicates that either or both of them are down.

   PE A, while selecting a label from a label-block (advertised by PE B,
   for remote CE m, and VPN X) for one of its local CE n (in VPN X) can
   also determine the status of the corresponding PVC (between CE n and



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 21]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   CE m) by looking at the appropriate bit in the circuit status vector.

   Type field for the circuit status vector TLV is TBD.

   The length field of the TLV specifies the length of the value field
   in bits.  The value field is padded to the nearest octet boundary.

   Note that the length field corresponds to the number of labels in the
   label-block, i.e., the label-block range.  Label-block range enables
   a CE to select a label block (among several label-blocks advertised
   by a CE) when picking the VPN label for sending traffic destined to
   the CE this label-block corresponds to, such that :

   received label-block offset <= local CE id < received label-block range.

6.2. Layer2-Info Extended Community

   This document introduces a new extended community, Layer2-Info, to
   allow carrying layer 2 specific information in a VPN.  This extended
   community MUST be carried as part of path attribute in all BGP update
   messages carrying L2VPN NLRIs. The encoding of this community is
   shown in figure 4.


Figure 4: layer2-info extended community

   +------------------------------------+
   | Extended community type (2 octets) |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Encaps Type (1 octet)             |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Cntrl Flags (1 octet)             |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Layer-2 MTU (2 octet)             |
   +------------------------------------+
   |  Reserved (2 octets)               |
   +------------------------------------+


6.2.1. Extended Community Type

   TBD.









Kompella et al.                                                [Page 22]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


6.2.2. Encapsulation Type

   Identifies the layer 2 encapsulation, e.g., ATM, Frame Relay etc.
   The following encapsulation types are defined:

      Value   Encapsulation
          0   Reserved
          1   Frame Relay
          2   ATM AAL5 VCC transport
          3   ATM transparent cell transport
          4   Ethernet VLAN
          5   Ethernet
          6   Cisco-HDLC
          7   PPP
          8   CEM [8]
          9   ATM VCC cell transport
         10   ATM VPC cell transport
         11   MPLS
         12   VPLS
         64   IP-interworking

6.2.3. Control Flags

   This is a bit vector, defined as in Figure 5.


Figure 5: Control Flags Bit Vector

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MBZ  |Q|F|C|S|      (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The following bits are defined; the MBZ bits MUST be set to zero.

        Name   Meaning
           C   If set to 1(0), Control word is (not) required when
               encapsulating Layer 2 frames [L2-ENCAP].
           S   If set to 1(0), Sequenced delivery of frames is (not)
               required.

   The Q and F flags are reserved for other use.








Kompella et al.                                                [Page 23]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


6.2.4. Layer-2 MTU

   Specifies the layer-2 specific MTU of all the circuits in all the
   label-blocks advertised with this extended community.  This allows
   for checking of the layer 2 MTU being same for all the circuits
   across all the sites in a VPN.

6.3. BGP L2 VPN capability

   The BGP Multiprotocol capability extension [BGP-CAP] is used to
   indicate that the BGP speaker wants to negotiate L2 VPN capability
   with its peers.  The capability code is 1, the capability length is
   4, and the AFI and SAFI values will be set to the L2 VPN AFI and L2
   VPN SAFI (discussed in seccion 7) respectively.

6.4. Advantages of Using BGP

   PE routers in an SP network typically run BGP v4.  This means that
   SPs are familiar with using BGP, and have already configured BGP on
   their PEs, so configuring and using BGP to signal Layer 2 VPNs is not
   much of an additional burden to the SP operators.

   Another advantage of using BGP is that with BGP it is easier to build
   inter-provider VPNs. Mechanisms for this are similar as that
   described in [IPVPN]. Option a) and b) described there could be
   adapted with slight modification for the l2vpn case but have adverse
   scaling issue in the l2vpn context. So we recommend using option C)
   which in l2vpn context would require an ASBR to maintain labeled IPv4
   /32 routes to PEs within its AS and use EBGP to distribute these
   routes to other ASes. This results in creation of an LSP from a PE in
   one AS to another PE in another AS. Now these PEs can run multihop
   EBGP to exchange L2VPN information. The L2VPN traffic will be
   tunnelled thru the inter-AS LSP established between PEs as described
   above.


7. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Chaitanya Kodeboyina Dennis Ferguson,
   Der-Hwa Gan, Dave Katz, Nischal Sheth, John Stewart, and Paul Traina
   for the enlightening discussions that helped shape the ideas
   presented here, and Ross Callon for his valuable comments.

   The idea of using extended communities for more general connectivity
   of a Layer 2 VPN was a contribution by Yakov Rekhter, who also gave
   many useful comments on the text; many thanks to him.





Kompella et al.                                                [Page 24]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


8. Security Considerations

   The security aspects of this solution will be discussed at a later
   time.


9. IANA Considerations

   (To be filled in in a later revision.)


10. Normative References

   [BGP] Rekhter, Y., and Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
   RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [BGP-CAP] Chandra, R., and Scudder, J., "Capabilities Advertisement
   with BGP-4", RFC 2842, May 2000.

   [BGP-MP] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and Katz, D.,
   "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000

   [BGP-ORF] Chen, E., and Rekhter, Y., "Cooperative Route Filtering
   Capability for BGP-4", March 2000 (work in progress).

   [BGP-RFSH] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC2918,
   September 2000.

   [EXT-COMM] Ramachandra, S., Tappan, D.,Rekhtar, Y., "BGP Extended
   Communities Attribute" (work in progress).

   [L2-ENCAP] Martini, et. al., "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of
   Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS", November 2001 (work in progress).


11. Informative References

   [IPVPN] Rosen, E., and Rekhter, Y., "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March
   1999.

   [IPVPN-MCAST] Rosen, et. al., "Multicast in MPLS/BGP VPNs", November
   2000 (work in progress).

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

   [VPN] Kosiur, Dave, "Building and Managing Virtual Private Networks",
   Wiley Computer Publishing, 1998.



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 25]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


Editor's Address

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



IPR Notice

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be



Kompella et al.                                                [Page 26]

Internet Draft          Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels           January 2004


   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.







































Kompella et al.                                                [Page 27]


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