| < draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-00.txt | draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudo-Wire Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Working Group Stewart Bryant | Pseudo-Wire Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Working Group Stewart Bryant | |||
| Internet Draft Cisco Systems | Internet Draft Cisco Systems | |||
| Document: <draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-00.txt> | Document: <draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-01.txt> | |||
| Expires: April 2003 Prayson Pate | Expires: May 2003 Prayson Pate | |||
| Overture Networks, Inc. | Overture Networks, Inc. | |||
| Editors | Editors | |||
| October 2002 | November 2002 | |||
| PWE3 Architecture | PWE3 Architecture | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of section 10 of RFC2026. | all provisions of section 10 of RFC2026. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 13 ¶ | |||
| XiPeng Xiao Redback Networks | XiPeng Xiao Redback Networks | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 | Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 | |||
| 1. Introduction............................................. 5 | 1. Introduction............................................. 5 | |||
| 1.1 Pseudo Wire Definition............................... 5 | 1.1 Pseudo Wire Definition............................... 5 | |||
| 1.2 PW Service Functionality............................. 6 | 1.2 PW Service Functionality............................. 6 | |||
| 1.3 Non-Goals of this document........................... 6 | 1.3 Non-Goals of this document........................... 6 | |||
| 1.4 Terminology.......................................... 6 | ||||
| 2. PWE3 Applicability....................................... 9 | 2. PWE3 Applicability....................................... 9 | |||
| 3. Protocol Layering Model.................................. 9 | 3. Protocol Layering Model.................................. 9 | |||
| 3.1 Protocol Layers...................................... 9 | 3.1 Protocol Layers...................................... 9 | |||
| 3.2 Domain of PWE3....................................... 10 | 3.2 Domain of PWE3....................................... 10 | |||
| 3.3 Payload Types........................................ 10 | 3.3 Payload Types........................................ 10 | |||
| 4. Architecture of Pseudo-wires............................. 14 | 4. Architecture of Pseudo-wires............................. 14 | |||
| 4.1 Network Reference Model.............................. 14 | 4.1 Network Reference Model.............................. 14 | |||
| 4.2 PWE3 Pre-processing.................................. 15 | 4.2 PWE3 Pre-processing.................................. 15 | |||
| 4.3 Maintenance Reference Model.......................... 19 | 4.3 Maintenance Reference Model.......................... 19 | |||
| 4.4 Protocol Stack Reference Model....................... 19 | 4.4 Protocol Stack Reference Model....................... 19 | |||
| 4.5 Pre-processing Extension to Protocol Stack Reference. | 4.5 Pre-processing Extension to Protocol Stack........... | |||
| Model................................................ 20 | Reference Model...................................... 20 | |||
| 5. PW Encapsulation......................................... 21 | 5. PW Encapsulation......................................... 21 | |||
| 5.1 Payload Convergence Layer............................ 22 | 5.1 Payload Convergence Layer............................ 22 | |||
| 5.2 Payload-independent PW Encapsulation Layers.......... 24 | 5.2 Payload-independent PW Encapsulation Layers.......... 24 | |||
| 5.3 Fragmentation........................................ 26 | 5.3 Fragmentation........................................ 27 | |||
| 5.4 Instantiation of the Protocol Layers................. 27 | 5.4 Instantiation of the Protocol Layers................. 27 | |||
| 6. PW Demultiplexer Layer and PSN Requirements.............. 30 | 6. PW Demultiplexer Layer and PSN Requirements.............. 30 | |||
| 6.1 Multiplexing......................................... 30 | 6.1 Multiplexing......................................... 30 | |||
| 6.2 Fragmentation........................................ 30 | 6.2 Fragmentation........................................ 30 | |||
| 6.3 Length and Delivery.................................. 30 | 6.3 Length and Delivery.................................. 30 | |||
| 6.4 PW-PDU Validation.................................... 30 | 6.4 PW-PDU Validation.................................... 31 | |||
| 6.5 Congestion Considerations............................ 31 | 6.5 Congestion Considerations............................ 31 | |||
| 7. Control Plane............................................ 31 | 7. Control Plane............................................ 31 | |||
| 7.1 Set-up or Teardown of Pseudo-Wires................... 31 | 7.1 Set-up or Teardown of Pseudo-Wires................... 31 | |||
| 7.2 Status Monitoring.................................... 32 | 7.2 Status Monitoring.................................... 32 | |||
| 7.3 Notification of Pseudo-wire Status Changes........... 32 | 7.3 Notification of Pseudo-wire Status Changes........... 32 | |||
| 7.4 Keep-alive........................................... 33 | 7.4 Keep-alive........................................... 34 | |||
| 7.5 Handling Control Messages of the Native Services..... 34 | 7.5 Handling Control Messages of the Native Services..... 34 | |||
| 8. Management and Monitoring................................. 34 | 8. Management and Monitoring................................. 34 | |||
| 8.1 Statistics........................................... 34 | 8.1 Statistics........................................... 34 | |||
| 8.2 PW SNMP MIB Architecture............................. 35 | 8.2 PW SNMP MIB Architecture............................. 35 | |||
| 8.3 Connection Verification and Traceroute................ 38 | 8.3 Connection Verification and Traceroute................ 38 | |||
| 9. IANA considerations...................................... 38 | 9. IANA considerations...................................... 38 | |||
| 10. Security Considerations................................. 38 | 10. Security Considerations................................. 38 | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶ | |||
| o The detailed definition of the protocols involved in PW | o The detailed definition of the protocols involved in PW | |||
| setup and maintenance. | setup and maintenance. | |||
| The following are outside the scope of PWE3: | The following are outside the scope of PWE3: | |||
| o Any multicast service not native to the emulated medium. | o Any multicast service not native to the emulated medium. | |||
| Thus, Ethernet transmission to a "multicast" IEEE-48 address | Thus, Ethernet transmission to a "multicast" IEEE-48 address | |||
| is in scope, while multicast services like MARS [RFC2022] that | is in scope, while multicast services like MARS [RFC2022] that | |||
| are implemented on top of the medium are out of scope. | are implemented on top of the medium are out of scope. | |||
| o Methods to signal or control the underlying PSN. | o Methods to signal or control the underlying PSN. | |||
| 1.4 Terminology | 1.4 Terminology | |||
| Editor's note: Although it was decided at IETF-54 that the PWE3 | Editor's note: Although it was decided at IETF-54 that the PWE3 | |||
| common terminology should be published in a separate document, there | common terminology should be published in a separate document, there | |||
| is case for it remaining in the architecture document. If the PWE3-WG | is case for it remaining in the architecture document. If the PWE3-WG | |||
| confirms the desire to have a separate document, we will remove this | confirms the desire to have a separate document, we will remove this | |||
| section in the next revision. | section in the next revision. | |||
| This document uses the following definitions of terms. These terms | This document uses the following definitions of terms. These terms | |||
| are illustrated in context in Figure 2. | are illustrated in context in Figure 2. | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 32 ¶ | |||
| Fragmentation The action of dividing a single PDU into | Fragmentation The action of dividing a single PDU into | |||
| multiple PDUs before transmission with the | multiple PDUs before transmission with the | |||
| intent of the original PDU being reassembled | intent of the original PDU being reassembled | |||
| elsewhere in the network. Fragmentation may be | elsewhere in the network. Fragmentation may be | |||
| performed in order to allow sending of packets | performed in order to allow sending of packets | |||
| of a larger size than the network MTU which | of a larger size than the network MTU which | |||
| they will traverse. | they will traverse. | |||
| Maximum transmission The packet size (excluding data link header) | Maximum transmission The packet size (excluding data link header) | |||
| unit (MTU) that an interface can be transmit without | unit (MTU) that an interface can transmit without | |||
| needing to fragment. | needing to fragment. | |||
| Native Service Processing of the data received by the PE | Native Service Processing of the data received by the PE | |||
| Processing (NSP) from the CE before presentation to the PW | Processing (NSP) from the CE before presentation to the PW | |||
| for transmission across the core. | for transmission across the core. | |||
| Packet Switched Within the context of PWE3, this is a | Packet Switched Within the context of PWE3, this is a | |||
| Network (PSN) network using IP or MPLS as the mechanism | Network (PSN) network using IP or MPLS as the mechanism | |||
| for packet forwarding. | for packet forwarding. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 30 ¶ | |||
| Typically a packet will be stripped of transmission overhead such as | Typically a packet will be stripped of transmission overhead such as | |||
| HDLC flags and stuffing bits before transmission over the PW. | HDLC flags and stuffing bits before transmission over the PW. | |||
| A packet payload would normally be relayed across the PW as a single | A packet payload would normally be relayed across the PW as a single | |||
| unit. However, there will be cases where the combined size of the | unit. However, there will be cases where the combined size of the | |||
| packet payload and its associated PWE3 and PSN headers exceeds the | packet payload and its associated PWE3 and PSN headers exceeds the | |||
| PSN path MTU. In these cases, some fragmentation methodology needs | PSN path MTU. In these cases, some fragmentation methodology needs | |||
| to be applied. This may, for example, be the case when a user is | to be applied. This may, for example, be the case when a user is | |||
| providing the service and attaching to the service provider via an | providing the service and attaching to the service provider via an | |||
| Ethernet, or where nested pseudo-wires are involved. Fragmentation is | Ethernet, or where nested pseudo-wires are involved. Fragmentation is | |||
| discussed in more detail in Section 5. | discussed in more detail in Section 5.3 | |||
| A packet payload may need sequencing and real-time support. | A packet payload may need sequencing and real-time support. | |||
| In some situations, the packet payload may be selected from the | In some situations, the packet payload may be selected from the | |||
| packets presented on the emulated wire on the basis of some sub- | packets presented on the emulated wire on the basis of some sub- | |||
| multiplexing technique. For example, one or more frame-relay PDUs | multiplexing technique. For example, one or more frame-relay PDUs | |||
| may be selected for transport over a particular pseudo-wire based on | may be selected for transport over a particular pseudo-wire based on | |||
| the frame-relay Data-Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), or, in the | the frame-relay Data-Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), or, in the | |||
| case of Ethernet payloads, on the basis of the VLAN identifier. This | case of Ethernet payloads, on the basis of the VLAN identifier. This | |||
| is an FWRD function, and this selection would therefore be made | is an FWRD function, and this selection would therefore be made | |||
| before the packet was presented to the PW Encapsulation Layer. | before the packet was presented to the PW Encapsulation Layer. | |||
| 3.3.2. Cell Payload | 3.3.2. Cell Payload | |||
| A cell payload is created by capturing, transporting and replaying | A cell payload is created by capturing, transporting and replaying | |||
| groups of bits presented on the wire in a fixed-size format. The | groups of bits presented on the wire in a fixed-size format. The | |||
| delineation of the group of bits that comprise the cell is specific | delineation of the group of bits that comprise the cell is specific | |||
| to the encapsulation type. Two common examples of cell payloads are | to the encapsulation type. Two common examples of cell payloads are | |||
| 53-octet cells carrying ATM AAL2, and the larger 188-octet MPEG | ATM 53-octet cells, and the larger 188-octet MPEG Transport Stream | |||
| Transport Stream packets [ETSI]. | packets [ETSI]. | |||
| To reduce per-PSN packet overhead, multiple cells may be concatenated | To reduce per-PSN packet overhead, multiple cells may be concatenated | |||
| into a single payload. The Encapsulation Layer may consider the | into a single payload. The Encapsulation Layer may consider the | |||
| payload complete on the expiry of a timer, or after a fixed number of | payload complete on the expiry of a timer, after a fixed number of | |||
| cells have been received. The benefit of concatenating multiple PDUs | cells have been received or when a significant cell (e.g. an ATM OAM | |||
| cell) has been received. The benefit of concatenating multiple PDUs | ||||
| should be weighed against the resulting increase in jitter and the | should be weighed against the resulting increase in jitter and the | |||
| larger penalty incurred by packet loss. In some cases, it may be | larger penalty incurred by packet loss. In some cases, it may be | |||
| appropriate for the Encapsulation Layer to perform a silence | appropriate for the Encapsulation Layer to perform a silence | |||
| suppression or a similar compression. | suppression or a similar compression. | |||
| The generic cell payload service will normally need sequence number | The generic cell payload service will normally need sequence number | |||
| support, and may also need real-time support. The generic cell | support, and may also need real-time support. The generic cell | |||
| payload service would not normally require fragmentation. | payload service would not normally require fragmentation. | |||
| The Encapsulation Layer may apply some form of compression to some of | The Encapsulation Layer may apply some form of compression to some of | |||
| these sub-types. | these sub-types (e.g. idle cells may be suppressed). | |||
| In some instances, the cells to be incorporated in the payload may be | In some instances, the cells to be incorporated in the payload may be | |||
| selected by filtering them from the stream of cells presented on the | selected by filtering them from the stream of cells presented on the | |||
| wire. For example, an ATM PWE3 service may select cells based on | wire. For example, an ATM PWE3 service may select cells based on | |||
| their VCI or VPI fields. This is an NSP function, and the selection | their VCI or VPI fields. This is an FWRD function, and the selection | |||
| would therefore be made before the packet was presented to the PW | would therefore be made before the packet was presented to the PW | |||
| Encapsulation Layer. | Encapsulation Layer. | |||
| 3.3.3. Bit-stream | 3.3.3. Bit-stream | |||
| A bit-stream payload is created by capturing, transporting and | A bit-stream payload is created by capturing, transporting and | |||
| replaying the bit pattern on the emulated wire, without taking | replaying the bit pattern on the emulated wire, without taking | |||
| advantage of any structure that, on inspection, may be visible within | advantage of any structure that, on inspection, may be visible within | |||
| the relayed traffic (i.e. the internal structure has no effect on the | the relayed traffic (i.e. the internal structure has no effect on the | |||
| fragmentation into packets). The Encapsulation Layer submits an | fragmentation into packets). | |||
| identical number of bits for transport in each PW-PDU. | ||||
| In some instances it is possible to apply suppression to bit-streams. | ||||
| For example, E1 and T1 send "all-ones" to indicate failure. This | ||||
| condition can be detected without any knowledge of the structure of | ||||
| the bit-stream, and transmission of packetized data suppressed. | ||||
| This service will require sequencing and real-time support. | This service will require sequencing and real-time support. | |||
| 3.3.4. Structured bit-stream | 3.3.4. Structured bit-stream | |||
| A bit-stream payload is created by using some knowledge of the | A structured bit-stream payload is created by using some knowledge of | |||
| underlying structure of the bit-stream to capture, transport and | the underlying structure of the bit-stream to capture, transport and | |||
| replay the bit pattern on the emulated wire (i.e. the internal | replay the bit pattern on the emulated wire. | |||
| structure directly effects the fragmentation into packets). | ||||
| Two important points distinguish structured and unstructured bit- | Two important points distinguish structured and unstructured bit- | |||
| streams: | streams: | |||
| o Some part of the original (unstructured) bit-stream are | o Some part of the original bit-stream are stripped in | |||
| stripped by, for example, the PSN-bound direction of the | the PSN-bound direction by NSP block. For example, | |||
| NSP block. For example, in Structured SONET the section | in Structured SONET the section and line overhead (and, | |||
| and line overhead (and, possibly, more) may be stripped. | possibly, more) may be stripped. | |||
| o The PW must preserve the structure across the PSN so that | o The PW must preserve the structure across the PSN so that | |||
| the CE-bound NSP block can insert it correctly into the | the CE-bound NSP block can insert it correctly into the | |||
| reconstructed unstructured bit-stream. | reconstructed unstructured bit-stream. | |||
| The Encapsulation Layer may also perform silence/idle suppression or | The Encapsulation Layer may also perform silence/idle suppression or | |||
| similar compression on a structured bit-stream. | similar compression on a structured bit-stream. | |||
| Structured bit-streams are distinguished from cells in that the | Structured bit-streams are distinguished from cells in that the | |||
| structures may be too long to be carried in a single packet (i.e. | structures may be too long to be carried in a single packet. Note | |||
| structured SONET). Note that "short" structures are | that "short" structures are indistinguishable from cells and may | |||
| indistinguishable from cells and may benefit from the use of cell | benefit from the use of those PWE3 methods. | |||
| encapsulations. | ||||
| This service will require sequencing and real-time support. | This service will require sequencing and real-time support. | |||
| 3.3.5. Principle of Minimum Intervention | 3.3.5. Principle of Minimum Intervention | |||
| To minimise the scope of information, and to improve the efficiency | To minimise the scope of information, and to improve the efficiency | |||
| of data flow through the Encapsulation Layer, the payload should be | of data flow through the Encapsulation Layer, the payload should be | |||
| transported as received with as few modifications as possible | transported as received with as few modifications as possible | |||
| [RFC1958]. | [RFC1958]. | |||
| This minimum intervention approach decouples payload development from | This minimum intervention approach decouples payload development from | |||
| PW development and requires fewer translations at the NSP in a system | PW development and requires fewer translations at the NSP in a system | |||
| with similar CE interfaces at each end. It also prevents any | with similar CE interfaces at each end. It also prevents unwanted | |||
| unwanted side-effects due to subtle mis-representation of the payload | side-effects due to subtle mis-representation of the payload in the | |||
| in the intermediate format. | intermediate format. | |||
| An intervention approach can be more wire-efficient in some cases and | An intervention approach can be more wire-efficient in some cases and | |||
| may result in fewer translations at the NSP where the CE interfaces | may result in fewer translations at the NSP where the CE interfaces | |||
| are of different types. Any intermediate format effectively becomes a | are of different types. Any intermediate format effectively becomes a | |||
| new framing type, requiring documentation and assured | new framing type, requiring documentation and assured | |||
| interoperability. This increases the amount of work for handling the | interoperability. This increases the amount of work for handling the | |||
| protocol the intermediate format carries, and is undesirable. | protocol the intermediate format carries, and is undesirable. | |||
| 4. Architecture of Pseudo-wires | 4. Architecture of Pseudo-wires | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 44 ¶ | |||
| Figure 2: PWE3 Network Reference Model | Figure 2: PWE3 Network Reference Model | |||
| The two PEs (PE1 and PE2) need to provide one or more PWs on behalf | The two PEs (PE1 and PE2) need to provide one or more PWs on behalf | |||
| of their client CEs (CE1 and CE2) to enable the client CEs to | of their client CEs (CE1 and CE2) to enable the client CEs to | |||
| communicate over the PSN. A PSN tunnel is established to provide a | communicate over the PSN. A PSN tunnel is established to provide a | |||
| data path for the PW. The PW traffic is invisible to the core | data path for the PW. The PW traffic is invisible to the core | |||
| network, and the core network is transparent to the CEs. Native data | network, and the core network is transparent to the CEs. Native data | |||
| units (bits, cells or packets) presented at the PW End Service (PWES) | units (bits, cells or packets) presented at the PW End Service (PWES) | |||
| are encapsulated in a PW-PDU and carried across the underlying | are encapsulated in a PW-PDU and carried across the underlying | |||
| network via the PSN tunnel. The PEs perform the necesssary | network via the PSN tunnel. The PEs perform the necessary | |||
| encapsulation and decapsulation of PW-PDUs, as well as handling any | encapsulation and decapsulation of PW-PDUs, as well as handling any | |||
| other functions required by the PW service, such as sequencing or | other functions required by the PW service, such as sequencing or | |||
| timing. | timing. | |||
| There are situations in which a particular packet payload needs to be | There are situations in which a particular packet payload needs to be | |||
| multicast so that it is received by a number of CEs. This is useful | multicast so that it is received by a number of CEs. This is useful | |||
| when using PWs as part of a "virtual LAN" service (see, e.g., | when using PWs as part of a "virtual LAN" service (see, e.g., | |||
| [VPLS]). This can be achieved by replicating the payload and | [VPLS]). This can be achieved by replicating the payload and | |||
| transmitting the replicas on PWs, but it may also be useful to have a | transmitting the replicas on PWs, but it may also be useful to have a | |||
| type of PW which is inherently point-to-multipoint. In that case, | type of PW that is inherently point-to-multipoint. In that case, the | |||
| the PW would need to be carried through a point-to-multipoint PSN | PW would need to be carried through a point-to-multipoint PSN tunnel, | |||
| tunnel, employing a multicast mechanism provided by the PSN. | employing a multicast mechanism provided by the PSN. | |||
| 4.2 PWE3 Pre-processing | 4.2 PWE3 Pre-processing | |||
| In some applications, there is a need to perform operations on the | In some applications, there is a need to perform operations on the | |||
| native data units received from the CE (including both payload and | native data units received from the CE (including both payload and | |||
| signaling traffic) before they are transmitted across the PW by the | signaling traffic) before they are transmitted across the PW by the | |||
| PE. Examples include Ethernet bridging, SONET cross-connect, | PE. Examples include Ethernet bridging, SONET cross-connect, | |||
| translation of locally-significant identifiers such as VCI/VPI, or | translation of locally-significant identifiers such as VCI/VPI, or | |||
| translation to another service type. These operations could be | translation to another service type. These operations could be | |||
| carried out in external equipment, and the processed data sent to the | carried out in external equipment, and the processed data sent to the | |||
| skipping to change at page 22, line 48 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 48 ¶ | |||
| The Timing Layer and the Sequencing Layer provide generic services to | The Timing Layer and the Sequencing Layer provide generic services to | |||
| the Payload Convergence Layer for all payload types, when required. | the Payload Convergence Layer for all payload types, when required. | |||
| 5.1 Payload Convergence Layer | 5.1 Payload Convergence Layer | |||
| 5.1.1. Encapsulation | 5.1.1. Encapsulation | |||
| The primary task of the Payload Convergence Layer is the | The primary task of the Payload Convergence Layer is the | |||
| encapsulation of the payload in PW-PDUs. The native data units to be | encapsulation of the payload in PW-PDUs. The native data units to be | |||
| encapsulated may or may not contain L2 or L1 header information. | encapsulated may or may not contain a L2 header or L1 overhead. This | |||
| This is service specific. The Payload Convergence header carries the | is service specific. The Payload Convergence header carries the | |||
| additional information needed to replay the native data units at the | additional information needed to replay the native data units at the | |||
| CE-bound physical interface. The PW Demultiplexer header is not | CE-bound physical interface. The PW Demultiplexer header is not | |||
| considered as part of the PW header. | considered as part of the PW header. | |||
| Not all the additional information needed to replay the native data | Not all the additional information needed to replay the native data | |||
| units need to be carried in the PW header of the PW PDUs. Some | units need to be carried in the PW header of the PW PDUs. Some | |||
| information (e.g. service type of a PW) may be stored as state | information (e.g. service type of a PW) may be stored as state | |||
| information at the destination PE during PW set-up. | information at the destination PE during PW set-up. | |||
| 5.1.2. PWE3 Channel Types | 5.1.2. PWE3 Channel Types | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 48 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 48 ¶ | |||
| 4. An un-sequenced channel for data traffic insensitive to packet | 4. An un-sequenced channel for data traffic insensitive to packet | |||
| order. | order. | |||
| The data channels (2, 3 and 4 above) should be carried "in band" with | The data channels (2, 3 and 4 above) should be carried "in band" with | |||
| one another to as much of a degree as is reasonably possible on a | one another to as much of a degree as is reasonably possible on a | |||
| PSN. | PSN. | |||
| Where end-to-end connectivity may be disrupted by address translation | Where end-to-end connectivity may be disrupted by address translation | |||
| [RFC3022], access-control lists, firewalls etc., there exists the | [RFC3022], access-control lists, firewalls etc., there exists the | |||
| possibility that the control channel may be able to pass traffic and | possibility that the control channel may be able to pass traffic and | |||
| set up the PW, but the PW data-path data traffic is blocked by one or | set up the PW, but the PW data traffic is blocked by one or more of | |||
| more of these mechanisms. In these cases unless the control channel | these mechanisms. In these cases unless the control channel is also | |||
| is also carried "in band" the signaling to set-up the PW will not | carried "in band" the signaling to set-up the PW will not confirm | |||
| confirm the existence of an end-to-end data path. | the existence of an end-to-end data path. | |||
| In some cases there is a need to synchronize some CE events with the | In some cases there is a need to synchronize CE events with the data | |||
| data carried over a PW. This is especially the case with TDM | carried over a PW. This is especially the case with TDM circuits | |||
| circuits (e.g., on-hook/off-hook events in PSTN switches). | (e.g., the on-hook/off-hook events in PSTN switches might be carried | |||
| over a reliable control channel, whilst the associated bit-stream is | ||||
| carried over a sequenced data channel). | ||||
| PWE3 channel types that are not needed by the supported PWs need not | PWE3 channel types that are not needed by the supported PWs need not | |||
| be included in such an implementation. | be included in such an implementation. | |||
| 5.1.3. Quality of Service Considerations | 5.1.3. Quality of Service Considerations | |||
| Where possible, it is desirable to employ mechanisms to provide PW | Where possible, it is desirable to employ mechanisms to provide PW | |||
| Quality of Service (QoS) support over PSNs. | Quality of Service (QoS) support over PSNs. | |||
| 5.2 Payload-independent PW Encapsulation Layers | 5.2 Payload-independent PW Encapsulation Layers | |||
| skipping to change at page 24, line 46 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 48 ¶ | |||
| protocol is not available, the existing protocol should be extended | protocol is not available, the existing protocol should be extended | |||
| or modified to meet the PWE3 requirements, thereby making that | or modified to meet the PWE3 requirements, thereby making that | |||
| protocol available for other IETF uses. In the particular case of | protocol available for other IETF uses. In the particular case of | |||
| timing, more than one general method may be necessary to provide for | timing, more than one general method may be necessary to provide for | |||
| the full scope of payload timing requirements. | the full scope of payload timing requirements. | |||
| 5.2.1. Sequencing | 5.2.1. Sequencing | |||
| The sequencing function provides three services: frame ordering, | The sequencing function provides three services: frame ordering, | |||
| frame duplication detection and frame loss detection. These services | frame duplication detection and frame loss detection. These services | |||
| allow the invariant properties of a physical wire to be emulated. | allow the emulation of the invariant properties of a physical wire. | |||
| Support for sequencing depends on the payload type, and may be | Support for sequencing depends on the payload type, and may be | |||
| omitted if not needed. | omitted if not needed. | |||
| The size of the sequence-number space depends on the speed of the | The size of the sequence-number space depends on the speed of the | |||
| emulated service, and the maximum time of the transient conditions in | emulated service, and the maximum time of the transient conditions in | |||
| the PSN. A sequence number space greater than approximately 2^16 may | the PSN. A sequence number space greater than approximately 2^16 may | |||
| therefore be needed to prevent the sequence number space wrapping | therefore be needed to prevent the sequence number space wrapping | |||
| during the transient. | during the transient. | |||
| 5.2.1.1 Frame Ordering | 5.2.1.1 Frame Ordering | |||
| skipping to change at page 26, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 36 ¶ | |||
| either timing information sent between the two PEs, or in some case | either timing information sent between the two PEs, or in some case | |||
| timing information received from an external reference. | timing information received from an external reference. | |||
| The Timing Sub-layer must therefore support two timing functions: | The Timing Sub-layer must therefore support two timing functions: | |||
| clock recovery and timed payload delivery. A particular payload type | clock recovery and timed payload delivery. A particular payload type | |||
| may require either or both of these services. | may require either or both of these services. | |||
| 5.2.2.1 Clock Recovery | 5.2.2.1 Clock Recovery | |||
| Clock recovery is the extraction of output transmission bit timing | Clock recovery is the extraction of output transmission bit timing | |||
| information from the delivered packet stream, and requires a phase- | information from the delivered packet stream, and requires a suitable | |||
| locking mechanism. A physical wire provides this naturally, but it | mechanism. A physical wire provides this naturally, but it is a | |||
| is a relatively complex task to extract this from a highly jittered | relatively complex task to extract this from a highly jittered source | |||
| source such as packet stream. It is therefore desirable that an | such as packet stream. It is therefore desirable that an existing | |||
| existing real-time protocol such as [RFC1889] be used for this | real-time protocol such as [RFC1889] be used for this purpose, unless | |||
| purpose, unless it can be shown that this is unsuitable or | it can be shown that this is unsuitable or unnecessary for a | |||
| unnecessary for a particular payload type. | particular payload type. | |||
| 5.2.2.2 Timed delivery | 5.2.2.2 Timed delivery | |||
| Timed delivery is the delivery of non-contiguous PW PDUs to the PW | Timed delivery is the delivery of non-contiguous PW PDUs to the PW | |||
| output interface with a constant phase relative to the input | output interface with a constant phase relative to the input | |||
| interface. The timing of the delivery may be relative to a clock | interface. The timing of the delivery may be relative to a clock | |||
| derived from the packet stream via clock recovery, or via an external | derived from the packet stream received over the PSN clock recovery, | |||
| clock. | or with reference to an external clock. | |||
| 5.3 Fragmentation | 5.3 Fragmentation | |||
| A payload would normally be relayed across the PW as a single unit. | A payload would normally be relayed across the PW as a single unit. | |||
| However, there will be cases where the combined size of the payload | However, there will be cases where the combined size of the payload | |||
| and its associated PWE3 and PSN headers exceeds the PSN path MTU. | and its associated PWE3 and PSN headers exceeds the PSN path MTU. | |||
| When a packet exceeds the MTU of a given network, fragmentation and | When a packet exceeds the MTU of a given network, fragmentation and | |||
| reassembly may have to be performed in order for the packet to be | reassembly may have to be performed in order for the packet to be | |||
| delivered. Since fragmentation and reassembly generally consume a | delivered. Since fragmentation and reassembly generally consume a | |||
| large amount of network resource as compared to simply switching a | large amount of network resource as compared to simply switching a | |||
| packet in its entirety, efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate | packet in its entirety, efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate | |||
| the need for fragmentation and reassembly as much as possible | the need for fragmentation and reassembly as much as possible | |||
| throughout a network. Of particular concern for fragmentation and | throughout a network. Of particular concern for fragmentation and | |||
| reassembly are aggregation points where large numbers of pseudowires | reassembly are aggregation points where large numbers of pseudowires | |||
| are processed (e.g. at the PE). | are processed (e.g. at the PE). | |||
| Ideally, the equipment originating the traffic being sent over the PW | Ideally, the equipment originating the traffic being sent over the PW | |||
| will be configured to have adaptive measures (e.g. [RFC1191], | will be configured to have adaptive measures (e.g. [RFC1191], | |||
| [RFC1981]) in place such that it never sends a packet which must be | [RFC1981]) in place such that it never sends a packet that must be | |||
| fragmented. When this fails, the point closest to the sending host | fragmented. When this fails, the point closest to the sending host | |||
| with fragmentation and reassembly capabilities should attempt to | with fragmentation and reassembly capabilities should attempt to | |||
| reduce the size of packets further into the network. Thus, in the | reduce the size of packets further into the network. Thus, in the | |||
| reference model for PWE3 [Figure 3] fragmentation should first be | reference model for PWE3 [Figure 3] fragmentation should first be | |||
| performed at the CE if at all possible. If and only if the CE cannot | performed at the CE if at all possible. If and only if the CE cannot | |||
| adhere to an acceptable MTU size for the PW should the PE attempt its | adhere to an acceptable MTU size for the PW should the PE attempt its | |||
| own fragmentation method. | own fragmentation method. | |||
| In cases where MTU management fails to limit the payload to a size | In cases where MTU management fails to limit the payload to a size | |||
| suitable for transmission of the PW, the PE may fall back to either a | suitable for transmission of the PW, the PE may fall back to either a | |||
| skipping to change at page 29, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 11 ¶ | |||
| As a special case, if the PW Demultiplexer is an MPLS label, the | As a special case, if the PW Demultiplexer is an MPLS label, the | |||
| protocol architecture of section 5.4.2 can be used instead of the | protocol architecture of section 5.4.2 can be used instead of the | |||
| protocol architecture of this section. | protocol architecture of this section. | |||
| 5.4.2. PWE3 over an MPLS PSN | 5.4.2. PWE3 over an MPLS PSN | |||
| The MPLS ethos places importance on wire efficiency. By using a | The MPLS ethos places importance on wire efficiency. By using a | |||
| control word, some components of the PWE3 protocol layers can be | control word, some components of the PWE3 protocol layers can be | |||
| compressed to increase this efficiency. | compressed to increase this efficiency. | |||
| +---------------------+ | +---------------------+ | |||
| | Payload | | | Payload | | |||
| /=====================\ | /=====================\ | |||
| H Payload Convergence H-----------------+ | H Payload Convergence H-----+ | |||
| H---------------------H | | H---------------------H | | |||
| H Timing H | | H Timing H------------------------+ | |||
| H---------------------H | | H---------------------H | | | |||
| H Sequencing H-----------------| | H Sequencing H-----| | | |||
| \=====================/ | | \=====================/ | | | |||
| | PW Demultiplexer |---+ | | | PW Demultiplexer |---+ | v | |||
| +---------------------+ | | | +---------------------+ | | +--------------------------------+ | |||
| | PSN Convergence |-----------------| | | PSN Convergence |-----| . . | |||
| +---------------------+ | | | +---------------------+ | | . RTP . | |||
| | PSN |-+ | v | | PSN |-+ | | | | | |||
| +---------------------+ | | +--------------------------------+ | +---------------------+ | | | +--------------------------------+ | |||
| | MAC/Data-link | | | | Flags, Frag, Len, Seq #, etc | | | MAC/Data-link | | | +->| Flags, Frag, Len, Seq #, etc | | |||
| +---------------------+ | | +--------------------------------+ | +---------------------+ | | +--------------------------------+ | |||
| | Physical | | +->| Inner Label | | | Physical | | +--->| Inner Label | | |||
| +---------------------+ | +--------------------------------+ | +---------------------+ | +--------------------------------+ | |||
| +--->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap| | +----->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap| | |||
| +--------------------------------+ | +--------------------------------+ | |||
| Figure 11: PWE3 over an MPLS PSN using a control word | Figure 11: PWE3 over an MPLS PSN using a control word | |||
| Figure 11 shows the protocol layering for PWE3 over an MPLS PSN. An | Figure 11 shows the protocol layering for PWE3 over an MPLS PSN. An | |||
| inner MPLS label is used to provide the PW demultiplexing function. | inner MPLS label is used to provide the PW demultiplexing function. | |||
| A control word is used to carry most of the information needed by the | A control word is used to carry most of the information needed by the | |||
| PWE3 Encapsulation Layer and the PSN Convergence Layer in a compact | PWE3 Encapsulation Layer and the PSN Convergence Layer in a compact | |||
| format. The flags in the control word provide the necessary payload | format. The flags in the control word provide the necessary payload | |||
| convergence. A sequence field provides support for both in-order | convergence. A sequence field provides support for both in-order | |||
| payload delivery and (supported by a fragmentation control method) a | payload delivery and (supported by a fragmentation control method) a | |||
| PSN fragmentation service within the PSN Convergence Layer. Ethernet | PSN fragmentation service within the PSN Convergence Layer. Ethernet | |||
| pads all frames to a minimum size of 64 bytes. The MPLS header does | pads all frames to a minimum size of 64 bytes. The MPLS header does | |||
| not include a length indicator. Therefore to allow PWE3 to be carried | not include a length indicator. Therefore to allow PWE3 to be carried | |||
| in MPLS to correctly pass over an Ethernet data-link, a length | in MPLS to correctly pass over an Ethernet data-link, a length | |||
| correction field is needed in the control word. | correction field is needed in the control word. As with an IP PSN, | |||
| where appropriate, timing is provided by RTP [RFC1889]. | ||||
| In some networks it may be necessary to carry PWE3 over MPLS over IP. | In some networks it may be necessary to carry PWE3 over MPLS over IP. | |||
| In these circumstances, the PW is encapsulated for carriage over MPLS | In these circumstances, the PW is encapsulated for carriage over MPLS | |||
| as described in this section, and then a standard method of carrying | as described in this section, and then a method of carrying MPLS over | |||
| MPLS over an IP PSN (such as GRE [RFC2784], [RFC2890]) is applied to | an IP PSN (such as GRE [RFC2784], [RFC2890]) is applied to the | |||
| the resultant PW-PDU. | resultant PW-PDU. | |||
| 6. PW Demultiplexer Layer and PSN Requirements | 6. PW Demultiplexer Layer and PSN Requirements | |||
| PWE3 places three service requirements on the protocol layers used to | PWE3 places three service requirements on the protocol layers used to | |||
| carry it across the PSN: | carry it across the PSN: | |||
| o Multiplexing | o Multiplexing | |||
| o Fragmentation | o Fragmentation | |||
| o Length and Delivery | o Length and Delivery | |||
| skipping to change at page 31, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 31, line 18 ¶ | |||
| end-to-end integrity of frames. The PW service-specific mechanisms | end-to-end integrity of frames. The PW service-specific mechanisms | |||
| MUST define whether the packet's checksum shall be preserved across | MUST define whether the packet's checksum shall be preserved across | |||
| the PW or be removed from PE bound PDUs and then be re-calculated for | the PW or be removed from PE bound PDUs and then be re-calculated for | |||
| insertion in CE bound data. | insertion in CE bound data. | |||
| The former approach saves work, while the latter saves bandwidth. For | The former approach saves work, while the latter saves bandwidth. For | |||
| a given implementation the choice may be dictated by hardware | a given implementation the choice may be dictated by hardware | |||
| restrictions. | restrictions. | |||
| For protocols such as ATM and FR, the scope of the checksum is | For protocols such as ATM and FR, the scope of the checksum is | |||
| restriced to a single link. This is because the circuit identifiers | restricted to a single link. This is because the circuit identifiers | |||
| (e.g. FR DLCI or ATM VPI/VCI) have only local significance and are | (e.g. FR DLCI or ATM VPI/VCI) have only local significance and are | |||
| changed on each hop or span. If the circuit identifier (and thus | changed on each hop or span. If the circuit identifier (and thus | |||
| checksum) were going to change as a part of the PW emulation, it | checksum) were going to change as a part of the PW emulation, it | |||
| would be more efficient to strip and re-calculate the checksum. | would be more efficient to strip and re-calculate the checksum. | |||
| The service specific document for each protocol must describe the | The service specific document for each protocol must describe the | |||
| validation scheme to be used. | validation scheme to be used. | |||
| 6.5 Congestion Considerations | 6.5 Congestion Considerations | |||
| skipping to change at page 34, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 34, line 46 ¶ | |||
| PWE3. | PWE3. | |||
| 8.1 Statistics | 8.1 Statistics | |||
| The PE can tabulate statistics that help monitor the state of the | The PE can tabulate statistics that help monitor the state of the | |||
| network, and to help with measurement of service level agreements | network, and to help with measurement of service level agreements | |||
| (SLAs). Typical counters include: | (SLAs). Typical counters include: | |||
| o Counts of PW-PDUs sent and received, with and without errors. | o Counts of PW-PDUs sent and received, with and without errors. | |||
| o Counts of sequenced PW-PDUs lost. | o Counts of sequenced PW-PDUs lost. | |||
| o Counts of service PDUs sent and received, with and without | o Counts of service PDUs sent and received over the PSN, with | |||
| errors (non-TDM). | and without errors (non-TDM). | |||
| o Service-specific interface counts. | o Service-specific interface counts. | |||
| These counters would be contained in a PW-specific MIB, and they | These counters would be contained in a PW-specific MIB, and they | |||
| should not replicate existing MIB counters. | should not replicate existing MIB counters. | |||
| 8.2 PW SNMP MIB Architecture | 8.2 PW SNMP MIB Architecture | |||
| This section describes the general architecture for SNMP MIBs used to | This section describes the general architecture for SNMP MIBs used to | |||
| manage PW services and the underlying PSN. The intent here is to | manage PW services and the underlying PSN. The intent here is to | |||
| provide a clear picture of how all of the pertinent MIBs fit together | provide a clear picture of how all of the pertinent MIBs fit together | |||
| skipping to change at page 38, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 38, line 17 ¶ | |||
| A connection verification mechanism should be supported by PWs. | A connection verification mechanism should be supported by PWs. | |||
| Connection verification as well as other alarming mechanisms can | Connection verification as well as other alarming mechanisms can | |||
| alert the operator that a PW has lost its remote connection. The | alert the operator that a PW has lost its remote connection. The | |||
| opaque nature of a PW means that it is not possible to specify a | opaque nature of a PW means that it is not possible to specify a | |||
| generic connection verification or traceroute mechanism that passes | generic connection verification or traceroute mechanism that passes | |||
| this status to the CEs over the PW. If connection verification | this status to the CEs over the PW. If connection verification | |||
| status of the PW is needed by the CE, it must be mapped to the native | status of the PW is needed by the CE, it must be mapped to the native | |||
| connection status method. | connection status method. | |||
| For troubleshooting purposes, it is sometimes desirable to know the | For troubleshooting purposes, it is sometimes desirable to know the | |||
| exact functional path of a PW between PEs, thus a traceroute function | exact functional path of a PW between PEs. This is provided by the | |||
| capable of reporting the path taken by data packets over the PW | traceroute service of the underlying PSN. The opaque nature of the | |||
| should be provided. The opaque nature of the PW means that this | PW means that this traceroute information is only available within | |||
| traceroute information is only available within the provider network | the provider network e.g. at the PEs. | |||
| e.g. at the PEs. | ||||
| 9. IANA considerations | 9. IANA considerations | |||
| There are no IANA considerations for this document. | There are no IANA considerations for this document. | |||
| 10. Security Considerations | 10. Security Considerations | |||
| PWE3 provides no means of protecting the contents or delivery of the | PWE3 provides no means of protecting the contents or delivery of the | |||
| native data units. PWE3 may, however, leverage security mechanisms | native data units. PWE3 may, however, leverage security mechanisms | |||
| provided by the PW Demultiplexer or PSN Layers, such as IPSec | provided by the PW Demultiplexer or PSN Layers, such as IPSec | |||
| skipping to change at page 40, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 40, line 11 ¶ | |||
| Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) | Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) | |||
| [LDP-MIB] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and Luciani, J., | [LDP-MIB] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and Luciani, J., | |||
| "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol | "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol | |||
| Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", | Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", | |||
| <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mib-08.txt>, work in progress, | <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mib-08.txt>, work in progress, | |||
| August 2001. | August 2001. | |||
| [LSRMIB] Srinivasan et al, "MPLS Label Switch Router Management | [LSRMIB] Srinivasan et al, "MPLS Label Switch Router Management | |||
| Information Base Using SMIv2", | Information Base Using SMIv2", | |||
| (draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-08.txt, work in progress, January | (draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-08.txt, work in progress, | |||
| 2002. | January 2002. | |||
| [L2TPv3] Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version 3)'L2TPv3', J Lau, | [L2TPv3] Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version 3)'L2TPv3', J Lau, | |||
| et. al. (work in progress). | et. al. (work in progress). | |||
| [PPPoL2TP] PPP Tunneling Using Layer Two Tunneling Protocol, | [PPPoL2TP] PPP Tunneling Using Layer Two Tunneling Protocol, | |||
| J Lau et al. <draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-ppp-01.txt>, | J Lau et al. <draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-ppp-01.txt>, | |||
| work in progress. | work in progress. | |||
| [PWMIB] Zelig et al, "Pseudo Wire (PW) Management Information Base | [PWMIB] Zelig et al, "Pseudo Wire (PW) Management Information | |||
| Using SMIv2", (draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib-00.txt), work in | Base Using SMIv2", (draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib-00.txt), | |||
| progress, June 2002. | work in progress, June 2002. | |||
| [PWTCMIB] Nadeau et al, "Definitions for Textual Conventions and | [PWTCMIB] Nadeau et al, "Definitions for Textual Conventions and | |||
| OBJECT-IDENTITIES for Pseudo-Wires Management" | OBJECT-IDENTITIES for Pseudo-Wires Management" | |||
| (draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-00.txt), work in progress, | (draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-00.txt), work in progress, | |||
| June 2002. | June 2002. | |||
| [PWMPLSMIB] Danenberg et al, "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over | [PWMPLSMIB] Danenberg et al, "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service | |||
| MPLS (CEM) Management Information Base Using SMIv2", | Over MPLS (CEM) Management Information Base Using | |||
| (draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-00.txt), work in progress, | SMIv2", (draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-00.txt), work in | |||
| August 2001. | progress, August 2001. | |||
| [RFC1191] RFC-1191: Path MTU discovery. J.C. Mogul, S.E. Deering. | [RFC1191] RFC-1191: Path MTU discovery. J.C. Mogul, S.E. Deering. | |||
| [RFC1889] RFC-1889: RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time | [RFC1889] RFC-1889: RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time | |||
| Applications. H. Schulzrinne et. al. | Applications. H. Schulzrinne et. al. | |||
| [RFC1902] RFC-1902: Structure of Management Information for | [RFC1902] RFC-1902: Structure of Management Information for | |||
| Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol | Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol | |||
| (SNMPv2), Case et al, January 1996. | (SNMPv2), Case et al, January 1996. | |||
| [RFC1958] RFC-1958: Architectural Principles of the Internet, | [RFC1958] RFC-1958: Architectural Principles of the Internet, | |||
| B. Carpenter et al. | B. Carpenter et al. | |||
| [RFC1981] RFC-1981: Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6. J. McCann, | [RFC1981] RFC-1981: Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6. J. McCann, | |||
| S. Deering, J.Mogul. | S. Deering, J.Mogul. | |||
| [RFC2022] RFC-2022: Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based | [RFC2022] RFC-2022: Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based | |||
| ATM Networks, G. Armitage. | ATM Networks, G. Armitage. | |||
| [RFC2401] RFC-2401: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol. | [RFC2401] RFC-2401: Security Architecture for the Internet | |||
| S. Kent, R. Atkinson. | Protocol. S. Kent, R. Atkinson. | |||
| [RFC2474] RFC-2474: Definition of the Differentiated Services | [RFC2474] RFC-2474: Definition of the Differentiated Services | |||
| Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers, | Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers, | |||
| K. Nichols, et. al. | K. Nichols, et. al. | |||
| [RFC2661] RFC-2661: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP". | [RFC2661] RFC-2661: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP". | |||
| W. Townsley, et. al. | W. Townsley, et. al. | |||
| [RFC2784] RFC-2784: Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE). | [RFC2784] RFC-2784: Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE). | |||
| D. Farinacci et al. | D. Farinacci et al. | |||
| End of changes. 39 change blocks. | ||||
| 103 lines changed or deleted | 108 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/ | ||||