73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 1

Framework and Requirements for Virtual Private Multicast Service

(VPMS)

draft-kamite-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-02.txt

Yuji Kamite (NTT Communications)

Frederic Jounay (France Telecom)Ben Niven-Jenkins (BT)

Deborah Brungard (AT&T)

Lizhong Jin (Nokia Siemens Networks)

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 2

Introduction

• VPMS is defined as a Layer 2 service that provides point-to-multipoint connectivity for a variety of Layer 2 link layers across an IP or MPLS-enabled PSN. – Unidirectional p2mp L2VPN– VPMS operate over Pseudowires (PWs) as defined by

the PWE3 WG• Ethernet, ATM, TDM PW etc.

• L2VPN WG Charter has been updated– Adopted VPMS

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 3

This Drafts’ Positioning

VPMS Framework and Reqts

P2MP PW Reqts * VPMS Auto-discovery

P2MP PW Solution

PW signaling/encapsulation

Service setup / management

* PWE3 WG-draft

Service definition

requirement requirement

requirement

(this draft)

Etc.

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 4

Reference Model (Updated in -02)

• Proposed relationship between “VPN”, “VPMS instance”, “AC“ and “P2MP PW” (Section 5)– One VPN = one VPMS instance (always)– Each AC is uniquely mapped to one VPMS instance (always)– One VPMS instance corresponds to one P2MP-PW (basically, but

not always (see next slide) )

Example 1: VPMS with a single P2MP-PW

CE1

CE4

CE2

CE3

CE5 CE6

AC1

AC4

AC2

AC3

AC5 AC6

Sender

SenderVPMS B

VPMS A

PE3

PE1 PE2

Each dashed lineis a single P2MP-PW

AC is uniquelyassigned per instance

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 5

Reference Model (Cont.)– One VPMS instance may have more than one P2MP-PWs

• For example, in a PW-Redundancy case

Example 2: VPMS with two P2MP-PWs

CE8

AC9

VPMS C

PE3

PE1PE2

AC10

PE4

CE9

P2MP-PW of source PE1P2MP-PW of source PE2

CE7AC7 AC8

CE7, CE8, CE9are in the same VPN

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 6

Protection & Restoration (Update in -02)

• Dual-homed Access Support (Section 6.4.1)– MUST allow dual-homed redundant access from a CE to PE– SHOULD provide protection mechanism between the different PEs to which

a CE is attached.

• Single / Dual Traffic Support (Section 6.4.2)– MAY allow a sender CE to transmit just a single copy of the traffic to either

one of the two sender PEs, or to transmit a copy of the traffic to both the PEs simultaneously.

– MAY allow a receiver CE to receive a single copy of the traffic from either one of the two egress PEs, or receive a copy of the traffic from both PEs simultaneously.

CE2CE3

AC1

PE2AC4

Sender

VPMS A

PE4

PE1

PE3AC2

ReceiverReceiver

Receiver

AC5

AC6 CE5

Single or Dual Traffic

Single or Dual Traffic

CE1

AC3

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 7

Auto-Discovery (Updated in -02)

• Example Scenario (Section 7.3.)

CE1 AC1

AC4

Sender

Receivers

VPMS A

PE2

PE1 PE1

CE2 CE3

PE3 PE4

AC5

CE4 CE5AC2 AC3

CE1 AC1

AC4

VPMS A

PE2

PE1 PE1

CE2 CE3

PE3 PE4

AC5

CE4 CE5AC2 AC3

•PE router ID/ IP address as location

•AC and its role•VPMS instance ID

(=VPN)

Newly provisioned PE/AC areauto-discovered

Signaling is setupautomatically

Added

New

New

Discovery

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 8

OAM Requirement (updated in -02)• Created a new section “OAM“ (Section 7.7.)

– Fault Management• Fault Detection• Fault Notification

– In case of receiver-side failure (receiver PE or its AC), fault status SHOULD be able to be monitored at sender PE.

» Help operators to monitor in a centralized manner at ingress PE

• Fault Isolation

– Testing– Performance Management

CE1AC1

AC4

VPMS A

PE2

PE1

CE2 CE3

PE3 PE4

AC5

CE4 CE5AC2 AC3 Down

FaultNotification

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 9

Other Changes (Update in -02)

• Removed CE's sender/receiver role (in Section 5)– Instead, specified AC’s role– because AC's role (sender or receiver) is equal to it in

effect in service configuration

• Elaborated PW and PSN replication approach (in Section 7.2)

• Invited new co-authors– Deborah Brungard (AT&T)– Lizhong Jin (Nokia Siemens Networks)

73rd IETF Minneapolis Nov 2008 10

Next Step

• Remaining major work– Security

• Continue to take WG input

• Propose to adopt this as a WG document