Re: last call on terminology draft
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Thu, 05 February 2004 22:13 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15714 for <l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:13:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AorjZ-0006fi-Qt for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:12:34 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i15MCTaf025640 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:12:29 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AorjZ-0006fT-Ko for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:12:29 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15705 for <l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:12:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AorjX-0001k7-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:12:27 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoriW-0001hV-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:11:28 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoriD-0001fD-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:11:06 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoriA-0006UO-DQ; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:11:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNs6-00083j-B8 for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:19:21 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06820 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:19:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNs4-000151-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:19:16 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNrB-0000yp-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:18:25 -0500
Received: from [213.163.128.164] (helo=shyguy.smb.utfors.se) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNqC-0000nM-00; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:17:20 -0500
Received: from pi.se (md46909b9.utfors.se [212.105.9.185]) by shyguy.smb.utfors.se (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HSK00K6NCC7ZS@shyguy.smb.utfors.se>; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:02:46 +0100 (MET)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:02:27 +0100
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Subject: Re: last call on terminology draft
In-reply-to: <017a01c3eb03$e25c39b0$1702010a@Puppy>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Cc: Tove Madsen <tove@niebelungen.net>, Rick Wilder <rick@rhwilder.net>, l3vpn@ietf.org
Message-id: <4020FB73.9070503@pi.se>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
References: <20040120215626.64812.qmail@web109.biz.mail.yahoo.com> <017a01c3eb03$e25c39b0$1702010a@Puppy>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adrian, inline Adrian Farrel wrote: >Useful draft, thanks. > :) > >Mainly typos, attached. > >I find it odd that the list of drafts that depend on this terminology draft are normative >references. This will delay the publication of this document as an RFC and doesn't seem >necessary. > good point, we'll look into how will handle it > >Not sure if references such as draft-ppvpn-metrics.00.txt in section 3.7 should actually >be handled as other references. Perhaps add a third references section "Expired >References"? > this gives some idea of the "patina" of the draft, the metrics were important when we first wrote the terminology. I guess that the appropriate thing to do is to mention the therer are drafts that has expired, sometimes because they've been incorported in others, sometime because they served their purpose > >I wonder whether the sections are in the right order. The building block terms from >section 5 get used throughout section 3. The early subsections in section 3 refer to the >later subsections. But this is hardly important. > believe me, there are circular dependencies in the draft, which ever way you do you will have forward looking references We will look in to the typos /Loa > >You seem to be missing copyright and IPR statements. > >Cheers, >Adrian > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >L3VPN Working Group Loa Andersson >Internet-Draft Tove Madsen >< TLA¡group > > >> TLA-group >> >> >Expiration Date: March 2004 > > 25 September, 2003 > > PPVPN terminology > <draft-andersson-ppvpn-terminology-04.txt> > > >Status of this Memo > > This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with > all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026]. > > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that > other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- > Drafts. > > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six > months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other > documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts > as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in > progress." > > The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt > > The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. > > For potential updates to the above required-text see: > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt > > >Abstract > >< The provider provisioned VPN solutions has attracted a great deal >< of interest. Memos proposing different and overlapping solution > > >> The provider provisioned VPN solutions have attracted a great deal >> of interest. Memos proposing different and overlapping solutions >> >> > have been discussed on the PPVPN mailing list and in the Working >< Group meetings. This has lead to a development of a partly new > > >> Group meetings. This has lead to the development of a partly new >> >> > set of concepts used to describe the set of VPN services. To a >< certain extent there are more than one term covering the same >< concept and sometimes the same term covers more than on concept. > > >> certain extent there is more than one term covering the same >> concept and sometimes the same term covers more than one concept. >> >> > The terminology needs to be made clearer and more intuitive. This > document seeks to fill at least part of that need. > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 2] > >Conventions used in this document > > 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 > [RFC2119]. > >Table of contents > >1. Introduction ..................................................... 3 > >2. PPVPN Terminology ................................................ 4 > >3. Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network services ............ 5 > 3.1 IP-only LAN-like Service (IPLS)............................... 5 > 3.2 Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) .......................................... 5 > 3.3 Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) .......................................... 5 > 3.4 Pseudo Wire (PW) ............................................. 5 > 3.5 Transparent LAN Service (TLS)................................. 6 > 3.6 Virtual LAN (VLAN) ........................................... 6 > 3.7 Virtual Leased Line Service (VLLS)............................ 6 > 3.8 Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)............................ 6 > 3.9 Virtual Private Network (VPN)................................. 6 > 3.10 Virtual Private Switched Network (VPSN)...................... 7 > 3.11 Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS).......................... 7 > >4. Classification of VPNs ........................................... 7 > >5. Building blocks .................................................. 9 > 5.1 Customer Edge device (CE) .................................... 9 > 5.1.1 Device based CE naming.................................. 9 > 5.1.2 Service based CE naming................................ 10 > 5.2 Provider Edge (PE) .......................................... 10 > 5.2.1 Device based PE naming................................. 11 > 5.2.2 Service based PE naming................................ 11 > 5.2.3 Distribution based PE naming........................... 12 > 5.3 Core ........................................................ 12 > 5.3.1 Provider router (P) ................................... 12 > 5.4 Naming in specific Internet drafts........................... 12 > 5.4.1 Layer 2 PE (L2PE) ..................................... 12 > 5.4.2 Logical PE (LPE) ...................................... 13 > 5.4.3 PE-CLE ................................................ 13 > 5.4.4 PE-Core ............................................... 13 > 5.4.5 PE-Edge ............................................... 13 > 5.4.6 PE-POP ................................................ 13 > 5.4.7 VPLS Edge (VE) ........................................ 13 > >6. Functions ....................................................... 13 > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 3] > > 6.1 Attachment Circuit (AC) ................................... 14 > 6.2 Backdoor Links ............................................ 14 > 6.3 Endpoint discovery ........................................ 14 > 6.4 Flooding .................................................. 14 > 6.5 MAC address learning ...................................... 14 > 6.5.1 Qualified learning ................................... 14 > 6.5.2 Unqualified learning ................................. 15 > 6.6 Signalling ................................................ 15 > >7. 'Boxes' .......................................................... 15 > 7.1 Aggregation box ........................................... 15 > 7.2 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).......................... 15 > 7.3 Multi Tenant Unit (MTU) ................................... 16 > >8. Packet Switched Network (PSN) .................................... 16 > 8.1 Route Distinguisher (RD) .................................. 16 > 8.2 Route Reflector ........................................... 16 > 8.3 Route Target (RT) ......................................... 16 > 8.4 Tunnel .................................................... 17 > 8.5 Tunnel multiplexor ........................................ 17 > 8.6 Virtual Channel (VC) ...................................... 17 > 8.7 VC label .................................................. 17 > 8.8 Inner label ............................................... 17 > 8.9 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF)........................... 17 > 8.10 VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI)............................. 18 > 8.11 Virtual Switch Instance (VSI)............................. 18 > 8.12 Virtual Router (VR) ...................................... 18 > >9. Acknowledgements ................................................. 18 > >10. Authors' Contact ................................................ 18 > >11. Normative References ............................................ 19 > >12. Non-Normative References ........................................ 19 > > > >1. Introduction > >< There are a comparatively large number of memos being submitted to > > >> There is a comparatively large number of memos being submitted to >> >> > the former PPVPN, and L2VPN, L3VPN and PWE3 working groups that >< all addresses the same problem space, provider provisioned virtual > > >> all address the same problem space, provider provisioned virtual >> >> > private networking for end customers. The memos address a wide > range of services, but there is also a great deal of commonality > among the proposed solutions. > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 4] > >< This has lead to a development of a partly new set of concepts > > >> This has lead to the development of a partly new set of concepts >> >> > used to describe this set of VPN services. To a certain extent >< there are more than one term covering the same concept and > > >> there is more than one term covering the same concept and >> >> > sometimes the same term covers more than one concept. The > terminology needs to be made clearer and more intuitive. > > This document seeks to fill at least part of the need and proposes > a foundation for a unified terminology for the L2VPN, L3VPN > working groups; in some cases the parallel concepts within the >< PWE3 working group is used as references. > > >> PWE3 working group are used as references. >> >> > > >2. PPVPN Terminology > > The concepts and terms in this list are gathered from Internet > Drafts sent to the L2VPN and L3VPN mailing lists (earlier PPVPN > mailing list) and RFCs relevant to the L2VPN and L3VPN working > groups. The focus is on terminology and concepts that are specific > to the PPVPN area, but this is not strictly enforced, e.g. there > are concepts and terms within the PWE3 and (Generalized) MPLS > areas that are closely related. We've tried to find the earliest > use of terms and concepts. > > This document intends to fully cover the concepts within five core > documents from the L2VPN and L3VPN working groups the "Generic > Requirements for Provider Provisioned VPN" [GENERIC], the "A > Framework for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private > Networks" [L3VPN-frmwrk], the "Service requirements for Layer 3 > Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks" [PPVPN-req], the > "L2VPN Framework [L2VPN-frmwrk] and "Service Requirements for > Layer 2 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks" [L2VPN- > req]. The intention is to create a comprehensive and unified set > of concepts for these documents, and by extension for the entire >< PPVPNarea.Todosoitisalsonecessarytogivesomeofthe > > >> PPVPN area. To do so it is also necessary to give some of the >> >> >##huh?## development the concepts of the area have been through. > > The document is structured in four major sections. Section 4 lists >< the different services that has been/will be specified, Section 5 >< lists the building blocks that is used to specify those services, > > >> the different services that have been/will be specified, Section 5 >> lists the building blocks that are used to specify those services, >> >> > section 6 lists the functions needed in those services and section > 7 list some typical devices used in customer and provider > networks. > > > > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 5] > >3. Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network services > > In this section we define the terminology that relates the set of > services to solutions specified by the L2VPN and L3VPN working > groups. The concept "pseudo wire" that belongs to the PWE3 working > group is included for reference purposes. For requirements in > provider provisioned VPNs see [PPVPN-req]. > > In this section all abbreviations are listed in alphabetic order. > >3.1 IP-only LAN-like Service (IPLS) > > An IPLS is very like a VPLS (see 3.8), except that: > > - it is assumed that the CE devices (see 5.1) are hosts or > routers, not switches > > - it is assumed that the service will only need to carry IP > packets, and supporting packets such as ICMP and ARP; > otherwise layer 2 packets which do not contain IP are not > supported. > > While this service is a functional subset of the VPLS service, it > is considered separately because it may be possible to provide it > using different mechanisms, which may allow it to run on certain > hardware platforms that cannot support the full VPLS functionality > [PPVPN-L2-frmwrk]. > >3.2 Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) > > Three types of L2VPNs are described in this document, Virtual >< Private Wire Service (VPWS) (section 3.11), VPLS Virtual Private >< LAN Service (VPLS)(section 3.8), and IP-only LAN-like Service >< (IPLS). > > >> Private Wire Service (VPWS) (section 3.11), Virtual Private >> LAN Service (VPLS) (section 3.8), and IP-only LAN-like Service >> (IPLS) (section 3.1). >> >> > >3.3 Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) > > An L3VPN is a solution that interconnects several sets of hosts > and routers and allows them to communicate based on L3 addresses, > see [L3VPN-frmwrk]. > >3.4 Pseudo Wire (PW) > >< The PWE3 working group within IETF specifies the pseudo wire > > >> The PWE3 working group within the IETF specifies the pseudo wire >> >> > technology. A pseudo wire is an emulated point-to-point >< connectivity over a packet switched network that gives the > > >> connection over a packet switched network that gives the >> >> > possibility to interconnect two nodes with any L2 technology. The > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 6] > > PW shares some of the building blocks and architecture constructs > with the point to multipoint solutions, e.g. PE (see 5.2) and CE > (see 5.1). An early solution for PWs is described in [martini- > tran]. Encapsulation formats readily used in VPWS, VPLS and PWs > are described in [martini-encap]. Requirements for PWs are found >< in [PWE3-req] and [PWE3-frmwrk] present an architectural framework > > >> in [PWE3-req] and [PWE3-frmwrk] presents an architectural framework >> >> > for PWs. > >3.5 Transparent LAN Service (TLS) > > TLS was an early name used to describe the VPLS service, it was > used e.g. in the now dated draft-lasserre-tls-mpls-00.txt. It has > been replaced by VPLS, which is the current term. > >3.6 Virtual LAN (VLAN) > > A VLAN is a way of separating traffic on a LAN, e.g. between > different departments within a company. This acronym is not > defined by former PPVPN working group, but is defined by IEEE > 802.1Q. The VLANID is used to mark an Ethernet frame with a tag to > create user groups on a LAN. > >3.7 Virtual Leased Line Service (VLLS) > > The VLLS has been replaced by VPWS. It was used in now dated > draft-ppvpn-metrics.00.txt. > >3.8 Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) > > A VPLS is a provider service that emulates the full functionality > of a traditional Local Area Network. A VPLS makes it possible to > interconnect several LAN segments over a packet switched network > (PSN) and makes the remote LAN segments behave as one single LAN. > For an early work on defining a solution and protocol for a VPLS > see [L2VPN-req], [Lasserre-vkompella], and [Kompella-VPLS]. > > In a VPLS the provider network emulates a learning bridge and > forwarding decisions are taken based on MAC addresses or MAC > addresses and VLAN tag. > >3.9 Virtual Private Network (VPN) > > VPN is a generic term that covers the use of public or private > networks to create groups of users that are separated from other > network users and may communicate among them as if they were on a >< private network. The level of separation is possible to enhance > > >> private network. It is possible to enhance the level of separation >> >> > e.g. by end-to-end encryption, this is however outside the scope > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 7] > > of IETF VPN working group charters. This VPN definition is from > [RFC2764]. > > In the [L3VPN-frmwrk] the term VPN is used to refer to a specific > set of sites as either an intranet or an extranet that have been > configured to allow communication. Note that a site is a member of > at least one VPN, and may be a member of many VPNs. > > In this document "VPN" is also used as a generic name for all > services listed in section 3. > >3.10 Virtual Private Switched Network (VPSN) > > A VPSN is replaced by VPLS. The VPSN abbreviation was used e.g. in > the now dated draft-vkompella-ppvpn-vpsn.reqmts-00.txt. > >3.11 Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) > > A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) is a point-to-point circuit > (link) connecting two Customer Edge devices. The CE in the > customer network is connected to a PE in the provider network via > an Attachment Circuit (see 6.1); the Attachment Circuit is either > a physical or a logical circuit. > >< The PE's in the core network is connected via a PW. > > >> The PE's in the core network are connected via a PW. >> >> > > The CE devices can be routers, bridges, switches or hosts. In some > implementations a set of VPWSs is used to create a multi-site > L2VPN network. An example of a VPWS solution is described in > [L2VPN]. > >< A VPWS differs from a VPLS (section 4.8) in that the VPLS is point > > >> A VPWS differs from a VPLS (section 3.8) in that the VPLS is point >> >> > to multipoint, while the VPWS is point to point. See [L2VPN- > frmwrk]. > > >4. Classification of VPNs > > The terminology used in [GENERIC] is defined based on the figure > below. > > > > > > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 8] > > PPVPN > ________________|__________________ > | | > Layer 2 Layer 3 > ______|_____ ______|______ > | | | | > P2P P2M PE-based CE-based > (VPWS) _____|____ ______|____ | > | | | | | > VPLS IPLS RFC2547 Virtual IPsec > Style Router > > > The figure above presents a taxonomy of PPVPN technologies. Some > of the definitions are given below: > > CE-based VPN: A VPN approach in which the shared service provider > network does not have any knowledge of the customer VPN. This > information is limited to CE equipment. All the VPN-specific > procedures are performed in the CE devices, and the PE devices are > not aware in any way that some of the traffic they are processing > is VPN traffic (see also [L3VPN-frmwrk]). > > PE-Based VPNs: A Layer 3 VPN approach in which a service provider > network is used to interconnect customer sites using shared > resources. Specifically the PE device maintains VPN state, > isolating users of one VPN from users of another VPN. Because the > PE device maintains all required VPN state, the CE device may > behave as if it were connected to a private network. Specifically, > the CE in a PE-based VPN must not require any changes or > additional functionality to be connected to a PPVPN instead of a > private network. > > The PE devices know that certain traffic is VPN traffic. They > forward the traffic (through tunnels) based on the destination IP >< address of the packet, and optionally on based on other > > >> address of the packet, and optionally based on other >> >> > information in the IP header of the packet. The PE devices are > themselves the tunnel endpoints. The tunnels may make use of > various encapsulations to send traffic over the SP network (such > as, but not restricted to, GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, or MPLS >< tunnels)[L3VPN-frmwrk]. > > >> tunnels) [L3VPN-frmwrk]. >> >> > > > Virtual Router (VR) style: A PE-based VPN approach in which the PE > router maintains a complete logical router for each VPN that it > supports. Each logical router maintains a unique forwarding table > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 9] > > and executes a unique instance of the routing protocols. These > VPNs are described in [PPVPN-VR]. > > RFC 2547 Style: A PE-based VPN approach in which the PE router > maintains separate forwarding environment for each VPN and a > separate forwarding table for each VPN. In order to maintain > multiple forwarding table instances while running only a single > routing protocol instance, RFC 2547 style VPNs mark route > advertisements with attributes that identify their VPN context. > These VPNs are based on the approach described in [RFC2547bis]. > > >5. Building blocks > > Starting with specifications of L3VPNs, e.g. the 2547 > specification [RFC2547] and [RFC2547bis] and Virtual Routers > [PPVPN-VR], a way of describing the building blocks and allocation > of functions in VPN solutions was developed. The building blocks >< are often in day-to-day talk treated as if it were physical boxes, >< common for all services. > > >> are often used in day-to-day talk as if they were physical boxes, >> common to all services. >> >> > >< However, for different reasons this is to over-simplify. Any of > > >> However, for different reasons this is an over-simplification. Any of >> >> > the building blocks could be implemented across more than one > physical box. How common the use of such implementations will be > is beyond the scope of this document. > >5.1 Customer Edge device (CE) > > A CE is the name of the device with the functionality needed on > the customer premises to access the services specified by the > former PPVPN working group. > > There are two different aspects that need to be considered in > naming CE devices. One could start with the type of device that is > used to implement the CE (see section 5.1.1). It is also possible > to use the service the CE provides and with the result it will be > a set of "prefixed CEs", (see section 5.1.2). > > It is common practice to use "CE" to indicate any of these boxes, > since it is very often unambiguous in the specific context. > >5.1.1 Device based CE naming > > >5.1.1.1 Customer Edge Router (CE-R) > > A CE-R is a router in the customer network interfacing the > provider network. There are many reasons to use a router in the > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 10] > > customer network, e.g. in an L3VPN using private IP addressing > this is the router that is able to do forwarding based on the > private addresses. Another reason to require the use of a CE-R on > the customer side is that one want to limit the number on MAC- > addresses that needs to be learnt in the provider network. > > A CE-R could be used to access both L2 and L3 services. > > >5.1.1.2 Customer Edge Switch (CE-S) > > A CE-S is a service aware L2 switch in the customer network > interfacing the provider network. In a VPWS or a VPLS it is not > strictly necessary to use a router in the customer network, a > layer 2 switch might very well do the job. > >5.1.2 Service based CE naming > > The list below is just examples and it will be extended as the > number of services increases. > > >5.1.2.1 L3VPN-CE > > An L3VPN-CE is the device or set of devices on the customer > premises that attaches to a provider provisioned L3VPN, e.g. a > 2547bis implementation. > > >5.1.2.2 VPLS-CE > > A VPLS-CE is the device or set of devices on the customer premises > that attaches to a provider provisioned VPLS. > > >5.1.2.3 VPWS-CE > > A VPWS-CE is the device or set of devices on the customer premises > that attaches to a provider provisioned VPWS. > >5.2 Provider Edge (PE) > > A PE is the name of the device or set of devices at the edge of > the provider network with the functionality that is needed to > interface the customer. PE, without further qualifications, is > very often used for naming the devices since it is made > unambiguous by the context. > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 11] > > In naming PEs there are three aspects that we need to consider, > the service they support, whether the functionality needed for > service is distributed across more than one device and the type of > device they are build on. > >5.2.1 Device based PE naming > > Both routers and switches may be used to implement PEs, however > the scaling properties will be radically different depending which >< type of equipment that is chosen. > > >> type of equipment is chosen. >> >> > > >5.2.1.1 Provider Edge Router (PE-R) > > A PE-R is a L3 device that participates in the PSN (see section 8) > routing and forwards packets based on the routing information. > > >5.2.1.2 Provider Edge Switch (PE-S) > >< APE-SisaL2devicethatparticipatesine.g.aswitched > > >> A PE-S is a L2 device that participates in e.g. a switched >> >> > Ethernet taking forwarding decision packets based on L2 address > information. > >5.2.2 Service based PE naming > > >5.2.2.1 L3VPN-PE > > An L3VPN-PE is a device or set of devices at the edge of the > provider network interfacing the customer network, with the > functionality needed for an L3VPN. > > >5.2.2.2 VPWS-PE > > A VPWS-PE is a device or set of devices at the edge of the > provider network interfacing the customer network, with the > functionality needed for a VPWS. > > >5.2.2.3 VPLS-PE > > A VPLS-PE is a device or set of devices at the edge of the > provider network interfacing the customer network, with the > functionality needed for a VPLS. > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 12] > >5.2.3 Distribution based PE naming > > For scaling reasons it is in the VPLS/VPWS cases sometimes desired > to distribute the functions in the VPLS/VPWS-PE across more than > one device, e.g. is it feasible to allocate MAC address learning > on a comparatively small and in-expensive device close to the > customer site, while participation in the PSN signalling and set > up of PE to PE tunnels are done by routers closer to the network > core. > > When distributing functionality across devices a protocol is > needed to exchange information between the Network facing PE (N- > PE) see section 5.2.3.1 and the User facing PE (U-PE) see section > 5.2.3.2. > > >5.2.3.1 Network facing PE (N-PE) > > The N-PE is the device to which the signalling and control > functions are allocated when a VPLS-PE is distributed across more > than one box. > > >5.2.3.2 User facing PE (U-PE) > > The U-PE is the device to which the functions needed to take > forwarding or switching decision at the ingress of the provider > network. > >5.3 Core > >5.3.1 Provider router (P) > >< ThePisdefinedasarouterinthecorenetworkthatdoesnot > > >> The P is defined as a router in the core network that does not >> >> > have interfaces directly towards a customer. Hence a P router does > not need to keep VPN state and is VPN un-aware. > >5.4 Naming in specific Internet drafts > >5.4.1 Layer 2 PE (L2PE) > > L2PE is the joint name of the devices in the provider network that > implement L2 functions needed for a VPLS or a VPWS. > > > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 13] > >5.4.2 Logical PE (LPE) > > The term Logical PE (LPE) originates from a dated Internet Draft > "VPLS/LPE L2VPNs: Virtual Private LAN Services using Logical PE > Architecture" and was used to describe a set of devices used in a > provider network to implement a VPLS. In a LPE, VPLS functions are > distributed across small devices (PE-Edges/U-PE) and devices > attached to a network core (PE-Core/N-PE). In an LPE solution the > PE-edge and PE-Core can be interconnected by a switched Ethernet > transport network(s) or uplinks. The LPE will appear to the core > network as a single PE. In this document the devices that > constitutes the LPE is called N-PE and U-PE. > >5.4.3 PE-CLE > > An alternative name for the U-PE suggested in now dated Internet > Draft "VPLS architectures". > >5.4.4 PE-Core > > See the origins and use of this concept in section 5.4.2. > >5.4.5 PE-Edge > > See the origins and use of this concept in section 5.4.2. > >5.4.6 PE-POP > > An alternative name for the U-PE suggested in now dated Internet > Draft "VPLS architectures". > >5.4.7 VPLS Edge (VE) > > The term VE originates from a dated Internet Draft on a > distributed transparent LAN service and was used to describe the >< deviceusedbyaprovidernetworktohandoffaVPLStoa > > >> device used by a provider network to hand off a VPLS to a >> >> > customer. In this document the VE is called a VPLS-PE. > > This name has dated. > > >6. Functions > > In this section we have grouped a number of concepts and terms >< that has to be performed to make the VPN services work. > > >> that have to be performed to make the VPN services work. >> >> > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 14] > >6.1 Attachment Circuit (AC) > > In a Layer 2 VPN the CE is attached to PE via an Attachment > Circuit (AC). The AC may be a physical or logical link. > > >6.2 Backdoor Links > > Backdoor Links are links between CE devices that are provided by > the end customer rather than the SP; may be used to interconnect > CE devices in multiple-homing arrangements [L3VPN-frmwrk]. > >6.3 Endpoint discovery > > Endpoint discovery is the process by which the devices that are > aware of a specific VPN service will find all customer facing > ports that belong to the same service. > > The requirements on endpoint discovery and signalling are > discussed in [PPVPN-req]. It was also the topic in a now dated > Internet Draft reporting from a design team activity on VPN > discovery. > >6.4 Flooding > > Flooding is a function related to L2 and L3 services; when a PE > receives a frame with an unknown destination MAC-address, that > frame is send out over (flooded) every other interface. > >6.5 MAC address learning > > MAC address learning is a function related to L2 services; when PE > receives a frame with an unknown source MAC-address the > relationship between that MAC-address and interface is learnt for > future forwarding purposes. In a layer 2 VPN solution from the > L2VPN WG, this function is allocated to the VPLS-PE. > >6.5.1 Qualified learning > > In qualified learning, the learning decisions at the U-PE are > based on the customer Ethernet frame's MAC address and VLAN tag, > if a VLAN tag exists. If no VLAN tag exists, the default VLAN is > assumed. > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 15] > >6.5.2 Unqualified learning > > In unqualified learning, learning is based on a customer Ethernet > frame's MAC address only. > >6.6 Signalling > > Signalling is the process by which the PEs that have VPNs behind > them exchange information to set up PWs, PSN tunnels and tunnel > multiplexers. This process might be automated through a protocol > or done by manual configuration. Different protocols may be used > to establish the PSN tunnels and exchange the tunnel multiplexers. > > > > >7. 'Boxes' > > We list a set of boxes that will typically be used in an > environment that supports different kinds of VPN services. We have > chosen to include some names of boxes that originate outside the > protocol specifying organisations. > >7.1 Aggregation box > > The aggregation box is typically an L2 switch that is service > unaware and is used only to aggregate traffic to more function > rich points in the network. > >7.2 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) > > The CPE equipment is the box that a provider places with the > customer. It serves two purposes, giving the customer ports to > plug in to and making it possible for a provider to monitor the > connectivity to the customer site. The CPE is typically a low cost > box with limited functionality and in most cases not aware of the > VPN services offered by the provider network. > > The CPE equipment is not necessarily the equipment to which the CE > functions are allocated, but is part of the provider network and > used for monitoring purposes. > > The CPE name is used primarily in network operation and deployment > contexts, and should not be used in protocol specifications. > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 16] > >7.3 Multi Tenant Unit (MTU) > > An MTU [DTLS] is typically an L2 switch placed by a service > provider in a building where customers of that service provider > are located. > > The MTU device name is used primarily in network operation and > deployment contexts, and should not be used in protocol > specifications, as it is also a used abbreviation for Maximum > Transmit Units. > > >8. Packet Switched Network (PSN) > > A PSN is the network through which the tunnels supporting the VPN > services are set up. > >8.1 Route Distinguisher (RD) > > A Route Distinguisher [RFC2547bis] is an 8-byte value that > togetherwitha4byteIPv4addressidentifiesaVPN-IPv4address > family. If two VPNs use the same IPv4 address prefix, the PEs > translates these into unique VPN-IPv4 address prefixes. This > ensures that if the same address is used in two different VPNs, it > is possible to install two completely different routes to that > address, one for each VPN. > >8.2 Route Reflector > > A route reflector is a network element owned by a Service Provider > (SP) that is used to distribute BGP routes to the SP's BGP-enabled > routers [L3VPN-frmwrk]. > >8.3 Route Target (RT) > > A Route Target attribute [RFC2547bis] can be thought of as > identifying a set of sites, or more precisely a set of VRFs (see > section 8.8). > > Associating a particular Route Target with a route, allows that > route to be placed in all VRFs that are used for routing traffic > received from the corresponding sites. > > A Route Target attribute is also a BGP extended community used in > [RFC2547], and [BGPVPN-auto]. A Route Target community is used to > constrain VPN information distribution to the set of VRFs. A route > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 17] > > target can be perceived as identifying a set of sites, or more > precisely a set of VRFs. > >8.4 Tunnel > > A tunnel is connectivity through a PSN that is used to send > traffic across the network from one PE to another. The tunnel > provides a mechanism to transport packets from one PE to another, > separation of one customer's traffic from another customer's > traffic is done based on tunnel multiplexers (see section 8.4). > How the tunnel is established depends on the tunnelling mechanisms > provided by the PSN, i.e. the tunnel could be based on e.g. the > IP-header, an MPLS label, the L2TP Session ID, or on the GRE Key > field. > >8.5 Tunnel multiplexor > > A tunnel multiplexor is an entity that is sent with the packets > traversing the tunnel to make possible to decide to which instance > of a service a packet belongs and from which sender it was > received. In [L2VPN] the tunnel multiplexor is formatted as an > MPLS label. > >8.6 Virtual Channel (VC) > > A VC is transported within a tunnel and identified by its tunnel > multiplexer. A virtual channel is identified by a VCI (Virtual > Channel Identifier). In the PPVPN context a VCI is a VC label or > tunnel multiplexer and in the Martini case it is equal to the > VCID. > >8.7 VC label > > In an MPLS enabled IP network a VC label is an MPLS label, used to > identify traffic within a tunnel that belongs to a particular VPN, > i.e. the VC label is the tunnel multiplexer in networks that uses > MPLS labels. > >8.8 Inner label > > "Inner label" is another name for VC label (see section 8.6). > >8.9 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) > > In networks running 2547 VPN's [RFC2547], PE routers maintain > VRF's. A VRF is a per-site forwarding table. Every site to which > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 18] > > the PE router is attached is associated with one of these tables. > A particular packet's IP destination address is looked up in a > particular VRF only if that packet has arrived directly from a > site, which is associated with that table. > >8.10 VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI) > > VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI) is a logical entity that resides in > a PE that includes the router information base and forwarding > information base for a VPN instance [L3VPN-frmwrk]. > >8.11 Virtual Switch Instance (VSI) > > In a layer 2 context a VSI is a virtual switching instance that > serves one single VPLS [L2VPN-frmwrk]. A VSI performs standard LAN > (i.e., Ethernet) bridging functions. Forwarding done by a VSI is > based on MAC addresses and VLAN tags, and possibly other relevant > information on a per VPLS basis. The VSI is allocated to VPLS-PE > or in the distributed case to the U-PE. > >8.12 Virtual Router (VR) > > A Virtual Router (VR) is software and hardware based emulation of > a physical router. Virtual routers have independent IP routing and > forwarding tables and they are isolated from each other, see > [PPVPN-VR]. > > >9. Acknowledgements > > Much of the content in this document is based on discussion in the > PPVPN design teams for "auto discovery" and "l2vpn". > > >10. Authors' Contact > > Loa Andersson > TLA-group > loa@pi.se > > Tove Madsen > TLA-group > tove@niebelungen.net > > > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 19] >11. Normative References > >[GENERIC] Nagarajan, A (ed), "Generic Requirements for Provider >Provisioned VPN", draft-ietf-l3vpn-generic-reqts-01.txt, Work in >Progress, Internet Draft, Aug 2003 > >[L2VPN-frmwrk] Andersson, L. and Rosen, E., "L2VPN Framework", draft- >ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-01.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, >Sept 2003 > >[L3VPN-frmwrk] Callon, R. and Suzuki, M.," A Framework for Layer 3 >Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks", draft-ietf-l3vpn- >framework-00.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, March 2003 > >[PPVPN-req] Carugi, M. and McDysan, D., "Service requirements for >Layer 3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks", draft-ietf- >l3vpn-requirements-00.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, Oct 2003 > >[L2VPN-req] Augustyn, W., and Serbest, Y., "Service Requirements for >Layer 2 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks", draft-ietf- >l2vpn-requirements-00.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, May 2003 > > >12. Non-Normative References > > >[BGPVPN-auto] Ould-Brahim, H., Rosen, E. and Rekhter, Y. "Using BGP >as an auto-discovery mechanism for network-based VPNs", draft-ietf- >l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-00.txt, Work in progress, Internet Draft, July 2003 > >[kompella-VPLS] Kompella, K. "Virtual Private LAN Service", draft- >ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, May >2003 > >[L2VPN] Kompella, K., et.al. "Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels", draft- >kompella-ppvpn-l2vpn-03.txt, Work in Progress, June 2002 > >[lasserre-vkompella] Kompella, V. and Lasserre, M., "Virtual Private >LAN Services over MPLS" draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-00.txt, Work in >progress, Mar 2002 > >[martini-encap] Martini, L., et.al. "Encapsulation Methods for >Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over IP and MPLSNetworks", draft-martini- >l2circuit-encap-mpls-05.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, April >2003 > > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > >Andersson / Madsen Expires March 2004 [Page 20] > >[martini-tran] Martini, L., et.al. "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over >MPLS", draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-11.txt, Work in progress, >Internet Draft, April 2003 > >[PPVPN-VR] Ould-Brahim, H., et.al. "Network-based IP VPN using >Virtual Routers", draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-00.txt, Work in Progress, >Internet Draft, July 2002 > >[PWE3-arch] Prayson, P. and Bryant, S., "PWE3 Architecture", draft- >ietf-pwe3-arch-05.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, August 2003 > >[PWE3-req] Xiao, X., "Requirements for Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge-to- >Edge (PWE3)", draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-06.txt, Work in progress, >Internet Draft, July 2003 > >[RFC2547] Rosen, E., et.al. "BGP/MPLS VPNs", rfc2547, March 1999 > >[RFC2547bis] Rosen, E., "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn- >rfc2547bis-01.txt, Work in Progress, Internet Draft, September 2003 > >[RFC2764] Gleeson, B., et.al. "A Framework for IP Based Virtual >Private Networks", rfc2764, February 2000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-00.txt 25.09.03 > > > > >
- last call on terminology draft Rick Wilder
- Re: last call on terminology draft Loa Andersson
- Re: last call on terminology draft Adrian Farrel
- End of Last Call (Re: last call on terminology dr… Ross Callon
- Re: End of Last Call (Re: last call on terminolog… W. Mark Townsley
- Re: End of Last Call (Re: last call on terminolog… Ross Callon
- Re: End of Last Call (Re: last call on terminolog… Loa Andersson