Internet DRAFT - draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements
PPVPN Working Group Waldemar Augustyn
Internet Draft
Document: draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt Giles Heron
Category: Informational PacketExchange Ltd
February 2002 Vach Kompella
Expires: August 2002 TiMetra Networks
Marc Lasserre
Riverstone Networks
Pascal Menezes
Terabeam
Hamid Ould-Brahim
Nortel Networks
Tissa Senevirathne
Force10 Networks
Requirements for Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLS)
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
For potential updates to the above required-text see:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
Augustyn, et. al. Expires August 2002 1
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
1 Abstract
This draft describes service requirements related to emulating a
virtual private LAN segment over an IP or MPLS network
infrastructure. The service is called VPLS. It is a class of
Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network [2].
2 Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [3].
3 Definitions
3.1 VPLS
A Virtual Private LAN Service or, when referring to a virtual LAN
segment offered by that service, a Virtual Private LAN Segment.
A VPLS service allows the connection of multiple sites in a single
bridged domain over a provider managed IP or MPLS network. All
customer sites in the VPLS appear to be on the same LAN regardless
of their location.
3.2 VPLS System
A collection of communication equipment, related protocols, and
configuration elements that implements VPLS Services.
3.3 VPLS Domain
A Layer 2 VPN that is composed of a community of interest of L2 MAC
addresses and VLANs. Each VPLS Domain MAY have multiple VLANs in it.
3.4 VLAN
A customer VLAN identification using some scheme such as IEEE 802.1Q
tags, port configuration or any other means. A VPLS service can be
extended to recognize customer VLANs as specified in 6.1 .
3.5 VLAN Flooding Scope (VLAN Broadcast Domain)
The scope of flooding for a given VLAN.
In a VPLS service, a VLAN flooding scope MUST be identical to the
flooding scope of the VPLS it is part of. If a VPLS service is
extended to recognize customer VLANs, the VLAN flooding scope SHOULD
be limited to the broadcast domain of each recognized VLAN.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 2
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
3.6 VFI
Virtual Forwarding Instance.
A virtual layer 2 forwarding entity that is closed to a VPLS Domain
membership. VFI forwarding is based on MAC addresses, VLAN tags,
policies, topologies, filters, QoS parameters, and other relevant
information on a per VPLS basis.
4 Introduction
Traditionally, the typical connectivity between a service provider
and a customer is a WAN link with some type of a point-to-point
protocol. This arrangement was borne out of the necessity to
traverse TDM circuits originally designed for voice traffic. The
introduction of WAN links to network architectures significantly
increased the complexity of network topologies and required highly
skilled personnel to manage and maintain the network.
One solution to the above has been for service providers to deploy
emulated LAN services known in this context as "Transparent LAN"
services, or TLS. These have typically been offered using a mesh of
ATM PVCs between locations. While this technique reduced complexity
for the customer, it proved inadequate in the area of scaling and
ease of management on the provider side.
The aim of this effort is to develop a Virtual Private LAN Service,
VPLS, that scales well, is simple to manage, and is based on the
existing MPLS or IP backbone.
VPLS emulates a flat LAN segment with learning and switching
capabilities. In a given LAN segment, there is a reasonably small
set of MAC devices with a limited number of MAC addresses to learn
and manage. There is no need for additional routing protocol support
between the CE and the PE devices. In the VPLS model, the service
is transparent to the customer's choice of routing protocol.
Moreover, VPLS services also benefit from being transparent to
higher layer protocols, so the same technology can transport, for
example, IPv4, IPv6, MPLS as well as legacy protocols such as IPX
and OSI.
The VPLS model, while offering significant benefits for both
customers and service providers, retains all the quintessential
characteristics of L2 networks including their well known
limitations such as the maximum practical number of hosts on a
single segment and the inability to assign different metrics for
connectivity between different hosts on the same segment. A likely
application of this model is to connect a few sites with only a
single customer router at each site, or a small number of customer
hosts, at each site, connected via the VPLS.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 3
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
The scope of this document will be limited to supporting Ethernet as
the access framing technology for VPLS implementation.
5 VPLS Reference Model
The following diagram shows a VPLS reference model where PE devices
that are VPLS-capable provide a logical interconnect such that CE
devices belonging to a specific VPLS appear to be connected by a
single logical Ethernet bridge. A VPLS can contain a single VLAN or
multiple, tagged VLANs.
+-----+ +-----+
+ CE1 +--+ +---| CE2 |
+-----+ | ........................ | +-----+
VPLS A | +----+ +----+ | VPLS A
+--| PE |--- Service ---| PE |--+
+----+ Provider +----+
/ . Backbone . \ - /\-_
+-----+ / . | . \ / \ / \ +-----+
+ CE +--+ . | . +--\ Access \----| CE |
+-----+ . +----+ . | Network | +-----+
VPLS B .........| PE |......... \ / VPLS B
+----+ ^ -------
| |
| |
+-----+ |
| CE3 | +-- Logical bridge
+-----+
VPLS A
Separate L2 broadcast domains are maintained on a per VPLS basis by
PE devices. Such domains are then mapped onto tunnels in the service
provider network. These tunnels can either be specific to a VPLS
(e.g. as with IP) or shared among several VPLSs (e.g. as with MPLS
tunnel LSPs). In the above diagram, the top PE routers maintain
separate forwarding instances for VPLS A and VPLS B.
The CE-to-PE links can either be direct physical links, e.g.
100BaseTX, or logical links, e.g. ATM PVC, T1/E1 TDM, or RFC1490-
encapsulated link, over which bridged Ethernet traffic is carried.
The PE-to-PE links carry tunneled Ethernet frames using different
tunneling technologies (e.g., GRE, IPSec, MPLS.).
Each PE device learns remote MAC addresses, and is responsible for
proper forwarding of the customer traffic to the appropriate end
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 4
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
nodes. It is responsible for guaranteeing each VPLS topology is loop
free.
6 VPLS General Requirements
6.1 Layer 2 Domain representation and VLAN allocation
A VPLS system MUST distinguish different customer domains. Each of
these customer domains MUST appear as a L2 broadcast domain network
behaving like a LAN (Local Area Network). These domains are referred
to as VPLS domains.
A VPLS Domain MAY span multiple service providers. Each VPLS domain
MUST carry a unique identification within a VPLS system. It is
RECOMMENDED that VPLS identification be globally unique.
Each VPLS Domain MUST be capable of learning and forwarding based on
MAC addresses thus emulating an Ethernet virtual switch to the
customer CE devices attached to PEs.
A VPLS system MAY recognize customer VLAN identification. In that
case, a VLAN MUST be recognized in the context of the VPLS it is
part of. If customer VLANs are recognized, separate VLAN broadcast
domains SHOULD be maintained.
A provider's implementation of a VPLS system SHOULD not constrain
the customer's ability to configure VLAN topologies, tags, 802.1 p-
bits, or any other Layer 2 parameters.
6.2 VPLS Topology
The VPLS system MAY be realized using one or more network tunnel
topologies to interconnect PEs, ranging from simple point-to-point
to distributed hierarchical arrangements. The typical topologies
include:
o point-to-point
o point-to-multipoint, a.k.a. hub and spoke
o any-to-any, a.k.a. full mesh
o mixed, a.k.a. partial mesh
o hierarchical
Regardless of the topology employed, the service to the customers
MUST retain the typical LAN any-to-any connectivity. This
requirement does not imply that all traffic characteristics (such as
bandwidth, QoS, delay, etc.) be necessarily the same between any two
end points.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 5
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
6.3 Redundancy and Failure Recovery
The VPLS infrastructure SHOULD provide redundant paths to assure
high availability. The reaction to failures SHOULD result in an
attempt to restore the service using alternative paths.
The intention is to keep the restoration time small. It is
RECOMMENDED that the restoration time be less than the time it
takes the CE devices to detect a failure in the VPLS.
In cases where the provider knows a priori about impending changes
in network topology, the network SHOULD have the capability to
reconfigure without a loss, duplication, or re-ordering of customer
packets. This situation typically arises with planned network
upgrades, or scheduled maintenance activities.
6.4 Policy Constraints
A VPLS system MAY employ policy constraints governing various
interconnection attributes for VPLS domains. Typical attributes
include:
o Selection of available network infrastructure
o QoS services needed
o Protection services needed
o Availability of higher level service access points (see 9.11 )
Policy attributes SHOULD be advertised via the VPLS system's control
plane.
6.5 PE nodes
The PE nodes are the devices in the VPLS system that store
information related to customer VPLS domains and employ methods to
forward customer traffic based on that information. In this
document, the PE nodes are meant in logical sense. In the actual
implementations, the PE nodes may be comprised of several physical
devices. Conversely, a single physical device may contain more than
one PE node.
All forwarding decisions related to customer VPLS traffic MUST be
made by PE nodes. This requirement prohibits any other network
components from altering decisions made by PE nodes.
6.6 PE-PE Interconnection and Tunneling
A VPLS system MUST provide for connectivity between each pair of PE
nodes. The connectivity is referred to as transport tunneling or
simply tunneling.
There are several choices for implementing transport tunnels. Some
popular choices include MPLS, IP in IP tunnels, variations of
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 6
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
802.1Q, etc. Regardless of the choice, the existence of the tunnels
and their operations MUST be transparent to the customers.
6.7 PE-CE Interconnection and Profiles
A VPLS system MUST provide for connectivity between PE nodes and CE
nodes. That connectivity is referred to as CE access connection,
access connection, or simply access. Access connections MAY span
networks of other providers or public networks.
There are several choices for implementing access. Some popular
choices include Ethernet, ATM (DSL), Frame Relay, MPLS-based virtual
circuits etc. Regardless of the choice, the access connection MUST
use Ethernet frames as the Service Protocol Data Unit (SPDU).
A CE access connection MUST be bi-directional in nature.
PE devices MAY support multiple CE access connections on a single
physical interface. In such cases, PE devices MUST NOT rely on
customer controlled parameters, such as VLAN tags etc., for
distinguishing between different access connections.
A CE access connection, whether direct or virtual, MUST maintain all
committed characteristics of the customer traffic, such as QoS,
priorities etc.
The characteristics of a CE access connection are only applicable to
that connection.
7 Control Plane Requirements
7.1 Provider Edge Signaling
The control protocols SHOULD provide methods for signaling between
PEs. The signaling SHOULD inform of membership, tunneling
information, and other relevant parameters.
The infrastructure MAY employ manual configuration methods to
provide this type of information.
The infrastructure SHOULD use policies to scope the membership and
reachability advertisements for a particular VPLS.
7.2 VPLS Membership Discovery
The control protocols SHOULD provide methods to discover the PEs
which connect CEs that form a VPLS.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 7
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
7.3 Support for Layer 2 control protocols
A VPLS system MUST ensure that loops are prevented. This can be
accomplished through a use of control protocols such as Spanning
Tree or similar, or through other means such as full mesh topologies
and appropriate forwarding rules.
The VPLS system's control protocols SHOULD allow transparent
operation of Layer 2 control protocols employed by customers.
A VPLS system's control protocols MAY use indications from customer
STP to improve the operation of a VPLS.
7.4 Scaling Requirements
Control plane traffic will increase correspondingly, as a VPLS
scales in membership. The rate of growth of control plane traffic
SHOULD be linear.
Control plane traffic will increase correspondingly, as the number
of supported VPLS segments increases. The rate of growth of control
plane traffic SHOULD be linear.
The use of control plane resources will increase correspondingly, as
the number of hosts connected to a VPLS increases. The rate of
growth of the demand for control process resources SHOULD be linear.
The control plane MAY offer means for enforcing a limit on the
number of customer hosts attached to a VPLS.
8 Data Plane Requirements
8.1 Transparency
VPLS service is intended to be transparent to Layer 2 customer
networks. It MUST NOT require any special packet processing by the
end users before sending packets to the provider's network.
8.2 Broadcast Domain
The Broadcast Domain is defined as the flooding scope of a Layer 2
network. In a VPLS system, a separate Broadcast Domain MUST be
maintained for each VPLS.
In addition to VPLS Broadcast Domains, a VPLS system MAY recognize
customer VLAN Broadcast Domains. In that case, the system SHOULD
maintain a separate VLAN Broadcast Domain for each customer VLAN. A
VLAN Broadcast Domain MUST be a subset of the owning VPLS Broadcast
Domain.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 8
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
8.3 Layer 2 Virtual Forwarding Instance
VPLS Provider Edge devices MUST maintain a separate Virtual
Forwarding Instance (VFI) per VPLS. Each VFI MUST have capabilities
to forward traffic based on customer's traffic parameters such as
MAC addresses, VLAN tags (if supported), etc. as well as local
policies.
Each VFI MUST have flooding capabilities for its Broadcast Domain to
facilitate proper forwarding of Broadcast, Multicast and Unknown
Unicast customer traffic.
VPLS Provider Edge devices MUST have capabilities to classify
incoming customer traffic into the appropriate VFI.
8.4 MAC address learning
A VPLS service SHOULD derive all topology and forwarding information
from packets originating at customer sites. Typically, MAC
addresses learning mechanisms are used for this purpose.
In a VPLS system, MAC address learning MUST take place on a per
Virtual Forwarding Instance (VFI) basis, i.e. in the context of a
VPLS and, if supported, in the context of VLANs therein.
8.5 Unicast, Unknown Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast forwarding
VPLS MUST be aware of the existence and the designated roles of
special MAC addresses such as Multicast and Broadcast addresses.
VPLS MUST forward these packets according to their intended
functional meaning and scope.
Broadcast packets MUST be flooded to all destinations.
Multicast packets MUST be flooded to all destinations. However, a
VPLS system MAY employ multicast snooping techniques, in which case
multicast packets SHOULD be forwarded only to their intended
destinations.
Unicast packets MUST be forwarded to their intended destinations.
Unknown Unicast packets MUST be flooded to all destinations in the
flooding scope of the VPLS (or VLAN). If the VPLS service relies on
MAC learning for its operations, it MUST assure proper forwarding of
packets with MAC addresses that have not been learned. Once
destination MAC addresses are learned, unicast packets SHOULD be
forwarded only to their intended destinations.
A provider MAY employ a method to limit the scope of flooding of
Unknown Unicast packets in cases where a customer desires to
conserve its bandwidth or wants to implement certain security
policies.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 9
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
8.6 Multilink Access
The VPLS service SHOULD support multilink access for CE devices.
The VPLS service MAY support multihome access for CE devices.
8.7 Minimum MTU
The service MUST support customer frames with payload 1500 bytes
long. The service MAY offer support for longer frames.
The service MUST NOT fragment packets. Packets exceeding committed
MTU size MUST be discarded.
The committed minimum MTU size MUST be the same for a given VPLS. If
VLANs are supported, all VLANs within a given VPLS MUST inherit the
same MTU size. Different VPLS segments MAY have different committed
MTU sizes.
8.8 QoS and packet re-ordering
A VPLS system SHOULD have capabilities to enforce QoS parameters.
The queuing and forwarding policies SHOULD preserve packet order for
packets with the same QoS parameters.
The service SHOULD not duplicate packets.
8.9 Support for MAC Services
VPLS are REQUIRED to provide MAC service compliant with IEEE 802.1D
specification [6] Section 6. Compliance with this section
facilitates proper operation of 802.1 LAN and seamless integration
of VPLS with bridged Local Area Networks.
A MAC service in the context of VPLS is defined as the transfer of
user data between source and destination end stations via the
service access points using the information specified in the VFI.
1. A PE device that provides VPLS MUST NOT be directly accessed by
end stations except for explicit management purposes.
2. All MAC addresses MUST be unique within a given broadcast domain.
3. The topology and configuration of the VPLS MUST NOT restrict the
MAC addresses of end stations
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 10
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
9 Management and Operations Requirements
9.1 The VPLS system MUST have capabilities to manage and monitor its
different components.
9.2 VPLS System Instantiation
It SHOULD be possible to create several disjoint instances of VPLS
systems within the same underlying network infrastructures.
9.3 Monitoring
The infrastructure SHOULD monitor all characteristics of the service
that are reflected in the customer SLA. This includes but is not
limited to bandwidth usage, packet counts, packet drops, service
outages, etc.
9.4 VPLS membership
The amount of configuration changes when adding or deleting customer
ports to, or from, a given VPLS SHOULD be minimal. The configuration
changes of a port to or from a given VPLS SHOULD involve only
configuration on the device that this port is connected to.
9.5 End-point VLAN tag translation
If VLANs are recognized, the infrastructure MAY support translation
of customers' VLAN tags. Such service simplifies connectivity of
sites that want to keep their tag assignments or sites that belong
to different administrative entities. In the latter case, the
connectivity is sometimes referred to as L2 extranet.
9.6 MAC Address Limiting
The VPLS infrastructure MUST be able to limit the number of MAC
addresses learned from the customers.
9.7 CE Provisioning
The VPLS MUST require only minimal or no configuration on the CE
devices, depending on the CE device that connects into the
infrastructure.
9.8 Customer traffic policing
The VPLS service SHOULD provide the ability to police and/or shape
customer traffic entering and leaving the VPLS system.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 11
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
9.9 Dynamic Service Signaling
A Provider MAY offer to Customers an in-band method for selecting
services from the list specified in the SLA. A Provider MAY use the
same mechanism for reporting statistical data related to the
service.
9.10 Class of Service Model
The VPLS service MAY define a graded selection of classes of
traffic. These include, but are not limited to
o range of priorities
o best effort vs. guaranteed effort
o range of minimum delay characteristics
9.11 L3, and higher, service access point.
The VPLS service SHOULD allow for a Provider based Service Access
Point for orderly injection of L3 or higher services to the
customers' VPLS segments.
As a value added service, a Provider MAY offer access to other
services such as, IP gateways, storage networks, content delivery
etc..
9.12 Testing
The VPLS service SHOULD provide the ability to test and verify
operational and maintenance activities on a per VLAN basis.
10 Security Requirements
10.1 Traffic separation
VPLS system MUST provide traffic separation between different VPLS
domains as well as between customer VLANs within each VPLS domain if
VLANs are supported.
10.2 Provider network protection.
The VPLS system MUST be immune to malformed or maliciously
constructed customer traffic. This includes but is not limited to
duplicate or invalid MAC addresses, short/long packets, spoofed
management packets, spoofed VLAN tags, high volume traffic, etc.
Additionally, VPLS system MUST be immune to misconfigured or
maliciously set up customer network topologies. These include
customer side loops, backdoor links between sites, etc.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 12
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
The VPLS infrastructure devices MUST NOT be accessible from the
VPLS.
10.3 Value added security services
Value added security services such as encryption and/or
authentication of customer packets, certificate management, and
similar are OPTIONAL.
Security measures employed by the VPLS system SHOULD NOT restrict
implementation of customer based security add-ons.
11 References
1. Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
2. Carugi, et al., "Service requirements for Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Networks ", Work in progress, December 2001.
3. Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
4. ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D 1998 Edition, "Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridges", 1998.
5. IEEE Standard 802.1Q, "IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan
Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", 1998.
6. IEEE Standard 802.1u-2001, "IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks -
Amendment 1: Technical and editorial corrections", 2001.
7. IEEE Standard 802.1v-2001, "IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks -
Amendment 2: VLAN Classification by Protocol and Port", 2001.
12 Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge extensive comments provided by Loa
Anderson, Joel Halpern, and Eric Rosen. The authors, also, wish to
extend appreciations to their respective employers and various other
people who volunteered to review this work and provided feedback.
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 13
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
13 Authors' Addresses
Waldemar Augustyn
Email: waldemar@nxp.com
Giles Heron
PacketExchange Ltd.
The Truman Brewery
91 Brick Lane
London E1 6QL
United Kingdom
Email: giles@packetexchange.net
Vach Kompella
TiMetra Networks
274 Ferguson Dr.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: vkompella@timetra.com
Marc Lasserre
Riverstone Networks
5200 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 408-878-6500
Email: marc@riverstonenet.com
Pascal Menezes
Terabeam
Phone: 206-686-2001
Email: pascal.menezes@terabeam.com
Hamid Ould-Brahim
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511 Station C
Ottawa ON K1Y 4H7
Canada
Phone: 613-765-3418
Email: hbrahim@nortelnetworks.com
Tissa Senevirathne
Force10 Networks
1440 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone: 408-965-5103
Email: tsenevir@hotmail.com
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 14
draft-augustyn-vpls-requirements-02.txt February 2002
Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Augustyn, et al. Expires August 2002 15
