1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
|
<pre>Network Working Group L. Martini
Request for Comments: 4863 G. Swallow
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
May 2007
<span class="h1">Wildcard Pseudowire Type</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
Pseudowire signaling requires that the Pseudowire Type (PW Type) be
identical in both directions. For certain applications the
configuration of the PW Type is most easily accomplished by
configuring this information at just one PW endpoint. In any form of
LDP-based signaling, each PW endpoint must initiate the creation of a
unidirectional LSP. In order to allow the initiation of these two
LSPs to remain independent, a means is needed for allowing the PW
endpoint (lacking a priori knowledge of the PW Type) to initiate the
creation of an LSP. This document defines a Wildcard PW Type to
satisfy this need.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Conventions and Terminology ................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Wildcard PW Type ................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Procedures ......................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Procedures When Sending the Wildcard FEC ...................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Procedures When Receiving the Wildcard FEC .................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<span class="grey">Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4863">RFC 4863</a> Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Pseudowire signaling requires that the Pseudowire Type (PW Type) be
identical in both directions. For certain applications the
configuration of the PW Type is most easily accomplished by
configuring this information at just one PW endpoint. In any form of
LDP-based signaling, each PW endpoint must initiate the creation of a
unidirectional LSP.
By the procedures of [<a href="#ref-CONTROL" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">CONTROL</a>], both Label Mapping messages must
carry the PW type, and the two unidirectional mapping messages must
be in agreement. Thus within the current procedures, the PW endpoint
that lacks configuration must wait to receive a Label Mapping message
in order to learn the PW Type, prior to signaling its unidirectional
LSP.
For certain applications this can become particularly onerous. For
example, suppose that an ingress Provider Edge (PE) is serving as
part of a gateway function between a layer 2 network and layer 2
attachment circuits on remote PEs. Suppose further that the initial
setup needs to be initiated from the layer 2 network, but the layer 2
signaling does not contain sufficient information to determine the PW
Type. However, this information is known at the PE supporting the
targeted attachment circuit.
In this situation, it is often desirable to allow the initiation of
the two LSPs that compose a pseudowire to remain independent. A
means is needed for allowing a PW endpoint (lacking a priori
knowledge of the PW Type) to initiate the creation of an LSP. This
document defines a wildcard PW Type to satisfy this need.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Conventions and Terminology</span>
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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="#ref-KEYWORDS" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">KEYWORDS</a>].
This document introduces no new terminology. However, it assumes
that the reader is familiar with the terminology contained in
[<a href="#ref-CONTROL" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">CONTROL</a>] and <a href="./rfc3985">RFC 3985</a>, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
Architecture" [<a href="#ref-ARCH" title=""Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture"">ARCH</a>].
<span class="grey">Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4863">RFC 4863</a> Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Wildcard PW Type</span>
In order to allow a PE to initiate the signaling exchange for a
pseudowire without knowing the pseudowire type, a new PW Type is
defined. The codepoint is 0x7FFF. The semantics are the following:
1. To the targeted PE, this value indicates that it is to determine
the PW Type (for both directions) and signal that in a Label
Mapping message back to the initiating PE.
2. For the procedures of [<a href="#ref-CONTROL" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">CONTROL</a>], this PW Type is interpreted to
match any PW Type other than itself. That is, the targeted PE
may respond with any valid PW Type other than the wildcard PW
Type.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Procedures</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Procedures When Sending the Wildcard FEC</span>
When a PE that is not configured to use a specific PW Type for a
particular pseudowire wishes to signal an LSP for that pseudowire, it
sets the PW Type to "wildcard". This indicates that the target PE
should determine the PW Type for this pseudowire.
When a Label Mapping message is received for the pseudowire, the PE
checks the PW Type.
If the PW Type can be supported, the PE uses this as the PW Type for
both directions.
If the PW Type cannot be supported or is "wildcard", it MUST respond
to this message with a Label Release message with an LDP Status Code
of "Generic Misconfiguration Error". Further actions are beyond the
scope of this document, but could include notifying the associated
application (if any) or notifying network management.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Procedures When Receiving the Wildcard FEC</span>
When a targeted PE receives a Label Mapping message indicating the
wildcard PW Type, it follows the normal procedures for checking the
Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) and Target Attachment Individual
Identifier (TAII) values. If the targeted PE is not configured to
use a specific, non-wildcard PW Type, it MUST respond to this message
with a Label Release message with an LDP Status Code of "Generic
Misconfiguration Error".
Otherwise, it treats the Label Mapping message as if it had indicated
the PW Type it is configured to use.
<span class="grey">Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4863">RFC 4863</a> Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document has little impact on the security aspects of [<a href="#ref-CONTROL" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">CONTROL</a>].
The message exchanges remain the same. However, a malicious agent
attempting to connect to an access circuit would require one less
piece of information. To mitigate against this, a pseudowire control
entity receiving a request containing the wildcard FEC type SHOULD
only proceed with setup if explicitly configured to do so for the
particular AI in the TAI. Further, the reader should note the
security considerations of [<a href="#ref-CONTROL" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">CONTROL</a>], in general, and those
pertaining to the Generalized PWid FEC Element, in particular.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has made the following allocation from the IETF consensus range
of the "Pseudowire Type" registry as defined in [<a href="#ref-IANA" title=""IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"">IANA</a>].
PW Type Description
0x7FFF Wildcard
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-KEYWORDS">KEYWORDS</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-CONTROL">CONTROL</a>] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T.,
and G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using
the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", <a href="./rfc4447">RFC 4447</a>, April
2006.
[<a id="ref-IANA">IANA</a>] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp116">BCP 116</a>, <a href="./rfc4446">RFC 4446</a>, April 2006.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-ARCH">ARCH</a>] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire
Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", <a href="./rfc3985">RFC 3985</a>,
March 2005.
<span class="grey">Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4863">RFC 4863</a> Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007</span>
Authors' Addresses
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112
EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave,
Boxborough, MA 01719
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
<span class="grey">Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4863">RFC 4863</a> Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 6]
</pre>
|
