Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 8077

Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)

Pages: 35
Internet Standard: 84
Errata
Obsoletes:  44476723
Part 2 of 2 – Pages 17 to 35
First   Prev   None

Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 17   prevText

6.3. Signaling of Pseudowire Status

6.3.1. Use of Label Mapping Messages

The PEs MUST send Label Mapping messages to their peers as soon as the PW is configured and administratively enabled, regardless of the Attachment Circuit state. The PW label should not be withdrawn unless the operator administratively configures the pseudowire down (or the PW configuration is deleted entirely). Using the procedures outlined in this section, a simple label withdraw method MAY also be supported as a legacy means of signaling PW status and AC status. In any case, if the label-to-PW binding is not available, the PW MUST be considered in the down state. Once the PW status negotiation procedures are completed, if they result in the use of the label withdraw method for PW status communication, and this method is not supported by one of the PEs, then that PE must send a Label Release message to its peer with the following error: "Label Withdraw PW Status Method Not Supported" If the label withdraw method for PW status communication is selected for the PW, it will result in the Label Mapping message being advertised only if the Attachment Circuit is active. The PW status signaling procedures described in this section MUST be fully implemented.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 18

6.3.2. Signaling PW Status

The PE devices use an LDP TLV to indicate status to their remote peers. This PW Status TLV contains more information than the alternative simple Label Withdraw message. The format of the PW Status TLV is: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1|0| PW Status (0x096A) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Status Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The status code is a 4-octet bit field as specified in "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)" [RFC4446]. The Length field specifies the length of the Status Code field in octets (equal to 4). Each bit in the Status Code field can be set individually to indicate more than a single failure at once. Each fault can be cleared by sending an appropriate Notification message in which the respective bit is cleared. The presence of the lowest bit (PW Not Forwarding) acts only as a generic failure indication when there is a link-down event for which none of the other bits apply. The Status TLV is transported to the remote PW peer via the LDP Notification message as described in [RFC5036]. The format of the Notification message for carrying the PW Status is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| Notification (0x0001) | Message Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Status (TLV) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW Status TLV | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PWid FEC TLV or Generalized ID FEC TLV | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW Group ID TLV (Optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 19
   The Status TLV status code is set to 0x00000028, "PW status", to
   indicate that PW status follows.  Since this notification does not
   refer to any particular message, the Message ID field is set to 0.

   The PW FEC TLV SHOULD NOT include the Interface Parameter Sub-TLVs,
   as they are ignored in the context of this message.  However, the PW
   FEC TLV MUST include the C-bit, where applicable, as it is part of
   the FEC.  When a PE's Attachment Circuit encounters an error, use of
   the PW Notification message allows the PE to send a single "wildcard"
   status message, using a PW FEC TLV with only the Group ID set, to
   denote this change in status for all affected PW connections.  This
   status message contains either the PW FEC TLV with only the Group ID
   set, or else it contains the Generalized FEC TLV with only the PW
   Group ID TLV.

   As mentioned above, the Group ID field of the PWid FEC Element, or
   the PW Group ID TLV used with the Generalized PWid FEC Element, can
   be used to send a status notification for all arbitrary sets of PWs.
   This procedure is OPTIONAL, and if it is implemented, the LDP
   Notification message should be as follows: If the PWid FEC Element is
   used, the PW information length field is set to 0, the PW ID field is
   not present, and the Interface Parameter Sub-TLVs are not present.
   If the Generalized FEC Element is used, the AGI, SAII, and TAII are
   not present, the PW information length field is set to 0, the PW
   Group ID TLV is included, and the PW Interface Parameters TLV is
   omitted.  For the purpose of this document, this is called the
   "wildcard PW status notification procedure", and all PEs implementing
   this design are REQUIRED to accept such a Notification message but
   are not required to send it.

6.3.3. Pseudowire Status Negotiation Procedures

When a PW is first set up, the PEs MUST attempt to negotiate the usage of the PW Status TLV. This is accomplished as follows: A PE that supports the PW Status TLV MUST include it in the initial Label Mapping message following the PW FEC and the Interface Parameter Sub- TLVs. The PW Status TLV will then be used for the lifetime of the pseudowire. This is shown in the following diagram:
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 20
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                 PWid FEC or Generalized PWid FEC              +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Interface Parameters                    |
    |                              "                                |
    |                              "                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |0|0| Generic Label (0x0200)    |      Length                   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Label                                                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |1|0|     PW Status (0x096A)    |            Length             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Status Code                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   If a PW Status TLV is included in the initial Label Mapping message
   for a PW, then if the Label Mapping message from the remote PE for
   that PW does not include a PW Status TLV, or if the remote PE does
   not support the PW Status TLV, the PW will revert to the label
   withdraw method of signaling PW status.  Note that if the PW Status
   TLV is not supported by the remote peer, the peer will automatically
   ignore it, since the I (ignore) bit is set in the TLV.  The PW Status
   TLV, therefore, will not be present in the corresponding FEC
   advertisement from the remote LDP peer, which results in exactly the
   above behavior.

   If the PW Status TLV is not present following the FEC TLV in the
   initial PW Label Mapping message received by a PE, then the PW Status
   TLV will not be used, and both PEs supporting the pseudowire will
   revert to the label withdraw procedure for signaling status changes.

   If the negotiation process results in the usage of the PW Status TLV,
   then the actual PW status is determined by the PW Status TLV that was
   sent within the initial PW Label Mapping message.  Subsequent updates
   of PW status are conveyed through the Notification message.

6.4. Interface Parameter Sub-TLV

This field specifies interface-specific parameters. When applicable, it MUST be used to validate that the PEs and the ingress and egress ports at the edges of the circuit have the necessary capabilities to interoperate with each other. The field structure is defined as follows:
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 21
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Sub-TLV Type  |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Variable Length Value                 |
    |                             "                                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Length field is defined as the length of the interface parameter
   including the Sub-TLV Type and Length field itself.  Processing of
   the interface parameters should continue when unknown interface
   parameters are encountered, and they MUST be silently ignored.

   The Interface Parameter Sub-TLV Type values are specified in "IANA
   Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)" [RFC4446].

   -  Interface MTU sub-TLV type

      A 2-octet value indicating the MTU in octets.  This is the Maximum
      Transmission Unit, excluding encapsulation overhead, of the egress
      packet interface that will be transmitting the decapsulated PDU
      that is received from the MPLS-enabled network.  This parameter is
      applicable only to PWs transporting packets and is REQUIRED for
      these PW types.  If this parameter does not match in both
      directions of a specific PW, that PW MUST NOT be enabled.

   -  Optional Interface Description string sub-TLV type

      This arbitrary, and OPTIONAL, interface description string is used
      to send a human-readable administrative string describing the
      interface to the remote PE.  This parameter is OPTIONAL and is
      applicable to all PW types.  The interface description parameter
      string length is variable and can be from 0 to 80 octets.  Human-
      readable text MUST be provided in the UTF-8 charset using the
      Default Language [RFC2277].

6.5. LDP Label Withdrawal Procedures

As mentioned above, the Group ID field of the PWid FEC Element, or the PW Group ID TLV used with the Generalized PWid FEC Element, can be used to withdraw all PW labels associated with a particular PW group. This procedure is OPTIONAL, and if it is implemented, the LDP Label Withdraw message should be as follows: If the PWid FEC Element is used, the PW information length field is set to 0, the PW ID field is not present, the Interface Parameter Sub-TLVs are not present, and the Label TLV is not present. If the Generalized FEC Element is used, the AGI, SAII, and TAII are not present, the PW information
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 22
   length field is set to 0, the PW Group ID TLV is included, the PW
   Interface Parameters TLV is not present, and the Label TLV is not
   present.  For the purpose of this document, this is called the
   "wildcard withdraw procedure", and all PEs implementing this design
   are REQUIRED to accept such withdraw messages but are not required to
   send it.  Note that the PW Group ID TLV only applies to PWs using the
   Generalized ID FEC Element, while the Group ID only applies to PWid
   FEC Element.

   The Interface Parameter Sub-TLVs, or TLV, MUST NOT be present in any
   LDP PW Label Withdraw or Label Release message.  A wildcard Label
   Release message MUST include only the Group ID or PW Group ID TLV.  A
   Label Release message initiated by a PE router must always include
   the PW ID.

7. Control Word

7.1. PW Types for Which the Control Word Is REQUIRED

The Label Mapping messages that are sent in order to set up these PWs MUST have C=1. When a Label Mapping message for a PW of one of these types is received and C=0, a Label Release message MUST be sent, with an "Illegal C-bit" status code. In this case, the PW will not be enabled.

7.2. PW Types for Which the Control Word Is NOT Mandatory

If a system is capable of sending and receiving the control word on PW types for which the control word is not mandatory, then each such PW endpoint MUST be configurable with a parameter that specifies whether the use of the control word is PREFERRED or NOT PREFERRED. For each PW, there MUST be a default value of this parameter. This specification does NOT state what the default value should be. If a system is NOT capable of sending and receiving the control word on PW types for which the control word is not mandatory, then it behaves exactly as if it were configured for the use of the control word to be NOT PREFERRED. If a Label Mapping message for the PW has already been received but no Label Mapping message for the PW has yet been sent, then the procedure is as follows: -i. If the received Label Mapping message has C=0, send a Label Mapping message with C=0; the control word is not used.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 23
       -ii. If the received Label Mapping message has C=1, and the PW is
            locally configured such that the use of the control word is
            preferred, then send a Label Mapping message with C=1; the
            control word is used.

      -iii. If the received Label Mapping message has C=1, and the PW is
            locally configured such that the use of the control word is
            not preferred or the control word is not supported, then act
            as if no Label Mapping message for the PW had been received
            (i.e., proceed to the next paragraph).

   If a Label Mapping message for the PW has not already been received
   (or if the received Label Mapping message had C=1 and either local
   configuration says that the use of the control word is not preferred
   or the control word is not supported), then send a Label Mapping
   message in which the C-bit is set to correspond to the locally
   configured preference for use of the control word.  (That is, set C=1
   if locally configured to prefer the control word, and set C=0 if
   locally configured to prefer not to use the control word or if the
   control word is not supported).

   The next action depends on what control message is next received for
   that PW.  The possibilities are as follows:

        -i. A Label Mapping message with the same C-bit value as
            specified in the Label Mapping message that was sent.  PW
            setup is now complete, and the control word is used if C=1
            but is not used if C=0.

       -ii. A Label Mapping message with C=1, but the Label Mapping
            message that was sent has C=0.  In this case, ignore the
            received Label Mapping message and continue to wait for the
            next control message for the PW.

      -iii. A Label Mapping message with C=0, but the Label Mapping
            message that was sent has C=1.  In this case, send a Label
            Withdraw message with a "Wrong C-bit" status code, followed
            by a Label Mapping message that has C=0.  PW setup is now
            complete, and the control word is not used.

       -iv. A Label Withdraw message with the "Wrong C-bit" status code.
            Treat as a normal Label Withdraw message, but do not
            respond.  Continue to wait for the next control message for
            the PW.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 24
   If at any time after a Label Mapping message has been received a
   corresponding Label Withdraw or Release is received, the action taken
   is the same as for any Label Withdraw or Release messages that might
   be received at any time.

   If both endpoints prefer the use of the control word, this procedure
   will cause it to be used.  If either endpoint prefers not to use the
   control word or does not support the control word, this procedure
   will cause it not to be used.  If one endpoint prefers to use the
   control word but the other does not, the one that prefers not to use
   it has no extra protocol to execute; it just waits for a Label
   Mapping message that has C=0.

7.3. Control-Word Renegotiation by Label Request Message

It is possible that after the PW C-bit negotiation procedure described above is complete, the local PE is re-provisioned with a different control word preference. Therefore, once the control-word negotiation procedures are complete, the procedure can be restarted as follows: -i. If the local PE previously sent a Label Mapping message, it MUST send a Label Withdraw message to the remote PE and wait until it has received a Label Release message from the remote PE. -ii. The local PE MUST send a Label Release message to the remote PE for the specific label associated with the FEC that was advertised for this specific PW. Note: The above-mentioned steps of the Label Release message and Label Withdraw message are not required to be executed in any specific sequence. -iii. The local PE MUST send a Label Request message to the peer PE and then MUST wait until it receives a Label Mapping message containing the remote PE's currently configured preference for use of the control word. Once the remote PE has successfully processed the Label Withdraw message and Label Release messages, it will reset the C-bit negotiation state machine and its use of the control word with the locally configured preference. From this point on, the local and remote PEs will follow the C-bit negotiation procedures defined in the previous section. The above C-bit renegotiation process SHOULD NOT be interrupted until it is completed, or unpredictable results might occur.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 25

7.4. Sequencing Considerations

In the case where the router considers the sequence number field in the control word, it is important to note the following details when advertising labels.

7.4.1. Label Advertisements

After a label has been withdrawn by the output router and/or released by the input router, care must be taken not to advertise (reuse) the same released label until the output router can be reasonably certain that old packets containing the released label no longer persist in the MPLS-enabled network. This precaution is required to prevent the imposition router from restarting packet forwarding with a sequence number of 1 when it receives a Label Mapping message that binds the same FEC to the same label if there are still older packets in the network with a sequence number between 1 and 32768. For example, if there is a packet with sequence number=n, where n is in the interval [1,32768] traveling through the network, it would be possible for the disposition router to receive that packet after it re-advertises the label. Since the label has been released by the imposition router, the disposition router SHOULD be expecting the next packet to arrive with a sequence number of 1. Receipt of a packet with a sequence number equal to n will result in n packets potentially being rejected by the disposition router until the imposition router imposes a sequence number of n+1 into a packet. Possible methods to avoid this are for the disposition router always to advertise a different PW label, or for the disposition router to wait for a sufficient time before attempting to re-advertise a recently released label. This is only an issue when sequence number processing is enabled at the disposition router.

7.4.2. Label Release

In situations where the imposition router wants to restart forwarding of packets with sequence number 1, the router shall 1) send to the disposition router a Label Release message, and 2) send to the disposition router a Label Request message. When sequencing is supported, advertisement of a PW label in response to a Label Request message MUST also consider the issues discussed in Section 7.4.1 ("Label Advertisements").
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 26

8. IANA Considerations

8.1. LDP TLV TYPE

This document uses several new LDP TLV types; IANA already maintains a registry titled "TLV Type Name Space", defined by RFC 5036. The following values have been assigned from said registry: TLV Type Description ===================================== 0x096A PW Status TLV 0x096B PW Interface Parameters TLV 0x096C PW Group ID TLV

8.2. LDP Status Codes

This document uses several new LDP status codes; IANA already maintains a registry titled "Status Code Name Space", defined by RFC 5036. The following values have been assigned: Range/Value E Description Reference ------------- ----- ---------------------- --------- 0x00000024 0 Illegal C-Bit [RFC8077] 0x00000025 0 Wrong C-Bit [RFC8077] 0x00000026 0 Incompatible bit-rate [RFC8077] 0x00000027 0 CEP-TDM mis-configuration [RFC8077] 0x00000028 0 PW Status [RFC8077] 0x00000029 0 Unassigned/Unrecognized TAI [RFC8077] 0x0000002A 0 Generic Misconfiguration Error [RFC8077] 0x0000002B 0 Label Withdraw PW Status [RFC8077] Method Not Supported

8.3. FEC Type Name Space

This document uses two new FEC element types, 0x80 and 0x81, from the registry "Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036].

9. Security Considerations

This document specifies the LDP extensions that are needed for setting up and maintaining pseudowires. The purpose of setting up pseudowires is to enable Layer 2 frames to be encapsulated in MPLS and transmitted from one end of a pseudowire to the other. Therefore, we address the security considerations for both the data plane and the control plane.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 27

9.1. Data-Plane Security

With regard to the security of the data plane, the following areas must be considered: - MPLS PDU inspection - MPLS PDU spoofing - MPLS PDU alteration - MPLS PSN protocol security - Access Circuit security - Denial-of-service prevention on the PE routers When an MPLS PSN is used to provide pseudowire service, there is a perception that security must be at least equal to the currently deployed Layer 2 native protocol networks that the MPLS/PW network combination is emulating. This means that the MPLS-enabled network SHOULD be isolated from outside packet insertion in such a way that it SHOULD NOT be possible to insert an MPLS packet into the network directly. To prevent unwanted packet insertion, it is also important to prevent unauthorized physical access to the PSN, as well as unauthorized administrative access to individual network elements. As mentioned above, an MPLS-enabled network should not accept MPLS packets from its external interfaces (i.e., interfaces to CE devices or to other providers' networks) unless the top label of the packet was legitimately distributed to the system from which the packet is being received. If the packet's incoming interface leads to a different Service Provider (SP) (rather than to a customer), an appropriate trust relationship must also be present, including the trust that the other SP also provides appropriate security measures. The three main security problems faced when using an MPLS-enabled network to transport PWs are spoofing, alteration, and inspection. First, there is a possibility that the PE receiving PW PDUs will get a PDU that appears to be from the PE transmitting the PW into the PSN but that was not actually transmitted by the PE originating the PW. (That is, the specified encapsulations do not by themselves enable the decapsulator to authenticate the encapsulator.) A second problem is the possibility that the PW PDU will be altered between the time it enters the PSN and the time it leaves the PSN (i.e., the specified encapsulations do not by themselves assure the decapsulator of the packet's integrity.) A third problem is the possibility that the PDU's contents will be seen while the PDU is in transit through the PSN (i.e., the specification encapsulations do not ensure privacy.) How significant these issues are in practice depends on the security requirements of the applications whose traffic is being sent through the tunnel and how secure the PSN itself is.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 28

9.2. Control-Plane Security

General security considerations with regard to the use of LDP are specified in Section 5 of [RFC5036]. Those considerations also apply to the case where LDP is used to set up pseudowires. A pseudowire connects two Attachment Circuits. It is important to make sure that LDP connections are not arbitrarily accepted from anywhere, or else a local Attachment Circuit might get connected to an arbitrary remote Attachment Circuit. Therefore, an incoming LDP session request MUST NOT be accepted unless its IP source address is known to be the source of an "eligible" LDP peer. The set of eligible peers could be preconfigured (either as a list of IP addresses or as a list of address/mask combinations), or it could be discovered dynamically via an auto-discovery protocol that is itself trusted. (Obviously, if the auto-discovery protocol were not trusted, the set of eligible peers it produces could not be trusted.) Even if an LDP connection request appears to come from an eligible peer, its source address may have been spoofed. Therefore, some means of preventing source address spoofing must be in place. For example, if all the eligible peers are in the same network, source address filtering at the border routers of that network could eliminate the possibility of source address spoofing. The LDP MD5 authentication key option, as described in Section 2.9 of [RFC5036], MUST be implemented, and for a greater degree of security, it must be used. This provides integrity and authentication for the LDP messages and eliminates the possibility of source address spoofing. Use of the MD5 option does not provide privacy, but privacy of the LDP control messages is not usually considered important. As the MD5 option relies on the configuration of pre- shared keys, it does not provide much protection against replay attacks. In addition, its reliance on pre-shared keys may make it very difficult to deploy when the set of eligible neighbors is determined by an auto-configuration protocol. When the Generalized PWid FEC Element is used, it is possible that a particular LDP peer may be one of the eligible LDP peers but may not be the right one to connect to the particular Attachment Circuit identified by the particular instance of the Generalized PWid FEC Element. However, given that the peer is known to be one of the eligible peers (as discussed above), this would be the result of a configuration error rather than a security problem. Nevertheless, it may be advisable for a PE to associate each of its local Attachment Circuits with a set of eligible peers rather than have just a single set of eligible peers associated with the PE as a whole.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 29

10. Interoperability and Deployment

Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] specifies four requirements that an Internet Standard must meet. This section documents how this document meets those requirements. The pseudowire technology was first deployed in 2001 and has been widely deployed by many carriers. [RFC7079] documents the results of a survey of PW implementations with specific emphasis on control-word usage. [EANTC] documents a public multi-vendor interoperability test of MPLS and Carrier Ethernet equipment, which included testing of Ethernet, ATM, and TDM pseudowires. The errata against [RFC4447] are generally editorial in nature and have been addressed in this document. All features in this specification have been implemented by multiple vendors. No IPR disclosures have been made to the IETF related to this document, to RFCs 4447 or 6723, or to the Internet-Drafts that resulted in RFCs 4447 and 6723.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>. [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. [RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 30
   [RFC7358]  Raza, K., Boutros, S., Martini, L., and N. Leymann, "Label
              Advertisement Discipline for LDP Forwarding Equivalence
              Classes (FECs)", RFC 7358, DOI 10.17487/RFC7358, October
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7358>.

11.2. Informative References

[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, January 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>. [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>. [RFC4842] Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., Ed., and D. Zelig, "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)", RFC 4842, DOI 10.17487/RFC4842, April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4842>. [RFC4553] Vainshtein, A., Ed., and YJ. Stein, Ed., "Structure- Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)", RFC 4553, DOI 10.17487/RFC4553, June 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4553>. [RFC4619] Martini, L., Ed., Kawa, C., Ed., and A. Malis, Ed., "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4619, DOI 10.17487/RFC4619, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4619>. [RFC4717] Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N., Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4717, DOI 10.17487/RFC4717, December 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4717>. [RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618, DOI 10.17487/RFC4618, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4618>.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 31
   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.

   [RFC4447]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
              G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
              Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, DOI
              10.17487/RFC4447, April 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447>.

   [RFC6410]  Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.

   [RFC6723]  Jin, L., Ed., Key, R., Ed., Delord, S., Nadeau, T., and S.
              Boutros, "Update of the Pseudowire Control-Word
              Negotiation Mechanism", RFC 6723, DOI 10.17487/RFC6723,
              September 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6723>.

   [RFC7079]  Del Regno, N., Ed., and A. Malis, Ed., "The Pseudowire
              (PW) and Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
              Implementation Survey Results", RFC 7079, DOI
              10.17487/RFC7079, November 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7079>.

   [ANSI]     American National Standards Institute, "Telecommunications
              - Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Basic Description
              Including Multiplex Structures, Rates, and Formats", ANSI
              T1.105, October 1995.

   [ITUG]     International Telecommunications Union, "Network node
              interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)",
              ITU-T Recommendation G.707, May 1996.

   [EANTC]    European Advanced Networking Test Center, "MPLS and
              Carrier Ethernet: Service - Connect - Transport. Public
              Multi-Vendor Interoperability Test", February 2009.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Vach Kompella, Vanson Lim, Wei Luo, Himanshu Shah, and Nick Weeds. The authors wish to also acknowledge the contribution of the authors of RFC 6723, whose work has been incorporated in this document: Lizhong Jin, Raymond Key, Simon Delord, Tom Nadeau, and Sami Boutros.
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 32

Contributors

The following individuals were either authors or contributing authors for RFC 4447. They are listed here in recognition of their work on that document. Nasser El-Aawar Level 3 Communications, LLC. 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 United States of America Email: nna@level3.net Eric C. Rosen Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 United States of America Email: erosen@cisco.com Dan Tappan Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 United States of America Email: tappan@cisco.com Toby Smith Google 6425 Penn Ave. #700 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 United States of America Email: tob@google.com Dimitri Vlachos Riverbed Technology Email: dimitri@riverbed.com
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 33
   Jayakumar Jayakumar
   Cisco Systems Inc.
   3800 Zanker Road, MS-SJ02/2
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America

   Email: jjayakum@cisco.com


   Alex Hamilton,
   Cisco Systems Inc.
   485 East Tasman Drive, MS-SJC07/3
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America

   Email: tahamilt@cisco.com


   Steve Vogelsang
   ECI Telecom
   Omega Corporate Center
   1300 Omega Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15205
   United States of America

   Email: stephen.vogelsang@ecitele.com


   John Shirron
   ECI Telecom
   Omega Corporate Center
   1300 Omega Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15205
   United States of America

   Email: john.shirron@ecitele.com


   Andrew G. Malis
   Verizon
   60 Sylvan Rd.
   Waltham, MA 02451
   United States of America

   Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 34
   Vinai Sirkay
   Reliance Infocomm
   Dhirubai Ambani Knowledge City
   Navi Mumbai 400 709
   India

   Email: vinai@sirkay.com


   Vasile Radoaca
   Nortel Networks
   600  Technology Park
   Billerica MA 01821
   United States of America

   Email: vasile@nortelnetworks.com


   Chris Liljenstolpe
   149 Santa Monica Way
   San Francisco, CA 94127
   United States of America

   Email: ietf@cdl.asgaard.org


   Dave Cooper
   Global Crossing
   960 Hamlin Court
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   United States of America

   Email: dcooper@gblx.net


   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   United States of America

   Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Top   ToC   RFC8077 - Page 35

Authors' Addresses

Luca Martini (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 United States of America Email: lmartini@monoski.com Giles Heron (editor) Cisco Systems 10 New Square Bedfont Lakes Feltham Middlesex TW14 8HA United Kingdom Email: giheron@cisco.com