Pwe + VPLS: Yaakov (J) Stein June 2006 Chief Scientist RAD Data Communications

PWE + VPLS
Yaakov (J) Stein June 2006 Chief Scientist RAD Data Communications
Contents

Interworking VPNs PWs TDM PWs
Ethernet PWs
Other PWs PWE control protocol
L2VPNs
LDP vs. BGP Provisioning VPLS Generalizations L3VPNs
Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 2
Interworking
Tunneling - interworking
mating different network protocols is called interworking protocol converter goes by various names :
interworking function (IWF) gateway (GW)

simplest case is network interworking easily provided by tunneling
native network
infrastructure network
native network
Tunneling - provider networks

users traditionally have private networks they interconnect their sites using leased lines no contention with outside users guaranteed privacy complex and costly maintenance
customer network
leased line
customer network
service providers (SPs) can provide virtual private networks

provided by (once again by) tunneling edge-to-edge
Basic emulation by tunneling

customer network customer network
physical link
end to end edge to edge
customer network
provider network
customer network
emulated link provider network edge provider network edge

Interworking motivation
there are many different types of network traffic (voice, video, file-xfer, etc)
all types fall into one of three classes: Real-time constant bit-rate Real-time variable bit-rate Non-real-time (packet) there are many different types of network (IP,ATM,FR,Eth,etc) most were originally designed for a specific type of traffic providers with one type of network infrastructure want to fully exploit it they desire to carry all types of network traffic
Service Interworking
Service interworking:
direct conversion between 2 native service formats
Native Service A
service interworking function
Native Service B
VPNs
Conventional Ethernet-IP model

Ethernet
IP
Ethernet
conventional model:
Ethernet is a LAN technology last 100m 10s of hosts IP is a WAN technology data transported in native IP different L2 technologies for last segment
modern Ethernet wants to be more

Virtual Private Networks

service provider network
SPs want to offer customers site interconnect service since the private networks are interconnected over a public PSN this results in a Virtual Private Network unlike the traditional WAN architecture the entire native packet/frame must be tunneled
Example: Transparent LAN Service (TLS)

Basic (L2,L3)VPN model
customer network
physical link
customer network
emulated link
Customer customer Edge network (CE) Provider Provider provider Edge Edge network (PE) (PE) Customer Edge customer network (CE)
AC = Attachment Circuit
AC = Attachment Circuit
provider network may be L3 (e.g. IP) or L2 (e.g. Ethernet)

(L2,L3)VPN in more detail

C C C C P
C C
CE
CE
customer 1 network
PE
P P
P
P PE
customer 2 network
C CE
provider network
C CE
customer 2 network
C CE P PE
C Key Customer router/switch Customer Edge router/switch customer 1 network Provider router/switch Provider Edge router/switch Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 13
L3 encapsulation
for simplicity, lets think of an IP network : the traditional architecture uses the following packet formats:
WAN
Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS
Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS
WAN L2 hdr IP hdr payload
a VPN model (Ether-IP) uses the following packet formats:
WAN Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS
WAN L2 hdr IP hdr Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS*
VPN Challenges
192.115.243.19 192.115.243.79
SP network
192.115.243.19
Security Private IP addresses Multiple higher-layer protocols SP resource requirements Complex provider - customer relationship
MPLS solves IP address problem

192.115.243.19
2
MPLS network
1 MPLS label
IP header
1
192.115.243.19
payload
assume customers 1 and 2 use overlapping IP addresses then C-routers have inconsistent tables ingress PE-router pushes a label P-routers see only MPLS label P-routers dont see IP addresses - no ambiguity P-routers see only the MPLS label - not LAN IP addresses
PE routers know how to map CE LANs

VPN types
Legacy
proprietary leased-line (not virtual) Frame Relay over E1/T1 ATM over E1 or multiple-E1
Pure IP
IPSec tunnel L2TP tunnel
MPLS L3VPN
RFC4364 (ex 2547bis)
MPLS L2VPN
VPWS / VPLS
Pseudowires
Pseudowire (PW): A mechanism that emulates the

essential attributes of a native service while transporting over a packet switched network (PSN)
Pseudowires
Packet Switched Network (PSN) network that forwards packets IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, Ethernet (although IETF does not touch) a pseudowire (PW) is a mechanism to tunnel through a PSN PWs are bidirectional (unlike MPLS LSPs)
PW architecture is an extension of VPN architecture
Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge

Customer Edge (CE) Customer Edge (CE) Customer Edge (CE) Provider Edge
providers PSN
Provider Edge (PE) PseudoWires (PWs)
native service
Customer Edge
(CE) Customer Edge

(CE)
(PE)
native service
Provider Network Architecture

provider network is composed of: Provider routers (P routers) Provider edge routers (PE routers)
P router
native service
P router P router
PE router A tunnel may contain many PWs
PE router
native service
P router
IETF PWE3 WG
In the Internet Area of the Internet Engineering Task Force
Native (layer 1,2) services : ATM (port mode, cell mode, AAL5-specific modes) FR Ethernet (DIX, 802.3, VLAN) TDM (SONET/SDH, E1, T1, E3, T3)
Supported Packet Switched Networks (PSNs) IPv4 IPv6 MPLS L2TPv3 (not Ethernet )
PWE3 WG Charter

Edge-to-edge emulation and maintenance of PWs

tunnel creation and placement out of scope
Network interworking, not service interworking Must not exert controls on underlying PSN
but diffserv, RSVP-TE can be used
Use RTP when necessary

for real-time functions, clock recovery
Realize that emulation will not be perfect

need applicability statement for each native service
WG will produce the following documents

requirements (RFC 3916), architecture (RFC 3985) documents control protocol definition service specific encapsulation documents for each native service
MPLS
Much of the PWE work is focused on MPLS
Emulated services have QoS and TE requirements

IP is basically a best effort service diffserv and RSVP extensions not prevalent MPLS can provide TE guarantees RSVP-TE (CR-LDP) allows TE signaling UDP/TCP ports provide application multiplexing RTP uses ports in a nonstandard way L2TP includes a multiplexing mechanism MPLS label stack provides natural multiplexing method Using inner labels provides two layers of switching (like ATM VP/VC)
MPLS-f inner label outer label(s) ITU-T interworking label transport label(s) IETF PW label tunnel label(s)
IP provides no standard bundle multiplexing method

Dictionary:
Simple MPLS solution

CE CE
ACs
CE CE
PE
PE
ACs
CE CE
each customer network mapped to pair of (unidirectional) LSPs supports various AC technologies each native packet/frame encapsulated with MPLS label scaling problem: requires large number of LSPs P-routers need to be aware of customer networks
(Martini) Pseudowires
CE CE
ACs
CE CE
transport tunnel PE PE PWs are bidirectional
ACs
CE CE
transport MPLS tunnel set up between PEs multiple PWs may be set up inside tunnel Native packet/frame encapsulated with 2 labels
MPLS (outer) label PW (inner) label payload
P-routers are unaware of individual customer networks
PWE packet format

PSN / multiplexing
optional RTP header optional control word (CW)

higher layers
payload
Example formats
MPLS PSN
tunnel label(s)
L2TPv3 PSN
PW label
control word
Payload
IP header
(5*4 B)
session ID (4 B)
optional cookie (4 or 8 B)
control word (4 B) payload
PWE Control Word

0000 flags FRG Length Sequence Number
0000 Identifies packet as PW (not IP) used to ensure ECMP mechanisms dont interfere with proper functioning 0001 for PWE OAM (VCCV) Flags (4 b) not all encapsulation define used to transport native service fault indications FRG may be used to indicate payload fragmentation 00 = unfragmented 01 = 1st fragment 10 = last fragment 11 = intermediate fragment Length (6 b) used when packet may be padded by L2 Sequence Number (16 b) used to detect packet loss / misordering
Other Standards Bodies
ITU-T SG13 Y.1411, Y.1412, Y.1413, Y.1414, Y.1415, Y.1452, Y.1453, X.84 ITU-T SG15 G.769, G.8261 MFA Forum (MPLS Frame Relay ATM) TDM over MPLS using AAL1 IA 4.0 I.366.2 over MPLS IA 5.0 af-aic-0178
MEF (Metro Ethernet Forum) MEF 8.0.0
TDM PWs
TDMoIP Protocol Processing

TDM IP Packets IP Packets TDM PSN
Steps in TDMoIP The synchronous bit stream is segmented The TDM segments are adapted TDMoIP control word is prepended PSN (IP/MPLS) headers are prepended (encapsulation) Packets are transported over PSN to destination PSN headers are utilized and stripped Control word is checked, utilized and stripped TDM stream is reconstituted (using adaptation) and played out
TDM Structure
handling of TDM depends on its structure unstructured TDM (TDM = arbitrary stream of bits)
structured TDM
framed
S Y N C (8000 frames per second) S Y N C (single byte timeslots) TS3 S Y N C
channelized
SYNC
TS2 TS1 (1 byte)
signaling bits
TSn
multiframed
frame frame frame frame
multiframe
TDM transport types

Structure-agnostic transport (SAToP RFC4553) for unstructured TDM even if there is structure, we ignore it simplest way of making payload OK if network is well-engineered Structure-aware transport (TDMoIP, CESoPSN) take TDM structure into account must decide which level of structure (frame, multiframe, ) can overcome PSN impairments (PDV, packet loss, etc)
Structure aware encapsulations

Structure-locked encapsulation (CESoPSN)
headers TDM structure TDM structure TDM structure TDM structure
Structure-indicated encapsulation (TDMoIP AAL1 mode)

headers AAL1 subframe AAL1 subframe AAL1 subframe AAL1 subframe
Structure-reassembled encapsulation (TDMoIP AAL2 mode)

headers AAL2 minicell AAL2 minicell AAL2 minicell AAL2 minicell
Ethernet PWs
Ethernet limitations
Ethernet LAN is the most popular LAN but Ethernet can not be made into a WAN

Ethernet is limited in distance between stations Ethernet is limited in number of stations on segment Ethernet is inefficient in finding destination address Ethernet only prunes network topology, does not route
so the architecture that has emerged is Ethernet private networks connected by public networks of other types (e.g. IP)
LAN WAN LAN
Traditional WAN architecture

this model is sensible when traffic contains a given higher layer
Ethernet header is removed at ingress and a new header added at egress
this model is not transparent Ethernet LAN interconnect Ethernet LANs with multiple higher layer packet types (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, IPX, SNA, CLNP, etc.) cant be interconnected raw L2 Ethernet frames can not be sent the Ethernet layer is terminated at WAN ingress the traffic is no longer Ethernet at all
Ethernet WAN not Ethernet
Ethernet
Tunneling Ethernet frames

users with multiple sites want to connect their LANs so that all locations appear to be on the same LAN this requires tunneling of all Ethernet L2 frames (not only IP) between one LAN and another
the entire Ethernet frame needs to be preserved

(except perhaps the FCS which can be regenerated at egress)
Ethernet X
Ethernet
Ethernet inside X
Ethernet over HDLC/FR/ATM/SONET/SDH/PDH
Ethernet frames can be carried over various WANs HDLC: not standardized, Cisco-HDLC FR: RFC2427 / STD0055 (ex 1490) ATM: RFC2684 / (ex 1483), LANE SONET/SDH/PDH: PoS (RFC 2615 ex RFC1619), LAPS (X.85/X.86), GFP (G.7041 )
entire Ethernet frame (or IP packet) is used as payload

Ethernet PW (RFC 4448)

can transport tagged or untagged Ethernet frames
if tagged encapsulation can be raw mode or tagged mode tagged mode processes SP tags
control word is optional

even if control word is used, sequence number if optional standard mode FCS is stripped and regenerated FCS retention mode (not in 4448) allows retaining FCS
Ethernet Pseudowire packet (MPLS)

tunnel label PW label control word Ethernet Frame
Ethernet Frame usually has FCS stripped SP tag may also be stripped
optional control word generation and processing of sequence number is optional

0000 reserved Sequence Number (16b)
Other PWs
What other PW clients are there?
ATM (4 different modes) frame relay
SONET/SDH
HDLC / PPP Fiber channel
X.25
Generic ????
PWE control protocol
PWE (Martini) control protocol

PWE control protocol (RFC 4447) used to set up / configure PWs used only by PW end-points (PEs in standard model) intermediate nodes (e.g. P routers) dont participate or see
P PE P PE P P P
based on LDP
targeted LDP is used to communicate with opposite end-point 2 new FECs for PWs new TLVs added for PW-specific functionality associates two labels with PW
LDP will be discussed later

PWE control
a PW is a bidirectional entity (two LSPs in opposite directions) a PW connects two forwarders 2 different LDP TLVs can be used PWid FEC (128) Generalized ID FEC (129) FEC 128
both end-points of PW must be provisioned with a unique (32b) value each PW end-point independently initiates LSP set up LSPs bound together into a single PW
FEC 129
used when autodiscovering PW end-points each end-point has attachment identifier (AI)
Generalized ID
for each forwarder we have a PE-unique Attachment Identifier (AI) <PE, AI> must be globally unique
frequently useful to group a set of forwarders into a attachment group where PWs may only be set up among members of a group
then Attachment Identifier (AI) consists of Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) (which is basically a VPN-id) Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) the LSPs making up the (two directions of the) PW are < PE1, (AGI, AII1), PE2, (AGI, AII2) > and < PE2, (AGI, AII2), PE1, (AGI, AII1) > we also need to define Source Attachment Identifier (SAI = AGI+SAII) Target Attachment Identifier (TAI = AGI+TAII)
receiving PE can map TAI uniquely to AC
PWE OAM
VCCV
VC (old name for PW) connectivity verification runs inside PW (same PW label) as an associated channel
differentiated by control word format (PWACH RFC 4385)

0001 VER
RES=0
Channel Type (0x21-IPv4 0x57-IPv6)
inside VCCV several different OAM mechanisms may be used: ICMP LSP ping BFD ???
Multisegment PW (MS-PW)
Multiple PSN domains

P P S-PE P P P P P P P P T-PE
T-PE
Single-Segment PW (SS-PW) requires PEs to see each other when multiple PSN domains this may not be the case Terminal-PEs interconnect via stitching-PE PW label becomes a true MPLS label (switching, swapping) when more than one S-PE need to ensure that the 2 LSPs traverse the same one
L2VPNs
VPWS
CE
AC
PE
PE
AC
CE
provider network
Virtual Private Wire Service is a L2 point-to-point service it emulates a wire supporting the Ethernet physical layer set up MPLS tunnel between PEs set up Ethernet PW inside tunnel CEs appear to be connected by a single L2 circuit
(can also make VPWS for ATM, FR, etc.)
VPLS
PE
CE
AC
CE
AC
PE
for clarity only one VPN is shown
PE
AC
CE
VPLS emulates a LAN over an MPLS network set up MPLS tunnel between every pair of PEs (full mesh) set up Ethernet PW inside tunnels, for each VPN instance
CEs appear to be connected by a single LAN

PE must know where to send Ethernet frames but this is what an Ethernet bridge does
VPLS
V B
CE CE
B V
V B
CE
a VPLS-enabled PE has, in addition to its MPLS functions:

VPLS code module (IETF drafts) Bridging module (standard IEEE 802.1D learning bridge)
(inside rectangle)
SP network
looks like a single Ethernet bridge!

Note: if CE is a router, then PE only sees 1 MAC per customer location
VPLS bridge
PE maintains a separate bridging module for each VPN (VPLS instance)
VPLS bridging module must perform: MAC learning MAC aging flooding of unknown MAC frames replication (for unknown/multicast/broadcast frames)
unlike true bridge, Spanning Tree Protocol is not used limited traffic engineering capabilities scalability limitations slow convergence forwarding loops are avoided by split horizon PE never forwards packet from MPLS network to another PE not a limitation since there is a full mesh of PWs so always send directly to the right PE
Bridge - both ways

CE CE CE CE
V B B V
CE CE
V B
CE CE
a packet from a CE: may be sent back to a CE may be sent to a PE via a PW
a packet from a PE: is only sent to a CE (split horizon) is sent to a particular CE based on 802.1D bridging
VPLS code module

VPLS signaling establish PWs between PEs per VPLS VPLS autodiscovery locates PEs participating in VPLS instance
obtain frame from bridge encapsulate Ethernet frames and inject packet into PW
retrieve packet from PW removes PW encapsulation and forward Ethernet frame to bridge
L2VPN vs. L3VPN

PE
CE
CE
PE
?
PE
CE
in L2VPN CEs appear to be connected by single L2 network PEs are transparent to L3 routing protocols CEs are routing peers
in L3VPN CE routers appear to be connected by a single L3 network CE is routing peer of PE, not remote CE PE maintains routing table for each VPN
IPLS (IP-only LAN Service)

mechanisms may be simplified if Ethernet frames carry only IP traffic enables upgrade of IP routers to support VPLS-like services in this case CE devices are routers, not switches
frames are still forwarded based on MAC DA (not L3VPN) but MAC forwarding tables updated via PW signaling, not 802.1D
PE snoops IP and ARP frames to discover CEs connected to it creates (AC,VPN-ID,IP-addr,MAC-addr) entry creates PWs to all PEs participating in VPN-ID sends entries to these PEs Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) messages are proxied rather than being carried transparently PE searches entries it has received
can support different AC types (Ethernet and FR) ARP Mediation ensures proper mapping
LDP vs. BGP
LDP vs. BGP

both use TCP for reliable transport (LDP uses UDP for hellos) both are hard-state protocols both use TLV format for parameters
BGP multiprotocol (IPv4, IPv6, IPX, MPLS) highly complex protocol provides routing / label distribution
LDP MPLS only
simpler protocol
only label distribution extendable for autodiscovery
built-in autodiscovery mechanism
BGP
header (19B) marker (16B) length (2B) type (1B) data (variable)
marker can be used for authentication

type
(TCP MD5 signature)
length is total BGP PDU length, including header
OPEN (for session initialization) UPDATE (add, change and withdraw routes) NOTIFICATION (return error messages, terminate session) KEEPALIVE (heartbeat)
KEEPALIVE packet consists of 19B header only

BGP state machine

idle no session (awaiting session initialization) connect attempting to connect to peer
active started TCP 3-way handshake (router busy)

open sent have sent OPEN message open confirm after receiving TCP SYN for OPEN message
established BGP session up and running
BGP OPEN
version (1B) my AS (2B) hold time (2B) BGP-ID (2B) op len (1B) opt parameters (variable)
version (3 or 4)
my AS identifier of autonomous system hold time max time (sec) between receipt of messages BGP ID senders BGP identifier op len length (bytes) of optional parameters opt parameters - TLVs
BGP UPDATE
WR len withdrawn routes (2B) (var) PA len (2B) path attributes (var) NLRI (var)
Withdrawn Routes list of routes no longer to be used (NLRI format- see below)
Path Attributes route specific information (see next page) Network Layer Reachability Information (classless) routing information len (1B) prefix (variable)
the NLRI is a list of address-prefixes each prefix must be masked from the left to the length specified
BGP UPDATE - Path Attributes

flags (1B) type code (1B)
flags O optional/well-known bit

if 1 must be recognized by all BGP implementations if W=1 and unrecognized attribute, BGP sends notification and session closed
T transitive/nontransitive bit
if 1 and attribute unrecognized it is passed along, else silently ignored well-known attributes are always transitive
C complete/partial bit L attribute length bit type code
(for optional transitive attributes only)
(=0 attribute length is 1B, =1 length is 2B)
ORIGIN, AS_PATH, NEXT_HOP, MED, LOCAL_PREF, AGGREGATOR, COMMUNITY, ORIGINATOR_ID
BGP NOTIFICATON
error code (1B) error subcode (2B) data (var)
all notification messages cause BGP session to close

error codes include:
message header error open message error update message error hold timer expired state machine error other fatal error
LDP
header (10B) version (2B) length (2B) LDP-ID (6B) messages (variable)
version presently 1
length - PDU length, excluding version and length fields LDP-ID identifies label space of sending LDP peer LSR-ID(4B) globally unique LSR ID label space ID (2B) for per-port label spaces (zero for per-platform label spaces) messages zero or more TLVs (see next page)
LDP messages
type (2B) length (2B) message-ID (4B) mandatory parameters (variable) optional parameters (variable)
type U
message code U unknown message bit if message type unknown to receiver U=0 receiver returns notification to sender U=1 receiver silently ignores
length - message length, excluding type and length fields Message-ID unique ID for message (for matching with returned notification)
if there are mandatory parameters, they most appear in a specific order optional parameters may appear in any order
LDP message types

Hello (UDP, for discovery) Initialization (specifies LDP version, label space range, parameters) KeepAlive (heart beat) Notification (error, e.g.unsupported version, unknown/malformed msg, timer expired)
Address (LSR advertises its interface IP address(es) to peers)

Address Withdraw (LSR revokes previously advertised interface IP address) Label Mapping (downstream LSR advertisement of a label mapping for a FEC )
Label Withdraw (downstream LSR informing that binding is revoked)

Label Request (upstream LSR request for binding in downstream-on-demand mode) Label Release (upstream LSR informing that binding no longer needed) Label Abort Request (upstream LSR asks to revoke request before satisfied)
LDP state machine
LSR periodically transmits hello UDP messages multicast to all routers on subnet group targeted to preconfigured IP address
LSRs listen on this UDP port for hello messages
when LSR receives hello from another LSR it opens a TCP connection to that other LSR or (for extended discovery) it unicast transmits a hello back to the other LSR
LSR with higher ID sends session initialization message other LSR LDP accepts (sends keepalive) or rejects informative or keepalive messages sent
3.2
Provisioning VPLS
Provisioning
customers may want their SP to take an active role in managing their networks Provider Provisioned VPN (PPVPN) refers to VPN for which SP participates in management and provisioning
by provisioning we mean (at least) : setting up the ACs (often manual configuration) assigning global VPN-ID to VPN instances discovery of all PEs that participate in a VPN instance associating AC with VPN at PE providing PEs with information needed to set up tunnels configuring tunnels with necessary characteristics
Autodiscovery
we have assumed that each PE knows which PEs participate in particular VPN instance
manual configuration is problematic logistically

autodiscovery refers to automatically finding all PEs in a given VPN
each PE "discovers" other PEs by means of some protocol

BGP RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)

CE = RADIUS users, PEs = Network Access Servers (NAS) PE can authenticate CEs and find other PEs
targeted LDP (Stokes draft, Stein-Delord draft - expired)

advertise FEC in LDP new TLV in label mapping message contains VPN-id, P or PE, capabilities
VPWS Provisioning
Double Sided Provisioning
each AC provisioned with local name, remote PE address, and remote name during signaling, local name is sent as SAII, remote name as TAII (AGI = null) to connect 2 ACs by a PW: local name = remote name(PWid FEC) or local name of each must be remote name of the other
Single Sided Provisioning with Discovery

each AC provisioned with local name (VPN-id) and AII during signaling, local name is sent as AGI to connect 2 ACs by a PW: both must have the same VPN-id only one needs to be provisioned with remote name (local name of other AC) neither needs to be provisioned with the address of the remote PE during auto-discovery procedure: each PE advertises its <VPN-id, local AII> pairs each PE compares its local <VPN-id, remote AII> pairs with <VPN-id, local AII> pairs from other PEs if match then need to connect local name sent as SAII, remote AII sent as TAII, VPN-id as AGI
VPLS Provisioning
every VPLS instance is assigned a unique VPN-id PEs are preconfigured or find each other using auto-discovery if PE detects VPN-id to which it belongs it sets up a PW during signaling VPN-id is send as the AGI field SAII and TAII are set to null
LDP VPLS
ex-Lasserre-VKompella draft, now draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp
authors: Marc Lasserre - Riverstone and Vach Kompella Alcatel
supported by Cisco, Nortel, Alcatel, Riverstone, Extreme, Luminous, Corrigent, Hatteras, Overture, RAD
use LDP for PW setup and tear-down signaling explicit withdrawal of MACs (force relearning) full mesh of targeted LDP sessions between VPLS-enabled PEs automatically establish a full mesh of Ethernet PWs participating PE sends an unsolicited label mapping message to every other PE, specifying VPN-ID (preferably with generalized PWid FEC element)
if receiving PE accepts, it sends a label mapping message back

BGP VPLS
ex-Kompella draft, now draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp
authors: Kireeti Kompella, Yakov Rekhter Juniper
uses BGP4 (with multiprotocol extensions) for:
autodiscovery (uses Route Target extended community as VPN-ID) PW setup and tear-down (uses Network Layer Reachability Information) force MAC relearning (uses Relearn Sequence Number TLV)
protocol essentially identical to RFC2547bis (to be discussed later)
BGP VPLS signaling

define demultiplexor = VPN-ID + ingress PE
VPLS Edge (VE) advertises VPLS NLRIs for each VPLS instance NLRI defines demultiplexors for all PEs in VPLS instance extended attribute encodes PE capabilities if new PE joins VPLS new NLRI seamlessly adds new label coalesce to a single NLRI with temporary service disruption
PE sets up PW when it receives an NLRI for VPLS

to leave VPLS instance PE withdraws NLRI remote PEs remove PWs
Generalizations
Distributed (Generic) VPLS

CE U-PE PE access N-PE network U-PE PE CE CE CE
VPLS
L2VPN framework allows decomposition of PE

User-Facing PE (U-PE) performs Bridge functions

MAC learning, forwarding decisions Network-Facing PE (N-PE) performs VPLS functions establishes tunnels, PWs V B
U-PE is inexpensive CLE, good for MTU applications

Hierarchical VPLS
PE
MTU
VPLS
VPLS
MTU
PE
HVPLS
PE
MTU
VPLS
straight VPLS has a problem N2 PWs are used

which means N2 LDP sessions, and N2 floods and replications
to improve scalability, can use hub-and-spoke topology

if VPLS is in multi-tenant buildings, local PE is MTU HVPLS PEs are full mesh, but do not perform bridging
spoke PW set up between PE and MTU (note end-point is virtual bridge)

L3VPNs
BGP MPLS VPNs (2547bis)

presently most popular provider managed VPN originally specified in RFC 2547, update in draft called RFC 4364 transports IPv4 (IPv6) traffic in MPLS tunnels uses BGP for route distribution since SPs commonly use BGP for routing
2547 is not an overlay model CE routers at different sites are not routing peers they do not directly exchange routing information they dont even need to know of each other so customer neednt manage a backbone or virtual backbone no inter-site routing problems
BGP MPLS VPNs (cont.)

only PE routers maintain VPN information P routers neednt maintain any customer routing information
C routes either manually configured in PE or advertised to PE using BGP, OSPF, etc.

PE advertises routes to remote PEs using BGP remote PEs advertise routes to their CEs using BGP, OSPF, etc. IP address overlap solved using Route Distinguisher (RD)
RFC 4364 (2547bis) architecture

CE not peer to CE
CE peer to PE
C C
C CE PE P P PE
CE is IP router
C CE C
SP label ext label IP Packet
Virtual router (peering) model, not tunneling PE maintains Virtual Route Forwarding table for each VPN
BGP (with multiprotocol extensions) used for label distribution

in order to support private IP addresses PE prepends 8B Route Distinguisher (unique to site) to IP address
L2VPN

vs.

L3VPN
C switch connects to L2 circuits
C router peers with SP router
BGP or LDP
all L3 traffic types only Ethernet L2 Cs responsible for routing overlay model
BGP
limited to IP traffic supports different L2 technologies SP responsible for routing
peer model
simple customer-SP interface
complex customer-SP interface
C peering scales as VPN size

scaling problem
C peering independent of VPN size
scales well

Pwe + VPLS: Yaakov (J) Stein June 2006 Chief Scientist RAD Data Communications

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pwe + VPLS: Yaakov (J) Stein June 2006 Chief Scientist RAD Data Communications

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PWE + VPLS

Interworking VPNs PWs TDM PWs

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 3

interworking function (IWF) gateway (GW)

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 4

Tunneling - provider networks

service providers (SPs) can provide virtual private networks

Basic emulation by tunneling

end to end edge to edge

emulated link provider network edge provider network edge

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 7

direct conversion between 2 native service formats

service interworking function

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 8

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 9

Conventional Ethernet-IP model

modern Ethernet wants to be more

Virtual Private Networks

Example: Transparent LAN Service (TLS)

Basic (L2,L3)VPN model

provider network may be L3 (e.g. IP) or L2 (e.g. Ethernet)

(L2,L3)VPN in more detail

Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS

Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS

WAN L2 hdr IP hdr payload

a VPN model (Ether-IP) uses the following packet formats:

WAN L2 hdr IP hdr Eth hdr IP hdr payload Eth FCS*

MPLS solves IP address problem

PE routers know how to map CE LANs

Pseudowire (PW): A mechanism that emulates the

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 18

PW architecture is an extension of VPN architecture

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 19

Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge

(CE) Customer Edge

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 20

Provider Network Architecture

PE router A tunnel may contain many PWs

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 21

Edge-to-edge emulation and maintenance of PWs

Use RTP when necessary

Realize that emulation will not be perfect

WG will produce the following documents

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 23

Emulated services have QoS and TE requirements

IP provides no standard bundle multiplexing method

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 24

Simple MPLS solution

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 25

transport tunnel PE PE PWs are bidirectional

MPLS (outer) label PW (inner) label payload

P-routers are unaware of individual customer networks

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 26

PWE packet format

optional RTP header optional control word (CW)

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 27

PWE Control Word

Other Standards Bodies

MEF (Metro Ethernet Forum) MEF 8.0.0

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 30

Y(J)S PWE-VPLS Slide 31

TDMoIP Protocol Processing