1. PG 1 Multi-Segment Pseudowire Setup & Maintenance using LDP draft-balus-mh-pw-control-protocol-02.txt Authors David McDysan (MCI), Mike Duckett (Bellsouth), Yeongil Seo (Korea Telecom), Yuichiro Wada (NTT Communications) Andy Malis (Tellabs), Chris Metz (Cisco), Paul Doolan (Mangrove), Ping Pan (Hammerhead), Prayson Pate (Overture), Vasile Radoaca (Consultant) Florin Balus, Mike Loomis, Jeff Sugimoto (Nortel)

2. PG 2 Key Principles – draft-balus-mh-pw… >Develop MS-PW Solution as a Super Set of SS-PW procedures SS-PW, VPLS Implementations, Deployments based on LDP Signaling Re-use Signaling Procedures, Current Addressing >Operational Consistency, Familiarity with SS-PWs Same Service Management, Provisioning Models... OSS Touches at only U-PEs >Add Minimal Changes to satisfy the MS-PW Requirements >Easily applicable to existing LDP-VPLS Implementations Extend existing PW Signaling Protocol

3. PG 3 U-PE MS PW Challenges & Solutions Inter-provider Use Case U-PE Metro Access Interconnection Use Case Backbone Service Provider 1Service Provider 2 Metro Access 1 Metro Access 2 U-PE Challenges LDP Session Scaling PSN Tunnel Scaling PSN Interoperability Control Interoperability Authentication Discovery TE & QoS Support S-PE Solutions Switching PE (S-PE) Limit Meshes to Hierarchical Level Convert/Authenticate at Hierarchical Boundaries BGP+ Distribution RADIUS+ Discovery & Authentication RSVP-TE+ & PW-LDP+

4. PG 4 Solution Space >draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-00.txt - WG document >draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-17.txt Setup and Maintenance for SS PWs Using LDP Interoperable Implementations Everywhere, Deployed on a fairly Large Scale L2VPNs (e.g. LDP-VPLS) use the SS-PW Base >draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-00.txt Provides Generic Interworking Solution for different types of Signaling Provides Solutions when Signaling Separation is required Used to Interconnect MS-PW (draft-balus-mh-pw) and L2TPv3 Domains >draft-balus-mh-pw-control-protocol-02.txt Dynamic Creation of MS-PWs Using LDP MS-PW is a Super Set of existing SS-PW procedures Reuses Existing PW Encapsulations, Information Model and Signaling Re-usable Transparently by Existing L2VPN Implementations (e.g. LDP-VPLS) Common Signaling Procedures for both SS & MS-PWs

5. PG 5 MS PW Requirements Addressed >Dynamic Creation of MS-PW IP addressing but encoding supports other address types (e.g., NSAP, IPv6) Same Forward and Reverse Path… >Automatic Determination of intermediate S-PEs S-PE_hop-by-S-PE_hop selection based on regular IP Routing Procedures >Minimal OSS “touches” - at only U-PE(s) Supports A/D, single or double sided provisioning as per draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling >Operational Consistency with SS-PW Support for both L2FECs >Signaling of Quantity and Quality of Service >Resiliency Procedures >Supports OAM capability negotiation

6. PG 6 MS-PW Operational Consistency with SS-PWs Re-use of Existing Information Model, OAM Procedures for SS-PW VF LDP VF SP LDP Service Provisioning Service Instance: (AGI, SAII, TAII) Remote Peer: PE Loopback Service Provisioning Service Instance: (AGI, SAII, TAII) Remote Peer: U-PE Loopback Provisioning Fault Accounting Billing PE 1PE 2 U-PE 1U-PE 2S-PE PW MS PW

7. PG 7 PW Information Model – [PW Control] Originator PE: Destination PE is one “E-LDP hop” away Receiving PE: Source U-PE Prefix derived from local E-LDP Session Unique Endpoint ID “Prefix 1, AI x” – [PW Ctrl] Unique Endpoint ID “Prefix 2, AI y” – [PW Ctrl] VFxVFy LDP PE 1PE 2 LSPa21 = (IP2, L2FEC, IP1) LSPa12 = (IP1, L2FEC, IP2) PWa

8. PG 8 MS-PW Information Model VFx VFy SP SS-PW U-PE 2 S-PE SS-PW U-PE 1S-PE LDP Originator (U-)PE: Destination PE is more than one “E-LDP hop” away Receiving NE: Source (U-)PE Prefix can not be derived from local LDP Session Solution: U-PE Prefixes to be carried in the Signaling Messages LSPa21 = (IP2, L2FEC, IP1) LSPa12 = (IP1, L2FEC, IP2) MS-PWa Unique Endpoint ID “Prefix 1, AI x” – [PW Ctrl] Unique Endpoint ID “Prefix 2, AI y” – [PW Ctrl]

9. PG 9 How to carry sU-PE, dU-PE Prefixes? Two possibilities, orthogonal to the procedures described in the draft 1. Use a Separate MS-PW TLV Accommodates also PW FEC 128 (PWID) Implementations Ready to mandate implementation of PW FEC 129 for MS-PWs? Ready to start assigning AII Types – see draft-metz-aii-aggregate? FEC TLV Label TLV Other TLVs …. MS PW TLV Source U-PE “Prefix” – Identifies the Originating U-PE Allows peer discovery or verification Destination U-PE “Prefix” – Identifies the Remote U-PE Enables S-PE to automatically determine Next “PW Segment” 1’. Use the Generalized ID - PW FEC 129 Complete Address Information in one TLV SAII TAII

10. PG 10 P 1. U-PE1 is provisioned with AGI = 40, SAII=100, TAII=200 Destination PE = IP2 1b. U-PE2 is provisioned with AGI = 40, SAII=100, TAII=200 Destination PE = IP1 MS PWs using E2E LDP Signaling – Operational Walkthrough Highlighting only the Steps Specific to MS PW P 2. U-PE1 Use dU-PE to find next signaling hop. S-PE 1 U-PE 2 U-PE 1 P 22. LDP2LDP1 4. On receipt of the LM: use destination U-PE to find the next signaling hop. 6. On receipt of the LM: check Destination U-PE = itself. Verify Source Address against provisioned Destination U- PE. 30. 5. SS-PWb LSP Fwd3. SS-PWa LSP Fwd Reverse Path Signaled through previously used LDP Sessions To guarantee Bi-directionality of individual PW Segments 7. SS-PWb LSP Rev 8. SS-PWa LSP Rev

11. PG 11 Related Procedures >Determining Next Signaling Hop Static Provisioning - Default Gateway/Summarized Prefixes BGP AD - See [L2VPN SIGN] Procedures for LDP-VPLS >QoS TLVs may be included in the Signaling Message TSPEC format for Quantity Of Service, DiffServ TLV for Quality of Service CAC Executed Against the Tunnel to Originator of the Local LDP Session >Resiliency Re-routing around Failure >OAM Negotiation End-to-end Capability Negotiation between U-PEs – VCCV Ping, BFD

12. PG 12 Next Steps >Do we still need support in the Information Model for PW FEC 128? >PW Protection Options (e.g. 1:1)

13. PG 13 Summary – draft-balus-mh-pw… >Addresses the Signaling Requirements for MS-PWs >MS-PW Solution as a Super Set of SS-PW Procedures Operational Consistency, Familiarity with SS-PWs Minimal Changes to Existing PW Signaling >Easily Applicable to existing LDP-VPLS Implementations Make it a WG Draft