1. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 1 Extended MPLS/PW PID Mustapha Aïssaoui, Matthew Bocci, David Watkinson, Alcatel Andrew G. Malis, Tellabs draft-aissaoui-extended-pid-00.txt Extends proposed MPLS/PW PID to identify: –Multiple user protocols when multiplexed in a PW or MPLS LSP –multiple control plane protocols carried in a PW or MPLS LSP Discusses relationship of the control word to the MPLS/PW PID

2. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 2 MPLS/PW PID for control plane MPLS/PW PID is an alternative to special label value for MPLS and PW OAM –allows the use and identification by a PE of different control plane protocols, e.g., LSP- Ping/VCCV, Y.1711 –Ensures OAM packets follow same path as user-plane packets in the presence of ECMP

3. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 3 MPLS/PW PID for User Plane Allows interworking of different link layers over a MPLS network, where: –each data link layer is terminated locally in a PE –attachment circuits carry multiple user plane protocols Applications described in –draft-moreels-multiproto-mpls-01.txt –draft-sajassi-l2vpn-interworking-01.txt MPLS/PW PID is not an alternative to current MPLS and PW models: –MPLS LSP and PW carrying single user protocol type do not require a MPLS/PW PID

4. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 4 Example Application ISP PoP 1 PE 1PE 2 Transit SP ISP PoP 2 Payload Types: -IS-IS / CLNP -IP FR VCGigEOne or many PW’s Interworking Options: 1.Extend FR or Ethernet to remote PE 2.Multiple parallel PW’s, one for each payload type 3.PID translation between FR, PW, and Ethernet

5. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 5 Format of MPLS/PW PID Same as in draft-allan-mpls-pid-00 except for: –Used a value of “0001” for the first nibble –Removed the “Alert” bit Format properties: –Compatible with MPLS PID in PWE3 architecture (PA=0 is a PPP DLL) –Allows easy translation to/from RFC2427, RFC2684, and RFC2878 –Follows user plane protocol representation procedures of RFC2427: Where multiple representations of a protocol exist, use of the one with the lowest PA possible is required

6. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 6 CW and MPLS/PW PID MPLS payload identifier (draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-04.txt): –precedes the PW CW because first nibble following the bottom label distinguishes payload from IPv4 and IPv6 –Drawback: both MPLS PID and CW are appended to each fragment when fragmentation is applied This draft discusses the following alternative: –PW CW to be consistently used for resolving the IP aliasing issue All PWE3 encapsulation comply except the SONET one –MPLS/PW PID to follow the PW control word PW CW is a kind of adaptation layer for the PSN MPLS/PW PID appended once in a fragmented packet Drawback: PID not always in the same position since CW is optional These are not major issues

7. IETF 57, July 16, 2003Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 7 Conclusions Keep current ordering of CW and MPLS/PID unless a major issue is raised Propose to progress this draft within the framework of the PWE3 working group