< draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-02.txt   draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03.txt >
Network Working Group A. Malis, Ed. Network Working Group A. Malis, Ed.
Internet-Draft L. Andersson Internet-Draft L. Andersson
Updates: 6870 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Updates: 6870 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track H. van Helvoort Intended status: Standards Track H. van Helvoort
Expires: December 3, 2015 Hai Gaoming BV Expires: April 3, 2016 Hai Gaoming BV
J. Shin J. Shin
SK Telecom SK Telecom
L. Wang L. Wang
China Mobile China Mobile
A. D'Alessandro A. D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
June 1, 2015 October 1, 2015
S-PE Outage Protection for Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires S-PE Protection for MPLS and MPLS-TP Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-02.txt draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03.txt
Abstract Abstract
In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single- In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single-
Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via
MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. With statically MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. With statically
provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the
MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and
MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-PWs are not MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-PWs are not
protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 3, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS- 2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-
PWs and MS-PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PWs and MS-PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach . . . . . . . . 7
A.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.2. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires . . . . 7 A.2. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As described in RFC 5659 [RFC5659], Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS- As described in RFC 5659 [RFC5659], Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-
PWs) consist of terminating PEs (T-PEs), one or more switching PEs PWs) consist of terminating PEs (T-PEs), one or more switching PEs
(S-PEs), and a sequence of PW segments that connects one of the T-PEs (S-PEs), and a sequence of PW segments that connects one of the T-PEs
with its "adjacent" S-PE, connects this S-PE with the next S-PE in with its "adjacent" S-PE, connects this S-PE with the next S-PE in
the sequence and so on until the last S-PE is connected by the last the sequence and so on until the last S-PE is connected by the last
PW segment to the remaining T-PE. In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, PW segment to the remaining T-PE. In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments,
skipping to change at page 3, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
protection. However, PSN tunnel protection does not protect static protection. However, PSN tunnel protection does not protect static
MS-PWs from failures of S-PEs along the path of the MS-PW. MS-PWs from failures of S-PEs along the path of the MS-PW.
RFC 6718 [RFC6718] provides a general framework for PW protection, RFC 6718 [RFC6718] provides a general framework for PW protection,
and RFC 6870 [RFC6870], which is based upon that framework, describes and RFC 6870 [RFC6870], which is based upon that framework, describes
protection procedures for MS-PWs that are dynamically signaled using protection procedures for MS-PWs that are dynamically signaled using
LDP. This document describes how to achieve protection against S-PE LDP. This document describes how to achieve protection against S-PE
failure in a static MS-PW by extending RFC 6870 to be applicable for failure in a static MS-PW by extending RFC 6870 to be applicable for
statically provisioned MS-PWs pseudowires (PWs) as well. statically provisioned MS-PWs pseudowires (PWs) as well.
This document also contains an optional alternative approach based on This document also contains an OPTIONAL alternative approach based on
MPLS-TP Linear Protection. This approach, described in Appendix A, MPLS-TP Linear Protection. This approach, described in Appendix A,
MUST be identically provisioned in the PE endpoints for the protected MUST be identically provisioned in the PE endpoints for the protected
MS-PW in order to be used. See Appendix A for further details on MS-PW in order to be used. See Appendix A for further details on
this alternative approach. this alternative approach.
This document differs from [I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] in that This document differs from [I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] in that
this draft provides end-to-end resiliency for static MS-PWs, while this draft provides end-to-end resiliency for static MS-PWs, while
[I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] provides resiliency at intermediate [I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] provides resiliency at intermediate
S-PEs, rather than end-to-end resiliency, and for both dynamically S-PEs, rather than end-to-end resiliency, and for both dynamically
signaled and static MS-PWs. signaled and static MS-PWs.
L2TPv3-based PWs are outside the scope of this document.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-PWs and 2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-PWs and
MS-PWs MS-PWs
Section 3.2.3 of RFC 6718 and Section A.5 of RFC 6870 document how to Section 3.2.3 of RFC 6718 and Section A.5 of RFC 6870 document how to
skipping to change at page 6, line 10 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
this document. this document.
Figure 1 and the explanatory paragraph following the figure were Figure 1 and the explanatory paragraph following the figure were
taken from RFC 6718. Figure 2 was adapted from RFC 6378. taken from RFC 6718. Figure 2 was adapted from RFC 6378.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and [RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011. TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.
[RFC6478] Martini, L., Swallow, G., Heron, G., and M. Bocci, [RFC6478] Martini, L., Swallow, G., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
"Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires", RFC 6478, May "Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires", RFC 6478,
2012. DOI 10.17487/RFC6478, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6478>.
[RFC6870] Muley, P. and M. Aissaoui, "Pseudowire Preferential [RFC6870] Muley, P., Ed. and M. Aissaoui, Ed., "Pseudowire
Forwarding Status Bit", RFC 6870, February 2013. Preferential Forwarding Status Bit", RFC 6870,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6870, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6870>.
[RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Gray, E., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A., [RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H.,
Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS- D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS
TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014. Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271>.
[RFC7324] Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear [RFC7324] Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
Protection", RFC 7324, July 2014. Protection", RFC 7324, DOI 10.17487/RFC7324, July 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7324>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] [I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe]
Dong, J. and H. Wang, "Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE", Dong, J. and H. Wang, "Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE",
draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01 (work in progress), May draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02 (work in progress),
2015. August 2015.
[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
October 2009. DOI 10.17487/RFC5659, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659>.
[RFC6718] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire [RFC6718] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire
Redundancy", RFC 6718, August 2012. Redundancy", RFC 6718, DOI 10.17487/RFC6718, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6718>.
Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach
A.1. Introduction A.1. Introduction
In "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection" [RFC6378], as In "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection" [RFC6378], as
well as in the later updates of this RFC in "MPLS Transport Profile well as in the later updates of this RFC in "MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of
SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network Operators" [RFC7271] and in SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network Operators" [RFC7271] and in
"Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection" [RFC7324], the "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection" [RFC7324], the
Protection State Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS Protection State Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS
LSPs only. LSPs only.
skipping to change at page 7, line 38 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
|T-PE1|// Working Path \\|T-PE2| |T-PE1|// Working Path \\|T-PE2|
| /| |\ | | /| |\ |
| ?< | | >? | | ?< | | >? |
| \|\\ Protection Path //|/ | | \|\\ Protection Path //|/ |
+-----+ \\=======================// +-----+ +-----+ \\=======================// +-----+
|<-------Protection Domain------->| |<-------Protection Domain------->|
Figure 2: Protection Domain Figure 2: Protection Domain
This Appendix is an optional alternative approach to the one in This Appendix is an OPTIONAL alternative approach to the one in
Section 2, therefore all implementations MUST include the approach in Section 2. For interoperability, all implementations MUST include
Section 2 even if this alternative approach is used. The operational the approach in Section 2 even if this alternative approach is used.
considerations in Section 3 continue to apply when this approach is The operational considerations in Section 3 continue to apply when
used, and operational care must be taken so that the endpoint T-PEs this approach is used, and operational care must be taken so that the
are identically provisioned regarding the use of this document. endpoint T-PEs are identically provisioned regarding the use of this
document.
A.2. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires A.2. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires
The PSC protocol can be used to protect against defects on any LSP The PSC protocol can be used to protect against defects on any LSP
(segment, link or path). In the case of MS-PW, the PSC protocol can (segment, link or path). In the case of MS-PW, the PSC protocol can
also protect failed intermediate nodes (S-PE). Linear protection also protect failed intermediate nodes (S-PE). Linear protection
protects an LSP or PW end-to-end and if a failure is detected, protects an LSP or PW end-to-end and if a failure is detected,
switches traffic over to another (redundant) set of resources. switches traffic over to another (redundant) set of resources.
Obviously, the protected entity does not need to be of the same type Obviously, the protected entity does not need to be of the same type
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
33 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/