Internet DRAFT - draft-gu-l2vpn-vpls-analysis
draft-gu-l2vpn-vpls-analysis
Network working group R. Gu
Internet Draft J. Dong
Intended status: Informational M. Chen
Expires: September 2011 Q. Zeng
Huawei Technologies
Z. Liu
China Telecom
March 7, 2011
Analysis of Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Deployment
draft-gu-l2vpn-vpls-analysis-00.txt
Abstract
This document analyses the deployment of typical VPLS network with
existing solutions, and discusses the features of each solution. In
addition, this document indicates that the advantages of the
existing VPLS mechanisms may be integrated to achieve easier and
more efficient VPLS provisioning.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2011.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Deployment of VPLS Network .................................. 3
2.1. Deployment Considerations of LDP based VPLS ............ 4
2.2. Deployment Considerations of BGP based VPLS ............ 5
3. Comparison of Existing VPLS Solutions ....................... 7
4. Security Considerations ..................................... 9
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 9
6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 9
7. References .................................................. 9
7.1. Normative References ................................... 9
Authors' Addresses ............................................ 11
1. Introduction
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN
Service and Virtual Private Switched Network Service, is a Layer 2
Service that emulates LAN service across a Wide Area Network (WAN)
[RFC4664]. The primary motivation behind Virtual Private LAN
Services (VPLS) is to provide connectivity between geographically
dispersed customer sites across the service provider network, as if
they were connected using a LAN.
Recently VPLS has become quite popular, and will be deployed in more
and larger networks. Also, since there has been much progress in
network convergence, whereby multiple kinds of customer services,
such as VPLS and IP VPN [RFC4364] etc., would be carried over a
single, consolidated IP/MPLS network.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
Currently there are some options to deploy VPLS services, and
operators need to choose the most suitable technology according to
their requirement and the work load in network deployment and
operation.
This document analyzes the deployment of typical VPLS network with
existing solutions, and discusses the features of each solution. In
addition, this document indicates that the advantages of the
existing VPLS mechanisms may be integrated to achieve easier and
more efficient VPLS provisioning.
2. Deployment of VPLS Network
This section describes the operation of a VPLS network with existing
solutions. General topology of a VPLS network is shown in Figure 1.
There are N PEs in the network, and V VPLS instances are deployed in
the network.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
VPLS-1
........... VPLS-2
. . .............
. +----+ . . +----+ .
. | CE1| . . | CE3| .
. +----+ . . +----+ .
. \ . . / .
........\.. ..../........
.\......./......................
. \ +----+ SP network . VPLS-1
. \|PE-1| . .............
. +----+ +----+ . . +----+ .
. \ /---|PE-3|--.--.-| CE3| .
. \ / +----+ . . +----+ .
. \ +----+ \ . . .
. \| P | \ . .............
. / +----+ \.
. +----+ / \ ............
. |PE-2|/ .\ . .
. +----+ . \.+----+ .
VPLS-1 ..../...\....................... \| CE2| .
........../ ..\........ .+----+ .
. +----+ /. . \ . ............
. | CE2|/ . . +----+ . VPLS-2
. +----+ . . | CE1| .
. . . +----+ .
. . ...........
........... VPLS-2
Figure 1. General topology of VPLS network
2.1. Deployment Considerations of LDP based VPLS
[RFC4762] describes the control plane of signaling pseudowire labels
for VPLS service using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP).
For LDP signaling, full-mesh targeted LDP sessions need to be
established among VPLS PEs. For a network with N PEs, there would be
N*(N-1) targeted LDP sessions. If N is large, the deployment would
be configuration intensive. Besides, [RFC4762] does not provide
mechanism for membership auto-discovery, by default the identities
of all the remote pseudowire endpoints in each VPLS instance need to
be manually configured on each PE. Thus if a new site or a new PE is
added to one VPLS, configurations of all the other PEs need to be
updated. Besides, in large scale VPLS networks, the overhead of
maintaining full meshed N*(N-1) LDP sessions would be an issue.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
While this could be alleviated by Hierarchical VPLS (H-VPLS), the
expense is additional complexity in provisioning and operation.
When using LDP based mechanism to deploy a VPLS network, one unique
VPLS Identifier needs to be assigned for each VPLS instance.
Section 3.2.2 of [RFC6074] specifies BGP based Auto-Discovery (BGP-
AD) mechanism for VPLS service. This mechanism can be combinely used
with LDP based VPLS signaling, which would reduce the overhead of PW
endpoint configuration, and even the establishment of targeted LDP
sessions may be automatically triggered by BGP auto-discovery.
However, when BGP-AD is used with LDP signaling, in addition to BGP
sessions established for membership auto-discovery, it is still
required to set up fully meshed targeted LDP sessions for pseudowire
signaling, regardless of whether the LDP sessions are manually
configured or automatically established. Thus in this case operators
need to deploy and maintain both BGP and targeted LDP to offer VPLS
services. And the signaling overhead in this case would be higher
than both LDP signaling without BGP-AD and BGP based VPLS in
[RFC4761].
Using LDP based VPLS signaling, the pseudowire labels are allocated
"on-demand" for each remote endpoints in each VPLS instance, thus
label resources are utilized efficiently.
MAC Address Withdrawal mechanism is defined in LDP based VPLS to
expedite removal of MAC addresses in some topology changes. And
status information of the pseudowires can be exchanged using
mechanism in [RFC4447]. These features could make operation and
maintenance of VPLS more efficient and convenient.
2.2. Deployment Considerations of BGP based VPLS
[RFC4761] describes the BGP based auto-discovery and signaling
mechanism for VPLS.
BGP based VPLS mechanism combines VPLS membership auto-discovery and
signaling into a single BGP Update message, which achieves quite low
signaling overhead and allows operational convergence with IP VPN.
The control plane of BGP based VPLS could inherit the scalability
mechanism from BGP, thus full meshed signaling sessions among VPLS
PEs can be avoided by deploying route reflectors [RFC4456]. Each PE
can just establish one BGP session with route reflector.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
To deploy a BGP based VPLS service, operator needs to assign a
unique VE-ID for each PE in given VPLS instance. As VE-IDs cannot be
generated automatically and requires coordination among all the PEs
in the same VPLS, this may introduce management burden to operators,
especially in multi-area and multi-AS scenarios. Similar to IP VPN,
Route Targets are used to identify different VPLS instances.
The pseudowire discriminators are advertised in form of label blocks.
Although this avoids the control plane load of sending individual
label signaling messages to each remote PE, the use of label block
is based on idea of "allocate in advance" and "over-provisioning"
and in many cases the allocation of label resources may be not quite
efficient compared with "on-demand" label allocation for each
discovered remote endpoint. Besides, the size of label block
allocated could be impacted by VE-IDs of remote PEs, which makes the
management more complicated, and exposes a potential security issue.
An example of VE-ID assignment and label block allocation is
described as below:
For ease of VE-ID management and future network expansion, operator
may assign a set of blocks of VE-ID for different regions of the
network, as shown in Figure 2, VE-ID 1-100 are assigned to region 1,
and VE-ID 101-200 are assigned to region 2. According to the
mechanism in [RFC4761], in order to establish VPLS pseudowire with a
PE in region 2, say the VE-ID is 102, PE1 needs to allocate a label
block with the size of at least 102, even if in the beginning only
less than 10 PEs are deployed in each region. If the number of VPLS
instances V in the network is large, the amount of labels wasted
altogether may not be neglectable.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
....................................................
. VPLS Backbone .
. .
. ....................... ....................... .
. . Region 1 . . Region 2 +----+ . .
. . +----+ . . | PE | . .
. . | PE1|\ . . /+----+ . .
. . +----+ \ +----+ . . +----+ / . .
. . \| RR |--.--.--| RR |/ +----+ . .
. . /+----+ . . +----+----| PE | . .
. . +----+ / | . . \ +----+ . .
. . | PE2|/ | . . \ ... . .
. . +----+ | . . +----+ . .
. . ... +----+ . . | PE | . .
. . | PEn| . . +----+ . .
. . VE-ID:1-100 +----+ . . VE-ID:101-200 . .
. ....................... ....................... .
. .
. .
....................................................
Figure 2. An Example of VE-ID Assignment
Currently BGP based VPLS does not provide mechanisms of MAC address
withdrawal and pseudowire status notification.
3. Comparison of Existing VPLS Solutions
As analyzed in section 2, both LDP based and BGP based VPLS
solutions have some advantages and disadvantages. These are
summarized in Table 1.
VPLS service provisioning consists of membership discovery and
pseudowire signaling. VPLS membership can be either manually
configured, or auto-discovered through BGP auto-discovery mechanism.
According to Table 1, it is obvious that BGP-AD is an important
feature which significantly reduces the overhead of manual
provisioning in LDP based VPLS, with the expense of coexistence of
two control plane protocols and additional signaling sessions and
messages. BGP based VPLS combines auto-discovery and signaling into
a single Update message at the cost of potential waste of label
resources.
While VPLS provides multipoint service, the underlying
infrastructure is full-mesh point-to-point pseudowires. Thus the on-
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
demand label allocation mechanism in LDP signaling could provide
better efficiency in label resource utilization.
Regarding the control plane scalability, the big challenge with LDP
VPLS is maintenance of full-mesh targeted LDP sessions, while in BGP
VPLS this problem can be easily solved with route reflection.
Some service providers may have already deployed IP VPN service in
their networks which uses BGP as signaling protocol, and plan to
provide VPLS service in the same network, in this case they may
prefer to deploy VPLS using the same technology as IP VPN to
simplify service provisioning and network operation.
VPLS Solution| Advantages | Disadvantages
-------------|------------------------------|--------------------------
LDP VPLS |1.on-demand label allocation |1.manual provisioning
without |2.MAC withdrawal and PW status|2.full mesh T-LDP session
BGP-AD | notification mechanism |3. non-convergence with
| | IP VPN operation
-------------|------------------------------|--------------------------
BGP VPLS |1.convergence with IP VPN |1.VE-ID management
|2.membership auto-discovery |2.waste of label resource
|3.scalability with use of RR |3.lack of MAC withdrawal
|4.minimal signaling overhead |and PW status notification
-------------|------------------------------|--------------------------
LDP VPLS |1.membership auto-discovery |1.overhead of two control
with |2.on-demand label allocation | plane protocols
BGP-AD |3.MAC withdrawal and PW status|2.full mesh T-LDP session
| notification mechanism |
| |
Table 1. Comparison of existing VPLS solutions
To simply VPLS service provisioning, BGP based auto-discovery would
becomes a mandatory feature. The concerns about LDP based VPLS with
BGP-AD may be the scalability issue and burden of full-mesh targeted
LDP sessions. While control plane of BGP based VPLS is more scalable
and achieves convergence with IP VPN, inefficiency in label resource
utilization and complexity in VE-ID management may influence
operators' choice.
Actually there may be one solution which integrates the advantages
and avoid those disadvantages:
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
a. BGP-AD in [RFC6074] is used for membership auto-discovery.
b. After auto-discovery of members in each VPLS, instead of
establishing targeted LDP sessions, the BGP sessions which are
already established for BGP-AD can be re-used to execute signaling
functions in a similar way to LDP VPLS, i.e. using BGP to perform
on-demand pseudowire label allocation, MAC address withdrawal and
pseudowire status notification.
In this way, the VPLS provisioning could be simplified by BGP-AD,
and there would be no need of setting up any targeted LDP session in
the VPLS network. Label resource could be allocated efficiently and
the complexity of VE-ID management would be avoided. BGP is the only
control plane protocol and the operation convergence with IP VPN can
be achieved. Detailed specification about extensions for this
solution would be described in a separate document and is outside
the scope of this document.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not change the security properties of VPLS.
5. IANA Considerations
There is no IANA action required by this draft.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank ... for their valuable suggestions
and comments to this document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection:
An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456,
April 2006.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
RFC4761, January 2007.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
RFC4762, January 2007.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Luo, W., Davie, B. and V. Radoaca,
''Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs'',
RFC6074, January 2011.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April
2006.
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft VPLS Analysis March 2011
Authors' Addresses
Rui Gu
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: gurui@huawei.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Qing Zeng
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: zengqing@huawei.com
Zhihua Liu
China Telecom
109 Zhongshan Ave., Guangzhou
510630, China
Email: zhliu@gsta.com
Gu, et al. Expires September 7, 2011 [Page 11]
