💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4863.txt captured on 2024-05-26 at 16:49:34.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group L. Martini
Request for Comments: 4863 G. Swallow
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
May 2007
Wildcard Pseudowire Type
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
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Conventions and Terminology ................................2
2. Wildcard PW Type ................................................3
3. Procedures ......................................................3
3.1. Procedures When Sending the Wildcard FEC ...................3
3.2. Procedures When Receiving the Wildcard FEC .................3
4. Security Considerations .........................................4
5. IANA Considerations .............................................4
6. References ......................................................4
6.1. Normative References .......................................4
6.2. Informative References .....................................4
Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4863 Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007
1. Introduction
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 [CONTROL], 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.
1.1. Conventions and Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
This document introduces no new terminology. However, it assumes
that the reader is familiar with the terminology contained in
[CONTROL] and RFC 3985, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
Architecture" [ARCH].
Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4863 Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007
2. Wildcard PW Type
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 [CONTROL], 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.
3. Procedures
3.1. Procedures When Sending the Wildcard FEC
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.
3.2. Procedures When Receiving the Wildcard FEC
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.
Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4863 Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007
4. Security Considerations
This document has little impact on the security aspects of [CONTROL].
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 [CONTROL], in general, and those
pertaining to the Generalized PWid FEC Element, in particular.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has made the following allocation from the IETF consensus range
of the "Pseudowire Type" registry as defined in [IANA].
PW Type Description
0x7FFF Wildcard
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[CONTROL] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T.,
and G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using
the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April
2006.
[IANA] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
6.2. Informative References
[ARCH] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire
Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
March 2005.
Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4863 Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007
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
Martini & Swallow Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4863 Wildcard Pseudowire Type May 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, 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 BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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]