Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                            C. MetzRequest for Comments: 5003                                    L. MartiniCategory: Standards Track                             Cisco Systems Inc.                                                                F. Balus                                                          Alcatel-Lucent                                                             J. Sugimoto                                                         Nortel Networks                                                          September 2007Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for AggregationStatus 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.Abstract   The signaling protocols used to establish point-to-point pseudowires   include type-length-value (TLV) fields that identify pseudowire   endpoints called attachment individual identifiers (AIIs).  This   document defines AII structures in the form of new AII TLV fields   that support AII aggregation for improved scalability and Virtual   Private Network (VPN) auto-discovery.  It is envisioned that this   would be useful in large inter-domain virtual private wire service   networks where pseudowires are established between selected local and   remote provider edge (PE) nodes based on customer need.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Specification of Requirements ...................................33. Structure for the New AII Type ..................................33.1. AII Type 1 .................................................33.2. AII Type 2 .................................................34. IANA Considerations .............................................55. Security Considerations .........................................56. Acknowledgments .................................................57. Normative References ............................................58. Informative References ..........................................5Metz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5003               AII Types for Aggregation          September 20071.  Introduction   [RFC4447] defines the signaling mechanisms for establishing point-   to-point pseudowires (PWs) between two provider edge (PE) nodes.   When a PW is set up, the LDP signaling messages include a forwarding   equivalence class (FEC) element containing information about the PW   type and an endpoint identifier used in the selection of the PW   forwarder that binds the PW to the attachment circuit at each end.   There are two types of FEC elements defined for this purpose: PWid   FEC (type 128) and the Generalized ID (GID) FEC (type 129).  The PWid   FEC element includes a fixed-length 32-bit value called the PWid that   serves as an endpoint identifier.  The same PWid value must be   configured on the local and remote PE prior to PW setup.   The GID FEC element includes TLV fields for attachment individual   identifiers (AIIs) that, in conjunction with an attachment group   identifier (AGI), serve as PW endpoint identifiers.  The endpoint   identifier on the local PE (denoted as <AGI, source AII, or SAII>) is   called the source attachment identifier (SAI) and the endpoint   identifier on the remote PE (denoted as <AGI, target AII, or TAII>)   is called the target attachment identifier (TAI).  The SAI and TAI   can be distinct values.  This is useful for applications and   provisioning models where the local PE (with a particular SAI) does   not know and must somehow learn (e.g., via Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP)   auto-discovery) of remote TAI values prior to launching PW setup   messages towards the remote PE.   The use of the GID FEC TLV provides the flexibility to structure   (source or target) AII values to best fit the needs of a particular   application or provisioning model [L2VPN-SIG].  For example, an AII   structure that enables many individual AII values to be identified as   a single value could significantly reduce the burden on AII   distribution mechanisms (e.g., MP-BGP) and on PE memory needed to   store this AII information.  It should be noted that Pseudowire   Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) signaling messages will always include   a fully qualified AII value.   An AII that is globally unique would facilitate PW management and   security in large inter-AS (autonomous system) and inter-provider   environments.  Providers would not have to worry about AII value   overlap during provisioning or the need for AII network address   translation (NAT) boxes during signaling.  Globally unique AII values   could aid in troubleshooting and could be subjected to source-   validity checks during AII distribution and signaling.  An AII   automatically derived from a provider's existing IP address space can   simplify the provisioning process.Metz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5003               AII Types for Aggregation          September 2007   This document defines an AII structure based on [RFC4447] that:     o Enables many discrete attachment individual identifiers to be       summarized into a single AII summary value.  This will enhance       scalability by reducing the burden on AII distribution mechanisms       and on PE memory.     o Ensures global uniqueness if desired by the provider.  This will       facilitate Internet-wide PW connectivity and provide a means for       providers to perform source validation on the AII distribution       (e.g., MP-BGP) and signaling (e.g., LDP) channels.   This is accomplished by defining new AII types and the associated   formats of the value field.2.  Specification of Requirements   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 [RFC2119].3.  Structure for the New AII Type   [RFC4447] defines the format of the GID FEC TLV and the use and   semantics of the attachment group identifier (AGI).3.1.  AII Type 1   AII Type 1 has been allocated by IANA for use with provisioning   models requiring a fixed-length 32-bit value [L2VPN-SIG].  This value   is unique on the local PE.3.2.  AII Type 2   The AII Type 2 structure permits varying levels of AII summarization   to take place, thus reducing the scaling burden on the aforementioned   AII distribution mechanisms and PE memory.  In other words, it no   longer becomes necessary to distribute or configure all individual   AII values (which could number in the tens of thousands or more) on   local PEs prior to establishing PWs to remote PEs.  The details of   how and where the aggregation of AII values is performed and then   distributed as AII reachability information are not discussed in this   document.   AII Type 2 uses a combination of a provider's globally unique   identifier (Global ID), a 32-bit prefix field, and a 4-octet   attachment circuit identifier (AC ID) field to create globally unique   AII values.Metz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5003               AII Types for Aggregation          September 2007   The encoding of AII Type 2 is shown in Figure 1.    0                   1                   2                   3    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  AII Type=02  |    Length     |        Global ID              |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |       Global ID (contd.)      |        Prefix                 |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |       Prefix (contd.)         |        AC ID                  |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |      AC ID                    |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                    Figure 1. AII Type 2 TLV Structure   o AII Type = 0x02     o Length = length of value field in octets.  The length is set to       12.     o Global ID = This is a 4-octet field containing a value that is       unique to the provider.  The global ID can contain the 2-octet or       4-octet value of the provider's Autonomous System Number (ASN).       It is expected that the global ID will be derived from the       globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting the PEs       containing the actual AIIs.  The presence of a global ID based on       the provider's ASN ensures that the AII will be globally unique.       If the global ID is derived from a 2-octet AS number, then the       two high-order octets of this 4-octet field MUST be set to zero.       Please note that the use of the provider's ASN as a global ID       DOES NOT have anything at all to do with the use of the ASN in       protocols such as BGP.     o Prefix = The 32-bit prefix is a value assigned by the provider or       it can be automatically derived from the PE's /32 IPv4 loopback       address.  Note that, for IP reachability, it is not required that       the 32-bit prefix have any association with the IPv4 address       space used in the provider's IGP or BGP.     o Attachment Circuit (AC) ID = This is a fixed-length 4-octet field       used to further refine identification of an attachment circuit on       the PE.  The inclusion of the AC ID is used to identify       individual attachment circuits that share a common prefix.Metz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5003               AII Types for Aggregation          September 20074.  IANA Considerations   IANA has allocated a value from the "Attachment Individual Identifier   (AII) Type" registry defined in [RFC4446].   The value for this AII type is 0x02.5.  Security Considerations   AII values appear in AII distribution protocols [L2VPN-SIG] and PW   signaling protocols [RFC4447] and are subject to various   authentication schemes (i.e., MD5) if so desired.   The use of global ID values (e.g., ASN) in the inter-provider case   could enable a form of source-validation checking to ensure that the   AII value (aggregated or explicit) originated from a legitimate   source.6.  Acknowledgments   Thanks to Carlos Pignataro, Scott Brim, Skip Booth, George Swallow,   and Bruce Davie for their input into this document.7.  Normative References   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate               Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC4447]   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.   [RFC4446]   Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to               Edge Emulation (PWE3)",BCP 116,RFC 4446, April 2006.8.  Informative References   [L2VPN-SIG] Rosen, E., Luo, W., Davie, B., and V. Radoaca,               "Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs",               Work in Progress, May 2006.Metz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5003               AII Types for Aggregation          September 2007Authors' Addresses   Luca Martini   Cisco Systems, Inc.   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400   Englewood, CO, 80112   EMail: lmartini@cisco.com   Chris Metz   Cisco Systems, Inc.   3700 Cisco Way   San Jose, Ca. 95134   EMail: chmetz@cisco.com   Florin Balus   Alcatel-Lucent   701 East Middlefield Rd.   Mountain View, CA 94043   EMail: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com   Jeff Sugimoto   Nortel Networks   3500 Carling Ave.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA   EMail: sugimoto@nortel.comMetz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5003               AII Types for Aggregation          September 2007Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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.Metz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 7]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp