1 / 7

VPLS Extensions for Provider Backbone Bridging - draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-01.txt

This draft proposes extensions to the existing VPLS solution to accommodate IEEE 802.1ah, focusing on intra-domain use cases and the integrated PBB VPLS model. The solution aims to add useful PBB capabilities to VPLS, maintain MPLS benefits, and support large VPNs with lots of CE switches while avoiding the need to run STP in the core.

willietaylor
Download Presentation

VPLS Extensions for Provider Backbone Bridging - draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-01.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VPLS Extensions for Provider Backbone Bridging - draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-01.txt John Hoffmans – KPN Geraldine Calvignac - France Telecom Raymond Zhang - British Telecom Nabil Bitar - Verizon Florin Balus, Mustapha Aissoui, Matthew Bocci - Alcatel-Lucent

  2. Scope • Extensions to existing VPLS Solution to accommodate IEEE 802.1ah • Follows RFC 4762 template • Focus of this version • Intra-domain use case • Integrated PBB VPLS Model

  3. B B B B B B I1 I1 I1 I1 PBB VPLS Requirements • Add useful PBB capabilities to VPLS • MAC hiding, VPN Aggregation • Maintain MPLS Benefits • Avoid running STP in the Core • Traffic Engineered, Resilient Backbone • Selective introduction of PBB • Large VPNs, lots of CE switches • No PBB awareness in core PEs • Maintain Interoperability • Native Ethernet Access • Coexist w/ Regular VPLS/PWE3 • Support both 1:1 and M:1 models • ISID to VPLS VPLS Domain 2 PE4 PE3 VPLS Domain 3 VPLS Domain 1 PE1 PE2 PE6 PE5 Ethernet CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE

  4. Payload Ethertype C-VID Ethertype C-SA C-DA I-TAG Ethertype B-SA B B B-DA SL TL B B B B I1 I1 I1 I1 Solution Details - PBB VPLS • PBB VPLS running in Edge PEs • Handles both I and B components • CMAC to BMAC mapping • No BVID tunneling • 1:1 Model (ISID to B-VPLS) • Using only PBB MAC Hiding • No need to manage ISIDs • Regular VPLS in PE3, PE4 • B-MAC based forwarding • No ISID, CMAC - awareness • Only PWs, no Ethernet UNIs VPLS Domain 2 PE4 PE3 VPLS Domain 1 VPLS Domain 3 PE1 PE2 PE6 PE5 Ethernet CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE

  5. Payload Ethertype C-VID Ethertype C-SA C-DA I-TAG Ethertype B-SA B-DA SL TL Extensions to LDP MAC Withdraw • Potential Blackholing issue in PBB • Dual-Homing of CE to PE1, PE2 • Access Topology Change – i.e. failure of the active link to PE1 • I1 Traffic Blackholed to BM1 (PE1) • Existing MAC Withdraw in Backbone VPLS should not be used • BM1 is still reachable, no need to flush • Flush only CMAC -> BMAC entries • Proposed Solution • “Flush all CMACs in I1 except the ones owned by PE2 (BM2)” • New LDP TLV in Address Withdraw message indicates the impacted ISID domain(s) (I1) and the BMAC (BM2) Y X PE4 B BM5 BM1 PE3 B VPLS I2 PE5 (BM5) B X-> BM1 I1 B B PE1 (BM1) PE2 (BM2) I1 I1 CE CE CMAC Y CMACs X1-100

  6. PBB VPLS – M:1 Model • Many ISIDs aggregated inside one B-VPLS • Less provisioning, PWs in the core • Good fit for ISIDs that share same PEs • What if flood containment is required? • e.g. contain I2 Flooding to PE1, PE2 & PE5 • Solution – create per ISID Flooding Trees • ISID-based Group BMAC used by PBB for flooding • Use LDP to declare, register ISID (Group BMAC) location in the B-VPLS context VPLS Domain 2 B B PE4 PE3 VPLS Domain 3 VPLS Domain 1 B B B B I1 I1 I2 I1 I2 I2 PE1 PE5 PE2 PE6 CE CE CE CE CE CE

  7. Next Steps • More details on Flood containment, Multicast Handling • Interworking between PBBN and MPLS • Authors would like to request WG Feedback on mailing list

More Related