Presentation on theme: "John Hoffmans – Geraldine Calvignac - Raymond Zhang - Nabil Bitar -"— Presentation transcript:
1 VPLS Extensions for Provider Backbone Bridging - draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-03.txt John Hoffmans –Geraldine Calvignac -Raymond Zhang -Nabil Bitar -Olen Stokes -Florin Balus, Mustapha Aissaoui, Matthew Bocci –
2 Background and Objective Draft addressing the VPLS scalability (new item in the L2VPN charter)MAC explosion, Service AggregationVersions 1 and 2 presented during IETF-69 and IETF-71 sessionsExtensions to existing VPLS Solution to accommodate IEEE 802.1ahRe-using the existing VPLS Forwarder (PW termination) modulesReflect the IEEE model in VPLS NSP – e.g. duality customer-backbone domainsFocus on VPLS Control Plane extensionsVPLS Addressing usageAuto-discovery, Signaling – e.g. MAC Flush extensions, New NSP capabilitiesRequired additions to both Native Ethernet & VPLS to be handled in IEEEi.e. whatever is transparent to VPLS
3 Updates, changes in draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-03 Addressed feedback, questions on the PBB-VPLS reference modelWhy does inclusion of the PBB model require only NSP extensions?…How to ensure separation of customer and backbone switching domains?Separate VPLS addressing for each domain to allow flexible support of existing BGP-AD, LDP Signaling procedures in both domains.No Addressing Extensions are requiredNew Section on NSP capabilities code pointsEnsures the right type of NSPs are connected over existing Ethernet PWsDetails of the required extensions to VPLS MAC FlushNo Flushing of the Backbone FIBs, minimal processing in the Core PEsScalable M:1 packing of flush indications (M Customer VPNs into 1 LDP msg)PBB introduces a hierarchy where a Customer (CMAC) domain is separated from the Service Provider (BMAC) domain from both data plane (e.g. CMAC versus respectively BMAC switching) and control plane (e.g. xSTP, 802.1ak MRP) perspective. For example a CMAC should never be learned in the Backbone context/FIB.When porting the PBB hierarchy in PBB VPLS, the strict separation between the two domains must be maintained in both the VPLS data and control plane. In VPLS the control plane controls the setup of the data plane so it is possible to achieve this separation by proper separation of addressing and control plane procedures. Specifically in the example from Figure 1 the I-VPLS control plane must stay separate from the related B-VPLS control plane. This will ensure that control plane procedures (e.g. VPLS MAC Flush, OAM) destined for one domain will not leak into the other domain. Also PWs in one domain will not try to connect to the other domain: e.g. I-PW, destined for an I-VPLS will not try to connect to a B-VPLS instance.The simplest way to achieve this kind of separation is to assign for I-VPLS and B-VPLS separate addressing schemes. The following sections describe how this applies for BGP auto-discovery or for T-LDP signaling. Optionally usage of NSP capabilities sub-TLV [GE-PW] can guarantee additional protection against operational mistakes.
4 PBB-VPLS benefits — MAC scaling and customer-addressing awareness MTU-sPE-rs# MAC addresses/node1,000s100,000sVPLS + PBBPE-rsMPLSMPLSMTU-sMTU-s# MAC addresses/nodeCustomer MACs100,000sPE-rsBackbone MACs1,000sMTU-s“Hub” PE-rs get visibility of 100,000s MACsHigh customer-addressing awarenessMAC tables reduced: 1 B-MAC per nodeNo customer-addressing awareness
6 B-VPLS versus I-VPLS domains & PBB-VPLS reference model PBN (802.1ad)MPLS WANDomain 2MPLS MetroDomain 3PWCEII-VPLSB-VPLSPBBN (802.1ah)ACPBB-VPLSPEB-VPLSDomain 2PE4PE3BBI2I1I-VPLSDomain 3B-VPLSDomain 1PE6PE5PE1PE2I1I1I2BBI1I2I1I2CECECECEB-VPLS = backbone / infrastructure VPLS, switching on Backbone MACs – e.g. 1 MAC per PEI-VPLS = customer VPLS, switching on Customer MACs – e.g. 1 MAC per customer stationCECECECE
7 PBB-VPLS & PW typesB-VPLS NSP on PE3 not aware of PBB encapsulationPerforms only IEEE 802.1ad switching using BMAC headerSame as PBB BCB in IEEE 802.1ahB-VPLSDomain 2PE4PW2PE3C-DAC-SAPayloadS-TAGEthertypeMPLS TLMPLS SLHVPLS PE-rs levelBBMPLS TLMPLS SLPayloadB-DAB-SAI-TAGEthertypeI1I2CMAC header/ Regular PWBMAC Header/ Regular PWI-VPLSDomain 1B-VPLSDomain 3PW1HVPLS MTU-s levelI1I1I2BBPE6PE5I1I2I1I2PE1PE2I-TAG format – see IEEE 802.1ahPBB-VPLS addresses scalability concerns in a PE-rs – MTU-s environmentExisting PW types address the needs of PBB-VPLS, no need for a new oneEthernet type identifies the type of following tag for whichever NSP cares
8 PBB-VPLS Addressing for Auto-discovery and Signaling Domain 2PE4PE3BPW2How to avoid miss-connections: e.g. PW3 connecting to B-domain?BB-VPLS – BMAC switchingI1I2PW3I-VPLSDomain 1B-VPLSDomain 3I-VPLS = Regular VPLS - CMAC switchingI1I1I2BBPE6PE5I1I2I1I2PE1PE2Separate addressing allows seamless porting of existing Auto-discovery, SignalingNSP capabilities sub-TLV may be used for additional protection – see Generic Eth PW draft
9 LDP MAC Flush for regular VPLS 4. Flush MAC -> PW FIB entries in I1..InExcept MAC->PW31B-VPLS Domain 25. Flush MAC -> PW FIB entries in I1..InExcept MAC->PW43PE3PE45LDPLDPI1InLDP MAC WithdrawsFEC I1………..FEC In4X-> PWi1I1InX-> PWj1B-VPLSDomain 1I-VPLSDomain 3PE1PE2PE5LDPI1InI1InI1InCEFailure of the Active link23“FLUSH ALL MACs but MINE”where MINE = PW SOURCEIn PBB-VPLS the “SOURCE” is identified by the BMAC of the remote PBB-VPLS PE – see next slideQinQ SW(resilient access to VPLS)Activation of the backup linkCMAC XCE
10 LDP MAC Flush extensions for PBB-VPLS 4. No Flush or per service activity done in PE3; LDP forwarding for a few FECs (max 100s)5. “FLUSH ALL CMACs but MINE”where MINE = BMAC SOURCEi.e. Flush CMAC->BMACFIB entries in I1..InExcept CMAC->BM2B-VPLS Domain 2PE3PE45LDPLDP MAC Withdraww/ PBB TLV:4PBB TLVBMAC: BM2ISIDs: I1-InLDPBBX-> BM11I1I2B-VPLSDomain 1I-VPLSDomain 3PE1PE2PE5LDPI1I2BBPE2 of BMAC=BM2I1I2I1I2CEFailure of the Active link23QinQ SW(resilient access to VPLS)VPLS E2E deployments keep using the existing toolLDP MAC Flush for both VPLS typesImproved scalability from regular VPLS1 LDP message for n ISIDs1 Source BMAC – BM2 for PE2, No CMACsB-PE3 not aware about PBB, just forwards LDP MAC WithdrawActivation of the backup linkCMAC XCE
11 Next stepsDiscuss the differences between the existing PBB-VPLS draftsUse existing PW type(s) versus new PW type?Consolidate the contents into one draftSubmit a consolidated version focused on the required changes to VPLSWhat else do we need to address in IETF from a PBB-VPLS perspective?… and what else should be addressed in other SDOs – i.e. IEEE?