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

Versions: (draft-rosen-ppvpn-l2vpn) 00

Network Working Group                                      Eric C. Rosen
Internet Draft                                         Clarence Filsfils
Expiration Date: January 2002                        Cisco Systems, Inc.

Giles Heron                                              Andrew G. Malis
Gone2 Ltd.                                         Vivace Networks, Inc.

Luca Martini                                             Steve Vogelsang
Level 3 Communications, LLC.                       Laurel Networks, Inc.

                                                               July 2001

                       An Architecture for L2VPNs


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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   Service Providers may offer a "Layer 2 VPN Service" over an IP
   backbone by provisioning point-to-point "virtual circuits" that run
   through IP tunnels. This document discusses the signaling,
   encapsulation, and configuration issues that arise.  Its purpose is
   to provide an architecture which allows different kinds of point-to-
   point virtual circuits to be provided through different kinds of IP

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

Table of Contents

    1      Boilerplate for Sub-IP Area Drafts  .....................   2
    2      Introduction  ...........................................   3
    3      Outline of Architecture  ................................   4
    4      Encapsulating  ..........................................   6
    5      Signaling  ..............................................   6
    6      Tunneling  ..............................................   6
    7      Configuration Models  ...................................   7
    7.1    Brute Force  ............................................   7
    7.2    Eliminating Tunnel Configuration  .......................   8
    7.3    Single Endpoint Configuration of Emulated VCs  ..........   8
    7.4    Single Endpoint Configuration of Attachment VCs  ........   9
    7.5    Zero-Configuration Attachment VCs  ......................   9
    7.6    Auto-discovery of remote CEs  ...........................  10
    8      References  .............................................  11
    9      Authors' Information  ...................................  11

1. Boilerplate for Sub-IP Area Drafts

   This draft is targeted at the PPVPN WG, as it addresses the following
   work item from the PPVPN WG charter:

           "The working group is expected to consider at least three
           specific approaches including ... port-based VPNs (i.e.,
           where the SP provides a Layer 2 interface, such as Frame
           Relay or ATM, to the VPN customer, while using IP-based
           mechanisms in the provider infrastructure"

   The set of related documents may be found in the "References"

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

2. Introduction

   Enterprises have long built their own wide-area networks by
   purchasing wide-area point-to-point data link layer connectivity from
   service providers, and then building their own layer 3 infrastructure
   on top of that.  Originally the data links from the service provider
   were leased lines, and the layer 3 overlays were termed "private
   networks".  Later, virtual circuits of various sorts (X.25, Frame
   Relay, ATM) began to replace leased lines, and the layer 3 overlays
   were termed "virtual private networks".  (Though what makes a leased
   line less virtual than an ATM VC is difficult to understand.)

   We will refer to these VPNs as "Layer 2 VPNs" because the service
   provider providers only a layer 2 interface to its customer, and the
   customer is responsible for creating and managing the layer 3

   Today, layer 2 VPNs are usually offered over a Frame Relay or ATM

   There are still many enterprises that wish to manage their own layer
   3 overlays, and many service providers who wish to provide layer 2
   interfaces to such customers.  However, many of these service
   providers would like to replace their Frame Relay or ATM
   infrastructures with an IP infrastructure.  So it is desirable to
   have standard ways of using an IP infrastructure to provide a layer 2
   interface to customers.  In particular, it is desirable to have
   standard ways of using an IP infrastructure to provide virtual
   circuits between pairs of customer sites.

   The term "Layer 2 VPN" may be somewhat misleading, in that the SP
   does not actually provide a VPN to the customer.  The SP provides
   layer 2 connectivity, and the customer builds his own VPN, using the
   provided layer 2 connectivity as one of the building blocks.  The
   problem is really how to provide the layer 2 connectivity over an IP
   backbone, rather than how to provide a network service over an IP

   Typically a customer will expect a certain amount of bandwidth from
   each data link.  The customer may build his network using data links
   obtained from a variety of providers.

   In an L2VPN service, the SP need not know about the customer's
   topology, about the customer's policies, or about the customer's
   routing.  The SP need not even know whether all the point-to-point
   links he is providing are used by the customer as part of the same
   network, or whether a customer network has point-to-point links from
   other providers as well. In essence the customer builds his own

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

   network, using data link resources obtained from the SP.
   Nevertheless, we will continue to use the term "Layer 2 VPN" (L2VPN),
   as it is apparently well entrenched in the vernacular, despite its
   technical inaccuracy.

   We adopt the "Provider Edge" (PE) and "Customer Edge" (CE)
   terminology from RFC2547 [RFC2547bis].

   Not all L2VPNs are built on top of point-to-point data link
   connections.  It is possible for an SP to provide an "emulated LAN"
   service instead.  In this case, the PE device is a LAN switch which
   can serve multiple customers, and which can do SA learning and
   Spanning Tree on a per-customer basis.  Some sort of multicast
   technique must be used for transmitting customer LAN multicasts and
   unknown DA frames among the PEs which attach to a common customer.
   The primary focus of this draft will however be on the provision of
   point-to-point data link services.  If the CE devices attaching to an
   L2VPN's PE devices are LAN switches, the L2VPN may be thought of as a
   "Transparent LAN Service", even if the SP provides only point-to-
   point data link connections.

   The provision of Emulated LAN services over IP backbone networks can
   be added at a later date if there is sufficient interest.

3. Outline of Architecture

   The general architecture for providing L2VPN services is the
   following.  A CE devices attaches to a PE device via some sort of
   virtual circuit.  We will call this the "Attachment VC".  To provide
   a layer 2 connection between CE1 and CE2, where CE1 attaches to PE1
   and CE2 attaches to PE2, an "Emulated VC" must be carried across the
   IP backbone from PE1 to PE2.  At each of PE1 and PE2, the Emulated VC
   is associated with an Attachment VC.  In effect, the ordered triple
   <CE1-PE1 Attachment VC, PE1-PE2 Emulated VC, PE2-CE2 Attachment VC>
   functions as a VC between CE1 and CE2.

   The Emulated VC is carried in a "Tunnel" from PE1 to PE2.  When there
   are multiple Emulated VCs running from PE1 to PE2, a single Tunnel
   should be able to carry a large number of Emulated VCs.  There should
   be no requirement that two Emulated VCs in a common tunnel have the
   same CE endpoints.  When PE2 removes a packet from a Tunnel, it
   associates the packet with an Emulated VC.  The association of the
   Emulated VC with an Attachment VC determines the CE to which the
   packet is sent.

   There should be no requirement that all VCs going from PE1 to PE2

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

   travel in the same tunnel.

   If the two Attachment VCs associated with an Emulated VC are of the
   same type (e.g., both Frame Relay, both ATM), the Emulated VC may
   need to carry some type-specific information with each packet.  If
   the two Attachment VCs are not of the same type, one or the other end
   of the Emulated VC must perform some sort of inter-working function.

   It is desired to allow a variety of different tunneling technologies
   to be used for the PE-PE Tunnels.

   In order  to provide this sort of L2VPN architecture in a standard
   way, the following need to be standardized:

     - Tunneling Protocols.  The architecture allows any number of
       different tunneling protocols to be used, but each should be

         * Signaling.  The standard for a tunneling protocol will
           generally include a signaling protocol, so that tunnels can
           be set up dynamically, and tunnel control information can be
           passed from one tunnel endpoint to another.

         * Encapsulation The standard for a tunneling protocol always
           includes a way to encapsulate data packets in the tunnel.

         * Multiplexing.  Most tunneling protocols allow for multiple
           streams to be encapsulated inside a single tunnel.  They do
           this by supporting a multiplexing field.  To support L2VPNs,
           each Emulated VC in the tunnel should correspond to a
           distinct value of the tunnel multiplexing field.  It is
           important to note that this multiplexing field belongs to the
           tunneling protocol, not to the data packet that is
           encapsulated in the tunnel.

     - Signaling Protocols for the Emulated VCs.  A protocol is needed
       to setup and maintain the Emulated VCs that are carried within
       the tunnels.  This protocol does not set up the tunnels, but only
       the Emulated VCs within the tunnels.

       Note though that to set up an Emulated VC, one must set up the
       multiplexing field value which the tunnel protocol will use when
       carrying packets of that Emulated VC.  This strongly suggests
       that the signaling protocol for setting up an Emulated VC be
       specific to the particular tunneling technology that is being

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

     - Encapsulations for the user data frames.  For each kind of layer
       2 frame that may be received on an Attachment VC, an
       encapsulation must be specified that allows the frame and its
       related per-frame control information to be carried within the
       Emulated VC.

   While not strictly required for standardization, it is also important
   to discuss the configuration model for setting up the L2VPN service.
   If it turns out that the configuration model can be considerably
   simplified through the use of an auto-discovery mechanism, the auto-
   discovery mechanism will need to be standardized.

4. Encapsulating

   An encapsulation for User Data Frames is proposed in [L2ENCAPS].
   Actually, that draft proposes both a tunnel-independent encapsulation
   for user data frames, as well as the method for encapsulating the
   frames within an MPLS tunnel.  We propose to adopt the tunnel-
   independent encapsulation specified therein.

5. Signaling

   As we stated in the introduction, the signaling used to setup and
   maintain the Emulated VCs should depend on the particular tunneling
   technology.  If MPLS is to be used as the tunneling technology, the
   procedures specified in [L2SIG].  That draft proposes to use
   extensions to the standard MPLS signaling (LDP) to set up the
   multiplexing field (itself an MPLS label) for the Emulated VC, as
   well as to setup and pass other control information needed to
   maintain the Emulated VC.

   If the tunneling technology is L2TP or IPsec, then the signaling
   protocols which are native to those tunnel technologies should be
   similarly extended.

6. Tunneling

   In the case where MPLS is the tunneling technology, [L2SIG] specifies
   the way in which frames on one or more Emulated VCs are to be carried
   in an MPLS LSP.

   Similar drafts are needed for L2TP and IPsec tunnels.

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 6]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

7. Configuration Models

   It can be somewhat unwieldy to configure a large number of point-to-
   point VCs.  Therefore a number of L2VPN proposals focus on methods of
   simplifying the configuration, either by adding additional signaling
   mechanisms, or by adding auto-configuration and auto-discovery
   mechanisms, or both.  The current proposal is to separate the
   signaling from any auto-configuration or auto-discovery mechanisms.
   Then we can discuss separately the procedures for signaling, given a
   particular configuration, and the procedures for creating the that
   configuration in the first place.

   This approach differs from the approach of RFC2547 for layer 3 VPNs;
   there the auto-discovery of VPN sites is combined with the signaling
   of MPLS labels for VPN routes.  What we propose here is more like the
   way auto-discovery is separated from virtual circuit setup in the
   Virtual Router (VR) model of layer 3 VPNs.  (See, e.g., [AUTO].)  In
   both the L2VPN case and the VR case, it is necessary to set up data
   link connections which go from one PE to another.  In the RFC2547
   case, there are no cross-network data link connections set up.
   Setting up a point-to-point data link connection requires signaling
   of the sort specified in [L2SIG], and cannot be properly automated as
   a side effect of the auto-discovery procedures.

7.1. Brute Force

   In order to provide L2PVN service connecting CE1 and CE2, one
   configuration model is the following:

     - CE1 must be configured with an Attachment VC to PE1.  Call this
     - PE1 must be configured with that same Attachment VC (to CE1).
     - CE2 must be configured with an Attachment VC to PE2.  Call this
     - PE2 must be configured with that same attachment VC (to CE2).
     - PE1 must be configured with an identified Emulated VC to PE2.
     - PE2 must be configured with an identified Emulated VC to PE1; the
       identifier should be the same at both PEs, and the triple <PE1,
       PE2, identifier> must be unique.  Call this E.
     - PE1 must be configured to associate A1 with E.
     - PE2 must be configured to associate A2 with E.
     - PE1 must be configured with a tunnel, T1, to PE2, and a tunnel,
       T2, from PE2.  PE2 must be configured with a tunnel, T1, from
       PE1, and a tunnel, T2, to PE1.

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 7]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

     - PE1 must be configured to associate E with T1 and T2.
     - PE2 must be configured to associate E with T1 and T2.

   Note also that A1, E, and A2 may have specific properties that need
   to be configured, e.g., QoS, bandwidth, etc.

7.2. Eliminating Tunnel Configuration

   If MPLS  is the tunneling  technology, and LDP downstream
   unsolicited label distribution is  used, it  is NOT necessary  to
   configure  T1 and T2,  or to explicitly associate E with them.  The
   necessary tunnel exists automatically as long as there is a route
   from one PE to the other.

7.3. Single Endpoint Configuration of Emulated VCs

   We assumed above that the Emulated VC signaling required that a
   particular Emulated VC be configured at both PE endpoints.  This
   isn't necessarily the case.  If the Emulated VC signaling protocol
   allows an Emulated VC to be set up based on the configuration of just
   a single endpoint, there is no need to configure the other endpoint,
   and those steps can be removed.

   This enables the configuration model to be simplified to:

     - CE1 must be configured with an Attachment VC to PE1.  Call this
     - PE1 must be configured with that same Attachment VC (to CE1).
     - CE2 must be configured with an Attachment VC to PE2.  Call this
     - PE2 must be configured with that same attachment VC (to CE2).
     - PE1 must be configured with an identified Emulated VC to PE2.
     - PE1 must be configured to associate A1 and A2 with E.

   In this case, PE1 must tell PE2 to associate A2 with E.  If E has
   specified properties, PE1 needs to be configured with these, and must
   tell PE2 about them.

   It is not completely obvious whether single endpoint configuration of
   Emulated VCs is really worthwhile.  The provisioning system that
   configures the Emulated VCs will generally have to consult the
   configuration of both endpoint PEs to determine the availability of
   Attachment VCs, to set up QoS for Attachment VCs, etc.  In any event,
   the signaling procedures of draft- martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls are
   easily extended to handle the case of signaling Emulated VCs that are
   configured at only one endpoint.

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 8]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

7.4. Single Endpoint Configuration of Attachment VCs

   The need to configure the Attachment VCs on BOTH the CE and the PE
   could be eliminated by an appropriate LMI.  Then an Attachment VC
   could be configured just on the PE, and the PE would use the LMI to
   inform the CE.  The feasibility of this depends on the particular
   technology used for the Attachment VC, and whether such LMI
   procedures exist for that technology.  If they do, they exist whether
   or not an L2VPN service of the sort envisioned here is being offered,
   so we need not consider this any further.

   We have assumed that the L2VPN service will be a PVC rather than an
   SVC service.  A model for supporting an SVC service is discussed in
   draft-ouldbrahim-bgpgmpls-ovpn.  With the SVC model, the need to
   configure the Attachment VC (or the Emulated VC) on the PE could be
   eliminated.  We do not further consider this here.

7.5. Zero-Configuration Attachment VCs

   In the "Zero-Configuration of Attachment VCs" model, only the
   Emulated VC is configured (at one or both endpoints).  The signaling
   of the Emulated VC doesn't specify a particular Attachment VC to
   associate it with, nor is a particular Attachment VC configured to be
   associated with the Emulated VC.  Rather, the Emulated VC is simply
   associated with an interface at each end.  When the Emulated VC is
   set up, each endpoint PE creates an Attachment VC on the specified
   interface, and some sort of LMI or signaling procedure is used to
   inform the CE of this.

   Whether this is feasible depends on the particular technology used
   for the Attachment VCs.  To the extent that an Attachment VC uses a
   scarce resource, this is not really feasible.  For example, if the CE
   and the PE are connected via an ATM or Frame Relay switch, one could
   not automatically create an Attachment VC when the Emulated VC is
   setup.  An Attachment VC in these technologies requires a switch
   cross-connect entry, and these scarce resources might not be
   available in the absence of an explicit provisioning process.  As
   another example, if the Attachment VCs must have specific QoS
   properties, it might be necessary to do explicit provisioning to
   ensure that the necessary QoS characteristics can be met.

   On the other hand, if an Attachment VC is nothing more than the value
   of some multiplexing field, with no particular QoS characteristics,
   and no use of switches between PE and CE, then it might be feasible
   to create the Attachment VCs automatically as a side-effect of
   setting up an Emulated VC.  The procedures for doing this would
   depend on the technology used for the Attachment VCs.

Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 9]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

7.6. Auto-discovery of remote CEs

   If an L2VPN is to have a hub and spoke topology, some further
   simplification of the configuration could be made, as one could
   provide some sort of auto-discovery of the hub CE.  Then when a new
   spoke CE is attached to a PE, the PE would automatically determine
   which other PE attaches the corresponding hub CE.

   Then when one adds a new spoke CE to the L2VPN, one wouldn't have to
   explicitly configure the attached PE with the information about how
   to reach the hub.  However, a hub and spoke topology is already
   simple to configure, and this additional simplification is probably
   not worth the additional mechanism.

   If an L2VPN is to have a fully meshed topology, simplification of the
   configuration could be made.  If a PE is attached to a CE of a
   particular VPN, it could auto-discover all the other PEs that are
   attached to CEs of the same VPN, and could discover for each such PE
   the set of CEs in that VPN to which it is attached.  This could be
   done using the auto-discovery techniques first described in RFC2547
   and later extended and generalized in [AUTO].  Once a PE discovers
   the complete set of CEs in a given VPN, it can signal an Emulated VC
   from itself to each other PE that has a CE attached to the same VPN;
   the Emulated VC thus need not be explicitly configured.  (This does
   presuppose that the Emulated VCs are of uniform characteristics.  If
   each has some specific QoS property, for example, then this degree of
   auto-discovery would be impossible, and more explicit provisioning
   would be required.)

   If the Attachment VC technology used by that VPN allows for Zero-
   Configuration Attachment VCs, a full mesh of point-to-point (CE-CEs)
   virtual circuits could be set up, with very little configuration.  A
   PE would just need to be configured to know which VPN each of its CEs
   belongs to.

   Whether this sort of auto-discovery is worthwhile is somewhat
   dubious, though, since it only really pays off if the L2VPN consists
   of a full mesh of point-to-point connections, and this is a very
   unusual topology.  (Whereas a full mesh of L3 connectivity is the
   common case, a full mesh of L2 connections is rather uncommon.)  As
   discussed in draft-ouldbrahim-bgvpn- auto, additional configuration
   information ("colors") could be added to facilitate different
   topologies, but once one departs from either the hub and spoke or the
   full mesh topology, figuring out how to make the right topology
   auto-configure itself quickly becomes more difficult than explicitly
   provisioning it.

   An auto-discovery scheme of this sort, though combined with a

Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 10]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

   particular signaling and encapsulation scheme, is detailed in

8. References

   [AUTO] "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for Network-based
   VPNs", Ould-Brahim, et. al., draft-ouldbrahim-bgpvpn-auto-01.txt,

   [L2ENCAPS] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Layer 2 Frames
   Over MPLS", Martini, et. al., draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-
   01.txt, 2/01.

   [L2SIG] "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS", Martini, et. al.,
   draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-05.txt, 2/01.

   [MPLSL2VPN]  "MPLS-based Layer 2 VPNs", Kompella, et. al., draft-
   kompella-mpls-l2vpn-02.txt, 11/00.

   [RFC2547bis] "BGP/MPLS VPNs", Rosen et. al. draft-rosen-rfc2547bis-
   03.txt, 3/01.

9. Authors' Information

   Eric C. Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA, 01824

   E-mail: erosen@cisco.com

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Avenue Marcel Thiry, 77
   B-1200 Brussels Belgium

   E-mail: cfilsfil@cisco.com

Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 11]

Internet Draft       draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2vpn-00.txt             July 2001

   Giles Heron
   Gone2 Ltd.
   c/o MDP
   One Curzon Street
   W1J 5HD
   United Kingdom
   e-mail: giles@goneto.net

   Andrew G. Malis
   Vivace Networks, Inc.
   2730 Orchard Parkway
   San Jose, CA 95134
   Phone: +1 408 383 7223
   Email: Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com

   Luca Martini
   Level 3 Communications, LLC.
   1025 Eldorado Blvd.
   Broomfield, CO, 80021
   e-mail: luca@level3.net

   Steve Vogelsang
   Laurel Networks, Inc.
   2607 Nicholson Rd.
   Sewickley, PA 15143
   e-mail: sjv@laurelnetworks.com

Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 12]

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