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

Versions: (draft-kamite-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements) 00 01 02 03 04 05

Network Working Group                                          Y. Kamite
Internet-Draft                                        NTT Communications
Intended status: Informational                                 F. Jounay
Expires: July 23, 2009                                    France Telecom
                                                        B. Niven-Jenkins
                                                                      BT
                                                             D. Brungard
                                                                    AT&T
                                                                  L. Jin
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                            Jan 19, 2009


Framework and Requirements for Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)
            draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-00.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 July 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



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


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

Abstract

   This document provides a framework and service level requirements for
   Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS).  VPMS is defined as a Layer
   2 VPN service that provides point-to-multipoint connectivity for a
   variety of Layer 2 link layers across an IP or MPLS-enabled PSN.
   This document outlines architectural service models of VPMS and
   states generic and high level requirements.  This is intended to aid
   in developing protocols and mechanisms to support VPMS.







































Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Ethernet Use Case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  ATM-based Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  TDM-based Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Reference Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Customer Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Service Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.1.1.  Point-to-Multipoint Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.1.2.  Multiple Source Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.1.3.  Reverse Traffic Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.3.  Quality of Service (QoS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.4.  Protection and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.4.1.  Dual-homed Access Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.4.2.  Single/Dual Traffic Support in Dual-homed Access . . . 14
     6.5.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.6.  Reordering Prevention  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.7.  Failure reporting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Service Provider Network Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.1.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.2.  Pseudo Wire Signaling and PSN Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.3.  Discovering VPMS Related Information . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.4.  Activation and Deactivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.5.  Inter-AS Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.6.  Co-existence with Existing L2VPNs  . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.7.  Operation, Administration and Maintenance  . . . . . . . . 20
       7.7.1.  Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       7.7.2.  Testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.7.3.  Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.8.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23






Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Problem Statement

   [RFC4664] describes different types of Provider Provisioned Layer 2
   VPNs (L2 PPVPNs, or L2VPNs); Some of them are widely deployed today,
   such as Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN
   Service (VPLS).  A VPWS is a VPN service that supplies a Layer 2 (L2)
   point-to-point service.  A VPLS is an L2 service that emulates
   Ethernet LAN service across a Wide Area Network (WAN).

   For some use cases described hereafter, there are P2MP (point-to-
   multipoint) type services for Layer 2 traffic.  However, there is no
   straightforward way to realize them based on the existing L2VPN
   specifications.

   In a VPWS, a SP can set up point-to-point connectivity per a pair of
   CEs but it is not possible to replicate traffic for point-to-
   multipoint services in the SP's network side.  A SP could build
   multiple PWs independently and have the CEs replicate traffic over
   them, but this is not only inconvenient for the customer, it's a
   waste of bandwidth resources.

   In a VPLS, SPs can natively offer multipoint connectivity across
   their backbone.  Although it is seemingly applicable for point-to-
   multipoint service as well, there remains extra complexity for SPs to
   filter unnecessary traffic between irrelevant sites (i.e., from a
   receiver PE to another receiver PE) because VPLS provides multipoint-
   to-multipoint connectivity between CEs.  Moreover, VPLS's MAC-based
   learning/forwarding operation is unnecessary for some scenarios
   particularly if customers only need simple unidirectional point-to-
   multipoint service, or if they require non- Ethernet Layer 2
   connectivity.

   Consequently, there is a real need for a solution that natively
   provides point-to-multipoint service in L2VPN.

1.2.  Scope of This Document

   VPMS is defined as a Layer 2 service that provides point-to-
   multipoint connectivity for a variety of Layer2 link layers across an
   IP or MPLS-enabled PSN.  VPMS is categorized as a class of provider-
   provisioned Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPN).

   This document introduces a new service framework, reference model and
   functional requirements for VPMS by extending the existing framework
   [RFC4664] and requirements [RFC4665] for L2VPNs.




Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   The technical specifications are outside the scope of this document.
   There is no intent to specify solution-specific details.

   This document provides requirements from both the Service Provider's
   and the Customer's point of view.


2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .


3.  Terminology

   The content of this document makes use of the terminology defined in
   [RFC4026].  For readability purposes, we list some of the terms here
   in addition to some specific terms used in this document.

3.1.  Acronyms

   P2P:  Point-to-Point

   P2MP:  Point-to-Multipoint

   PW:  Pseudowire

   VPMS:  Virtual Private Multicast Service

   PE/CE:  Provider/Customer Edge

   P: Provider Router

   AC:  Attachment Circuit

   PSN:  Packet Switched Network

   SP:  Service Provider


4.  Use Cases

4.1.  Ethernet Use Case

   For multicast traffic delivery, there is a requirement to deliver a
   unidirectional P2MP service in addition to the existing P2P service.
   The demand is growing to provide private (P2MP native Ethernet)



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   services, for various applications such as IP- based delivery of TV
   broadcasting, content delivery networks, etc.  Moreover, many digital
   audio/video devices (e.g., MPEG-TS, HD-SDI) that supports Ethernet
   interfaces are becoming available, which will make Ethernet P2MP
   service more common.  Also there are some applications that naturally
   suited to static transport of VPMS.  For example, MPEG-TS/IP/
   Ethernet in DVB-H is typically static broadcast without any signaling
   in the upstream direction.  VPMS could be a possible solution to
   provide these kinds of networking connectivity over PSNs.

   Currently VPLS [RFC4761][RFC4762] is able to give P2MP-type
   replication for Ethernet traffic.  Native VPLS already supports this
   capability via a full mesh of PWs, and an extension to optimize
   replication is also proposed [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast] as an
   additional feature.  However, VPLS by nature requires MAC-based
   learning and forwarding, which might not be needed in some cases by
   particular users.  Generally, video distribution applications use
   unidirectional P2MP traffic, but may not always require any added
   complexity of MAC address management.  In addition, VPLS is a service
   that essentially provides any-to-any connectivity between all CEs in
   a L2VPN as it emulates a LAN service.  However, if only P2MP
   connectivity is required, the traffic between different receivers is
   not always needed, and traffic from receiver to sender is not always
   needed, either.  In these cases, VPMS is a service that provides much
   simpler operation.

   Note that VPMS provides single coverage of receiver membership; that
   is, there is no distinct differentiation for multiple multicast
   groups.  All traffic from a particular Attachment Circuit (AC) will
   be forwarded toward the same remote receivers, even if the
   destination MAC address is changed.  Basically in VPMS, destination
   MAC addresses are not used for forwarding, which is significantly
   different from VPLS.  If MAC-based forwarding is preferred (i.e.,
   multicast/unicast differentiation of MAC address), VPLS should be
   chosen rather than VPMS.

4.2.  ATM-based Use Case

   A use case of ATM-based service in VPMS could be to offer the
   capability for service providers to support IP multicast wholesale
   services over ATM in case the wholesale customer relies on ATM
   infrastructure.  The P2MP support alleviates the constraint in terms
   of replication for ATM to support IP multicast services.

   Another use case of VPMS for ATM is for audio/video stream
   applications.  Today many digital TV broadcasting networks adopt ATM-
   based distribution systems with point-to-multipoint PVPs/PVCs.  The
   transport network supports replicating ATM cells in transit nodes to



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   efficiently deliver programs to multiple terminals.  For migrating
   such ATM-based networks onto IP/MPLS-based networks, VPMS is
   considered to be a candidate solution.

4.3.  TDM-based Use Case

   Today the existing VPWS already supports TDM emulation services
   (SAToP, CESoPSN or TDMoIP).  It is a Layer 1 service, not Layer 2
   service; however, a common architecture is being used since they are
   all packet-based emulations over a SP's network.  VPMS is also
   considered to be a solution for such TDM applications that require
   point-to-multipoint topology.

   In a PSN environment, the existing VPWS allows support for 2G/3G
   mobile backhauling (e.g.  TDM traffic for GSM's Abis interface, ATM
   traffic for Release 99 UMTS's Iub interface).  Currently, the Mobile
   backhauling architecture is always built as a star topology between
   the 2G/3G controller (e.g.  BSC or RNC) and the 2G/3G Base Stations
   (BTS or NodeB).  Therefore VPWSes (P2P services) are used between
   each Base Station and their corresponding controller and nothing more
   is required.

   As far as synchronization in a PSN environment is concerned,
   different mechanisms can be considered to provide frequency and phase
   clock required in the 2G/3G Mobile environment to guarantee mobile
   handover and strict QoS.  One of them consists of using Adaptive
   Clock Distribution and Recovery.  With this method a Master element
   distributes a reference clock at protocol level by regularly sending
   TDM PW packets (SAToP, CESoPSN or TDMoIP) to Slave elements.  This
   process is based on the fact that the volume of transmitted data
   arrival is considered as an indication of the source frequency that
   could be used by the Slave element to recover the source clock
   frequency.  Consequently, with the current methods, the PE connected
   to the Master must setup and maintain as many VPWS (P2P) as their are
   Slave elements, and the Master has to replicate the traffic.  A
   better solution to deliver the clock frequency would be to use a VPMS
   which supports P2MP traffic.  This may scale better than P2P services
   (VPWS) with regards to the forwarding plane at the Master since the
   traffic is no longer replicated to individual VPWSes (P2P) but only
   to the AC associated to the VPMS (P2MP).  It may ease the
   provisioning process since only one source endpoint must be
   configured at the Ingress PE.  This alleviated provisioning process
   would simplify the introduction of new Base Stations.  The main gain
   would be to avoid replication on the Master and hence save bandwidth
   consumed by the synchronization traffic which typically requires the
   highest level of QoS.  This kind of traffic will be competing with
   equivalent QOS traffic like VoIP, which is why it is significant to
   save the slightest bandwidth.



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


5.  Reference Model

   The VPMS reference model is shown in Figure 1.



         +-----+ AC1                                  AC2    +-----+
         | CE1 |>---+     ------------------------      +--->| CE2 |
         +-----+    |    |                        |     |    +-----+
          VPMS A    |  +------+ VPMS A        +------+  |    VPMS A
          Sender    +->|......>...+.......... >......|>-+    Receiver
                       | VPMS |   .           | VPMS |
                       | PE1  |   .    VPMS B | PE2  |
                    +-<|......<.. . ....+.....<......|<-+
                    |  +------+   .     .     +------+  |
         +-----+    |    |        .     .         |     |   +-----+
         | CE4 |<---+    |Routed  .     .         |     +---| CE3 |
         +-----+ AC4     |Backbone.     .         |     AC3 +-----+
          VPMS B         |        .     .         |          VPMS B
          Receiver       |      +-v-----v-+       |          Sender
                          ------| .     . |-------
                                | . VPMS. |
                                | . PE3 . |
                                +---------+
                                  v     v
                                  |     |
                               AC5|     |AC6
                                  v     v
                             +-----+   +-----+
                             | CE5 |   | CE6 |
                             +-----+   +-----+
                             VPMS A     VPMS B
                             Receiver   Receiver

                       Figure 1: Reference Model for VPMS

   A VPMS instance is defined as a service entity manageable in VPMS
   architecture.  A single VPMS instance provides isolated service
   reachability domain to each CE, so it corresponds to a so-called
   "VPN" as a specific set of sites that allows communication.  A single
   VPMS instance provides a unique unidirectional point-to-multipoint
   L2VPN service.  In Figure 1, there are two VPMS instances shown, VPMS
   A and VPMS B. In principle, there is no traffic exchange allowed
   between these different instances, so they are treated as different
   VPNs.

   In a VPMS, a single CE-PE connection is used for transmitting frames
   for delivery to multiple remote CEs, with point-to-multipoint



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   duplication.  The SP's network (PE as well as P) has a role to
   duplicate frames so that the traffic source does not need to send
   multiple frames to individual receivers.

   Like VPWS, an Attachment Circuit (AC) is provided to accommodate CEs
   in a VPMS.  In a VPMS, an AC attached to a VPMS MUST be configured as
   "sender" or "receiver" not both.  That is, any AC is associated with
   the role of either sending side (Tx) or receiving side (Rx) from the
   view of the CE.  Thus every AC deals with unidirectional traffic
   flows.  A sender AC does not have a capability of transmitting the
   traffic back to a CE at upstream side.  Likewise a receiver AC does
   not have a capability of receive the traffic from a CE at downstream
   side.  In Figure 1, AC1 and AC3 are configured as senders while AC2,
   AC4, AC5 and AC6 are configured as receivers.  In VPMS A, CE1 could
   send traffic via AC1, but CE2 and CE5 could not send back traffic.

   A CE which is locally connected to a sender AC is called a sender CE.
   Also a CE which is locally connected to a receiver AC is called a
   receiver CE.  However, such CEs's roles will not be managed directly
   in VPMS because the configured AC's role (sender or receiver) will
   automatically determine them.

   Basically there is a one-to-one mapping between an attachment circuit
   and a VPMS instance.  For example, all traffic from CE1 to PE1
   (thorough AC1) is mapped to VPMS A (to CE2 and CE5).

   In a VPMS, PEs will be connected by PW technology which may include
   P2MP traffic optimization (i.e., P2MP PW.  See section 7.2.).  P2MP
   traffic optimization will provide the benefit of traffic replication
   for high bandwidth efficiency.  The sender CE has only to transmit
   one stream towards the PE and it does not have to replicate traffic.
   Also routed backbone provides IP or MPLS-enabled PSN tunnels for
   transporting the PW traffic.

   Regarding end-to-end traffic topology between the PEs, a single VPMS
   instance (i.e., one VPN) may correspond to a single unidirectional
   P2MP PW topology.  In Figure 1, VPMS A (one instance) has a single
   P2MP PW topology (from PE1 to PE2 and PE3).  However, there is also a
   case that a single VPMS consists of two or more P2MP PW topology
   grouped which is typically used for redundancy.  The details are
   given in section 6.1.2.

   VPMS can support various Layer 2 protocol services such as Ethernet,
   ATM, etc.







Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


6.  Customer Requirements

6.1.  Service Topology

6.1.1.  Point-to-Multipoint Support

   A solution MUST support unidirectional point-to-multipoint
   connectivity from a sender to multiple receivers.  A sender CE is
   assured to send traffic to one or more receiver CEs.  Receiver CEs
   include not only the CEs which are located at remote sites, but also
   the local CEs which are connected to the same sender-side PE.  If
   there is only one receiver in the instance, it is considered
   equivalent to unidirectional point-to-point traffic.

6.1.2.  Multiple Source Support

   A solution MUST support multiple sender topologies in one VPMS
   instance, where a common receiver group is reachable from two or more
   senders.  This means that a solution needs to support having multiple
   P2MP topologies in the backbone whose roots are located apart in a
   common service.  In other words, each P2MP topology MUST only have a
   single sender, however multiple P2MP topologies can be grouped
   together into a single VPMS instance.  For example, in Figure 2,
   traffic from sender CE1 and CE2 both reach receivers CE3 and CE4
   while CE1, CE2, CE3 and CE4 all are associated with a single service.
   This topology is useful for increasing service reliability by
   redundant sources.  Note that every receiver has only to have one AC
   connected to each PE to receive traffic. (in Figure 2, AC3 and AC4
   respectively).  Thus a solution will also need to support protection
   and restoration mechanism combining these multiple P2MP topologies.
   (See section 6.4 too).




















Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


     +-----+ AC1                                         AC2+-----+
     | CE1 |>-+      ----------------------------        +-<| CE2 |
     +-----+  |     |                            |       |  +-----+
      VPMS A  |  +------+                      +------+  |    VPMS A
     Sender   +->|......>..    .............+..<......|<-+    Sender
              Tx | VPMS | .    .            .  | VPMS | Tx
                 | PE 1 | .    .            .  | PE 2 |
                 |      | .    .            .  |      |
                 +------+ .    .            .  +------+
                    |     .    .            .    |
                    |     +..  .  ......    .    |
                    |     .    .       .    .    |
                    |     .    .       .    .    |
                    |   +-v----v-+   +-v----v-+  |
                     ---| .   .  |---| .   .  |---
                    VPMS|  . .   |   |  . .   |VPMS
                    PE 3|   .    |   |   .    |PE 4
                        +--------+   +--------+
                            v            v
                         AC3|            |AC4
                            v            v
                        +-----+       +-----+
                        | CE3 |       | CE4 |
                        +-----+       +-----+
                        VPMS A         VPMS A
                        Receiver       Receiver


                       Figure 2: Multiple source support

6.1.3.  Reverse Traffic Support

   There are cases where a reverse traffic flow is necessary.  A sender
   CE might sometimes want to receive traffic from a receiver CE.  There
   are some usage scenarios for this, such as stream monitoring through
   a loopback mechanism, control channels which need feedback
   communication etc.  The simplest way to accomplish this is to provide
   different VPMS instances for reverse traffic, i.e. a sender CE is a
   receiver of another VPMS instance.

   Figure 3 illustrates this kind of reverse traffic scenario, where CE1
   is configured as a sender in VPMS A and a receiver in VPMS B. VPMS B
   is used for reverse traffic.  Note that a closed single network here
   is composed of two VPMS instances.  In operational terms, CE1 and CE4
   belong to the same closed "VPN" by administrative policy (e.g., CE1,
   CE2, CE3 and CE4 are the devices in one enterprise's intranet
   network).




Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   Such bi-directional instances can be easily created if two distinct
   ACs are provisioned for sending and receiving exclusively (e.g., if
   VLAN id in dot1Q tagged frame is a service delimiter, different VLAN
   ids are uniquely allocated for Tx and Rx).  This approach is
   acceptable if a receiver CE device can change Layer 2 interface
   appropriately in data transmitting and receiving.

   Meanwhile it is also true that this might be considered a limitation
   in some deployment scenarios.  If a CE is an IP router or Ethernet
   bridge, reverse traffic is normally expected to be received on the
   same interface as forward traffic on the receiver CE. (i.e., the same
   VLAN id is to be used for reverse traffic if the AC supports dot1Q
   tagged frames.)

   Therefore, in a VPMS solution, both of the two type of ACs, sending
   (Tx) and receiving (Rx), SHOULD be allowed to be placed in the same
   physical/virtual circuit.  In Figure 3, suppose AC5 of VPMS A is
   provisioned as {VLAN id = 100, direction= Rx}.  It is expected that
   operators can provision AC6 of VPMS B in the same physical port as
   {VLAN id = 100, direction = Tx}.  That is, the combination between
   VLAN id and the flow direction is now considered to be a service
   delimiter.

   Note, in most implementations of VPWS today, every AC is always
   considered bidirectional and a unique Layer 2 header/circuit (ATM
   VPI/VCI, an Ethernet port, a VLAN etc.) is considered the service
   delimiter.  In contrast in VPMS, every AC is considered
   unidirectional and traffic direction is an additional element to
   identify a unique AC.






















Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


          +-----+   <-- Rx VPMS B
          | CE1 |<----------------+
          +-----+--------------+  |
    VPMS A Sender --> Tx VPMS A|  |
     VPMS B Receiver       AC1 v  ^ AC2
                             +----------+ VPMS
                             | .  .     | PE1
                             | .   ...  |
                      -------| .      . |--------
                     |       +-v------^-+        |
                     |         .      .          |
                     |         +      .          |
                   +------+  . . .    .        +------+
                +-<|......<..  .  ..  .  ......>..... |>-+
                |  | VPMS |    .      .        | VPMS |  |
             AC3|  | PE2  |    .      .        | PE3  |  |AC4
                |  +------+    .      .        +------+  |
      +-----+   |    |         .      .          |       |   +-----+
      | CE2 |<--+    | Routed  .      .          |       +-->| CE3 |
      +-----+ <--    | Backbone.      .          |       --> +-----+
     VPMS A     Rx   |       +-v------^-+        |        Rx VPMS A
     Receiver         -------| .      . |--------            Receiver
                             | .   ...  |
                             | .  .     | VPMS
                             +----------+ PE4
                            AC5v  ^AC6
                               |  |  <-- Tx VPMS B  +-----+
                               |  +----------------<| CE4 |
                               +------------------->+-----+
                                --> Rx VPMS A      VPMS A Receiver
                                                   VPMS B Sender

                       Figure 3: Reverse traffic support

6.2.  Transparency

   A solution is intended to provide Layer 2 traffic transparency.
   Transparency SHOULD be honoured per VPMS instance basis.  In other
   words, Layer 2 traffic can be transparently transported from a sender
   CE to receiver CEs in a given instance.  Note, however, if service
   delimiting fields (VLAN Id in Ethernet, VPI/VCI in ATM, DLCI in FR
   etc.) are assigned by SP, they are not transparent.  It depends on
   SP's choice if they are assigned at each AC.  Hence it could be that
   some of receiver CEs are getting traffic with different delimiting
   fields than the other receiver CEs.

   VPMS solution SHOULD NOT require any special packet processing by the
   end users (CEs).



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


6.3.  Quality of Service (QoS)

   A customer may require that the VPMS service provide the guaranteed
   QoS.  In particular, for real time applications which are considered
   common in point-to-multipoint delivery, delay and loss sensitive
   traffic MUST be supported.  The solution SHOULD provide native QoS
   techniques for service class differentiation, such as IEEE 802.1p CoS
   for Ethernet.

   For bandwidth committed services (e.g., ATM CBR), a solution SHOULD
   guarantee end-to-end bandwidth.  It MAY provide flow admission
   control mechanisms to achieve that.

6.4.  Protection and Restoration

   A solution MUST provide protection and restoration mechanism for end-
   to-end services.

6.4.1.  Dual-homed Access Support

   A solution MUST allow dual-homed redundant access from a CE to
   multiple PEs.  Additionally, a solution SHOULD provide protection
   mechanism between the different PEs to which a CE is attached.  This
   is because when an ingress PE node fails whole traffic delivery will
   fail unless a backup sender PE is provided, even in case of dual-
   homed access.  Similarly, if an egress PE node fails, traffic toward
   that CE is never received unless a backup egress PE is provided.
   Figure 4 is an example for this access topology.

6.4.2.  Single/Dual Traffic Support in Dual-homed Access

   When dual-homed access to sender PEs is provided, a solution MAY
   allow a sender CE to transmit just a single copy of the traffic to
   either one of the two sender PEs, or to transmit a copy of the
   traffic to both the PEs simultaneously.  The latter scenario consumes
   more resource of CE-PE link than the single traffic scenario, but it
   is usually applicable when a source device has only a simple
   forwarding capability without any switchover functionality.  In the
   dual traffic case, the backup ingress PE SHOULD be able to filter the
   incoming unnecessary traffic while active PE is working.  Also in
   either case, single traffic or dual traffic, the protection mechanism
   of ingress PEs described in the previous subsection will be necessary
   to handle the traffic appropriately.

   In the case of dual-homed access to receiver PEs, a solution MAY
   allow a receiver CE to receive a single copy of the traffic from
   either one of the two egress PEs, or receive a copy of the traffic
   from both PEs simultaneously.  The dual traffic approach is



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   applicable if CE has fast switchover capability as a receiver by
   selecting either one of incoming traffic, but note that additional
   traffic resources are always consumed at PE-CE link of backup side.
   Specifically in the single traffic case, it might be needed to
   support switchover mechanism between egress PEs in failure.


              +-----+
              | CE1 |--------------+
              +-----+               \
        VPMS A  |                   |
        Sender  |                   v AC1
    (dual-homed)|                 +----+
                |            -----|VPMS|--------
                |           |     | PE1|        |
                \           |     +----+        |
                 \  AC2   +----+             +----+   AC4
                  +------>|VPMS|             |VPMS|------------+
                          | PE2|  Routed     | PE3|             \
                          +----+  Backbone   +----+\            |
                     AC3 /  |                   |   \ AC5       v
              +-----+   /   |                   |    \        +-----+
              | CE2 |<-+    |                   |     \       | CE3 |
              +-----+       |    +----+         |      \      +-----+
              VPMS A         ----|VPMS|---------        \     VPMS A
              Receiver           | PE4|                  |    Receiver
                                 +----+                  |
                                   |  AC6                v
                                    \                 +-----+
                                     +--------------->| CE4 |
                                                      +-----+
                                                      VPMS A
                                                      Receiver
                                                     (dual-homed)

                       Figure 4: Dual homing support

6.5.  Security

   The basic security requirement raised in Section 6.5 of [RFC4665]
   also applies to VPMS.

   In addition, a VPMS solution MAY have the mechanisms to activate the
   appropriate filtering capabilities (for example, MAC/VLAN filtering
   etc.), and it MAY be added with the filtering control mechanism
   between particular sender/receiver sites inside a VPMS instance.  For
   example, in Figure 1, filtering can be added such that traffic from
   CE1 to CE4 and CE5 is allowed but traffic from CE1 to CE6 is



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   filtered.

6.6.  Reordering Prevention

   A solution SHOULD prevent Layer 2 frame reordering when delivering
   customer traffic under normal conditions.

6.7.  Failure reporting

   A solution MAY provide information to the customer about failures.
   For example, if there is a loss of connectivity toward some of the
   receiver CEs, it is reported to the sender CE.


7.  Service Provider Network Requirements

7.1.  Scalability

   A VPMS solution MUST be designed to scale well with an increase in
   the number of any of the following metrics:

   -  the number of PEs (per VPMS instance and total in a SP network)
   -  the number of VPMS instances (per PE and total)
   -  the number of sender CEs (per PE, VPMS instance and total)
   -  the number of receiver CEs (per PE, VPMS instance and total)

   A VPMS solution SHALL document its scalability characteristics in
   quantitative terms.  A solution SHOULD quantify the amount of state
   that a PE and a P device has to support.

   The scalability characteristics SHOULD include:

   -  the processing resources required by the control plane in managing
      PWs (neighborhood or session maintenance messages, keepalives,
      timers, etc.)
   -  the processing resources required by the control plane in managing
      PSN tunnels
   -  the memory resources needed for the control plane
   -  other particular elements inherent to each solution that impact
      scalability

7.2.  Pseudo Wire Signaling and PSN Tunneling

   A VPMS solution SHOULD provide an efficient replication that can
   contribute to optimizing the bandwidth usage required in a SP's
   network.  For supporting efficient replication, it is expected to
   take advantage of PW and PSN mechanisms that are capable of P2MP
   traffic.



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   Regarding PW mechanism, [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements]
   introduces P2MP PW concept and its requirements, showing two basic
   approaches of providing replication.  One is SS (Single Segment)-PW
   model that provides replication by PSN tunnel such as P2MP LSP (i.e.,
   by outer label layer), and the other is MS (Multi Segment)-PW model
   that provides replication by multiple interconnected PWs (i.e., by
   inner label layer).  In either case, end-to-end P2MP topology in VPMS
   is common from the view of PEs and ACs.  Requirements as a provider
   service specified in this document will be commonly applied
   regardless of P2MP PW's signaling model.

   This document does not raise any specific requirements for particular
   PSN tunneling schemes (point-to-point, point-to-multipoint and
   multipoint-to-multipoint) that is applied only to VPMS.  The actual
   type of PSN tunnel used in VPMS will be dependent on individual
   deployment scenarios (e.g., which PSN protocol is available now in
   the core and how much network resources operators will want to
   optimize).

7.3.  Discovering VPMS Related Information

   A solution SHOULD support auto-discovery methods that dynamically
   allow VPMS information to be discovered by the PEs to minimize the
   amount of configuration the SP must perform.

   All of the requirements on discovery described in Section 7.3 of
   [RFC4665] SHOULD be satisfied in VPMS as well.

   Auto-discovery will help operators' initial configuration of adding a
   new VPN (i.e., VPMS instance), adding/deleting new sender/receiver,
   and so on.

   The information related to remote sites will be as follows:

   -  Information to identify the VPMS instance
   -  PE router ID / IP address as location information
   -  Information to identify Attachment Circuits and their associated
      group information to compose a unique service (i.e., VPMS
      instance).
   -  AC role in each VPMS (Sender or Receiver)
   -  SP-related information (AS number, etc. for an inter-provider
      case)

   Following is an example scenario: by default, every PE will have the
   association among the information described above.  Suppose a new PE
   having an AC is provisioned in the existing VPMS instance and this AC
   is configured as receiver.  This information will be automatically
   discovered by the other existing remote PEs (i.e., ingress and egress



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


   PEs in the same VPMS instance).  Once the ingress PE discovers this
   new PE/AC, it can automatically add it as the new leaf of P2MP
   topology according to P2MP PW signaling mechanism.  This operation
   does not require any new configuration at the existing PEs.

7.4.  Activation and Deactivation

   This section raises generic requirements for handling related
   information about remote sites after the initial provisioning to ease
   the total operation of VPMS.

   A solution SHOULD provide a way to activate/deactivate the
   administrative status of each CE/AC.  After initial provisioning, a
   SP might change connectivity configuration between particular CEs
   inside a single VPMS instance for operational reasons.  This feature
   will be beneficial to help such a scenario.

   For example, in Figure 5, CE1, CE3, CE4 and CE5 (and their ACs) are
   initially provisioned for VPMS A. CE2 is not provisioned for any
   VPMSes.  In VPMS A, CE1 is a sender and CE3, CE4 and CE5 are
   receivers.  Traffic will usually flow from CE1 to all receivers, CE3,
   CE4 and CE5.  However, for maintenance operation, application's
   request (e.g., stream program has changed) or some other reasons, CE4
   needs to be set as administratively deactivated.  Then it becomes
   necessary to turn off traffic from PE4 to CE4.  This operation must
   be appropriately distinguished from failure cases.

   When deactivating a particular site, backbone PSN/PW resources (e.g.,
   admission control of PSN tunnel) MAY be released for that particular
   direction in order to provide that bandwidth to other services.  In
   Figure 5, CE3 is now administratively activated and receiving
   traffic.  However, if CE3 comes to be administratively deactivated,
   and if RSVP-TE (including P2P and/or P2MP) is used for backbone PSN,
   then TE reserved resources from PE1 to PE3 may be released.

   In addition, a solution SHOULD allow single-sided activation
   operation at a sender PE.  In some scenarios, operators prefer
   centralized operation.  This is often considered natural for one-way
   digital audio/video distribution applications: SPs often want to
   complete their service delivery by a single operation at one source
   PE, not by multiple operations at many receiver PEs.  Figure 5
   illustrates this scenario, where a SP only has to do single-sided
   operation at PE1 (source) to administratively activate/deactivate
   various connections from AC1 to AC3, AC4 and/or AC5.  It is not
   needed to perform operations on PE3 and PE4 directly.






Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


              +-----+   AC1
              + CE1 +----------------+
              +-----+                |
        VPMS A Sender                |
              (sending now)          v
                                  +----+
                             -----|VPMS|--------
                            |     | PE1|        |
                            |     +----+        |
                          +----+             +----+
                          |VPMS|             |VPMS|
                          | PE2|  Routed     | PE3|
                          +----+  Backbone   +----+
                     AC2 /  |                   |  \ AC3
              +-----+   /   |                   |    \   +-----+
              + CE2 +<-+    |                   |     +->| CE3 |
              +-----+       |    +----+         |        +-----+
         (not provisioned)   ----|VPMS|---------    VPMS A Receiver
                                 | PE4|              (receiving now)
                                 +----+
                              AC5 /  \  AC4
              +-----+            /    \                  +-----+
              + CE5 +<----------+      +---------------->| CE4 |
              +-----+                                    +-----+
          VPMS A Receiver                            VPMS A Receiver
          (receiving now)                             (not receiving)

                               CE1/AC1: Administratively activated
                               CE2/AC2: No VPMS provisioned
                               CE3/AC3: Administratively activated
                               CE4/AC4: Administratively deactivated
                               CE5/AC5: Administratively activated

                       Figure 5: Site activation and deactivation

7.5.  Inter-AS Support

   A solution SHOULD support inter-AS scenarios, where there is more
   than one provider providing a common VPMS instance and VPN.  More
   specifically, it is necessary to consider the case where some of the
   PEs that compose one VPMS belong to several different ASes.

7.6.  Co-existence with Existing L2VPNs

   A solution MUST co-exist with the existing L2VPNs (e.g., VPWS, VPLS)
   across the same SP's network.  A solution MUST NOT impede the
   operation of auto-discovery and signalling mechanism that are already
   supported by the PEs for those existing L2VPNs.



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


7.7.  Operation, Administration and Maintenance

7.7.1.  Fault Management

7.7.1.1.  Fault Detection

   A solution MUST provide tools that detect reachability failure and
   traffic looping of P2MP transport in a VPMS instance.  If multiple
   sources are supported (i.e., multiple P2MP topologies are grouped
   together into a single VPMS instance), such tools MUST be able to
   perform distinguishing each P2MP topology.

7.7.1.2.  Fault Notification

   A solution MUST provide fault notification and trouble tracking
   mechanisms. (e.g.  SNMP-trap and syslog that notify fault to remote
   NMS.)

   In VPMS one point of failure at upstream often affects a number of
   downstream PEs and ACs that might raise a notification message.
   Hence notification messages MAY be summarized or compressed for
   operators' ease of management.

   In case of receiver-side failure (receiver PE or its AC), this fault
   status SHOULD be able to be monitored at sender PE.  This will help
   an operator to monitor each receiver PEs/AC in a centralized manner;
   that is, a sender PE can collect receiver-side information.  How this
   status is transferred depends on a solution.

   In contrast, in case of sender-side failure (sender PE or its AC),
   this fault status SHOULD also be able to be monitored at receiver
   PEs.  This will help an operator to troubleshoot at receiver PEs
   (i.e., distinguish local AC's failure from remote upstream AC's
   failure easily).

   In any case of failure at SP's network, fault information MAY be
   notified to the customer.  Specifically, such fault MAY trigger
   generating customer OAM message toward CEs (e.g., AIS) and/or
   shutting down receiver ACs.

7.7.1.3.  Fault Isolation

   A solution MUST provide diagnostic/troubleshooting tools for P2MP
   transport in a VPMS instance.







Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


7.7.2.  Testing

   A solution MUST provide a mechanism for testing each P2MP
   connectivity and verifying the associated information in a VPMS
   instance.  The connectivity is between sender and all receiver ACs.

   Operators will run testing before and after service activation.
   Testing mechanism SHOULD support end-to-end testing of the data path
   used by customer's data.  End-to-end testing will have CE-to-CE path
   test and PE-to-PE path test.  A solution MUST support PE-to-PE path
   test and MAY support CE-to-CE path test.  In either case the data
   path provided for each VPMS is unidirectional, hence if loopback
   testing is supported, additional consideration about reverse-path
   might also be needed (see section 6.1.3).

7.7.3.  Performance Management

   A solution MUST offer mechanisms to monitor traffic performance
   parameters and statistics in each P2MP traffic.

   A solution MUST provide access to:

   -  Traffic statistics (total traffic forwarded, incoming, outgoing,
      dropped, etc., by period of time)

   A solution SHOULD provide access to:

   -  Performance information related to traffic usage, e.g., one-way
      delay, one-way jitter, one-way loss, delay variations (the
      difference of various one-way delay from a particular sender PE to
      multiple receiver PEs) etc.

   All or part of this information SHOULD be made available through
   standardized SNMP MIB Modules (Management Information Base).

   It is expected that such information can be used for SLA monitoring
   between sender and receiver, to give the SP a clear picture of
   current service providing to the customer.

7.8.  Security

   TBD (for further study for next revision)


8.  Security Considerations

   Security consideration will be covered by section 6.5. and section
   7.8.  (This is for further study for next revision.)



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.


10.  Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Ichiro Fukuda, Kazuhiro Fujihara, Ukyo Yamaguchi and
   Kensuke Shindome for their valuable review and feedback.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4026]  Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
              Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast]
              Aggarwal, R., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multicast in VPLS", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-04 (work
              in progress), June 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements]
              JOUNAY, F., Niger, P., Kamite, Y., DeLord, S., and L.
              Martini, "Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint
              Pseudowire", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-00 (work
              in progress), September 2008.

   [RFC4664]  Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
              Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.

   [RFC4665]  Augustyn, W. and Y. Serbest, "Service Requirements for
              Layer 2 Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks",
              RFC 4665, September 2006.

   [RFC4761]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
              RFC 4761, January 2007.

   [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
              RFC 4762, January 2007.



Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       VPMS Framework and Requirements            Jan 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Yuji Kamite
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Granpark Tower
   3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
   Tokyo  108-8118
   Japan

   Email: y.kamite@ntt.com


   Frederic Jounay
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex
   France

   Email: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com


   Ben Niven-Jenkins
   BT
   208 Callisto House, Adastral Park
   Ipswich, IP5 3RE
   UK

   Email: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com


   Deborah Brungard
   AT&T
   Rm. D1-3C22, 200 S. Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ, 07748
   USA

   Email: dbrungard@att.com


   Lizhong Jin
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Building 89, 1122 North QinZhou Road,
   Shanghai, 200211
   P.R.China

   Email: lizhong.jin@nsn.com





Kamite, et al.            Expires July 23, 2009                [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/