RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowire Stitchi ng Function in draft-stein-pwe3-pwce2e-00.txt
Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com> Tue, 11 November 2003 23:56 UTC
From: Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
Subject: RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowire Stitchi ng Function in draft-stein-pwe3-pwce2e-00.txt
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:56:46 +0200
Lines: 207
Sender: pwe3-admin@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
Cc: Alik Shimelmits <alik@AXERRA.com>, "Stewart Bryant (E-mail)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "Prayson Pate (E-mail)" <prayson.pate@overturenetworks.com>, "PWE3 WG (E-mail)" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "David Sinicrope (E-mail)" <David.Sinicrope@Ericsson.com>, "Yaakov Stein (E-mail)" <yaakov_s@Rad.co.il>
X-From: pwe3-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 12 01:00:07 2003
Return-path: <pwe3-admin@ietf.org>
To: "'Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)'" <busschbach@lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Errors-To: pwe3-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Status: O
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418091715.2560.5057.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
Peter, Thank you for a prompt response. I'll check your reference to hierarchical VPLS in draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-00.txt However, I do not think that Option 3 is really identical to hierarchical VPLS because the PSF is service-agnostic and does not look at any part of the native frame. I would say it sounds like a hierarchical VPWS. I would appreciate references to multi-hop LSPs if you can provide them. Wrt interest - or lack thereof - based on Yaakov's draft, the crucial question, IMO, is: what justifies support of Option 3 when Option 2 does the same job as well? Saving one label stack entry on the CE-PE packet clearly does not. And, from little I know about MPLS UNI (David is the expert here), it allows you to obtain a valid transport label without the need to learn the core topology. It is also a clear-cut control plane solution, without the need for a new function (PSF) in the high-speed data plane. Please note that I do not reject Option 3 out of hand. I simply try to understand its advantages (and disadvantages:-). At the same time I feel pretty sure that Option 1 is a dead-end. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- With best regards, Sasha Vainshtein email: sasha@axerra.com <mailto:sasha@axerra.com> phone: +972-3-7659993 (office) +972-8-9254948 (home) +972-58-674833 (cellular) > -----Original Message----- > From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [mailto:busschbach@lucent.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:01 AM > To: Sasha Vainshtein; Yaakov Stein (E-mail) > Cc: Alik Shimelmits; Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Prayson Pate (E-mail); > PWE3 WG (E-mail); David Sinicrope (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [PWE3] CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowire > Stitchi ng Function in draft-stein-pwe3-pwce2e-00.txt > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:02 PM > > To: Yaakov Stein (E-mail) > > Cc: Alik Shimelmits; Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Prayson Pate > > (E-mail); PWE3 WG (E-mail); David Sinicrope (E-mail) > > Subject: [PWE3] CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and > > Pseudowire Stitching Function in draft-stein-pwe3-pwce2e-00.txt > > > > > > Yaakov and all, > > I'd like to present the technical problem I have with the > > current text of draft-stein-pwe3-pwce2e-00.txt and options > > for solving this problem. > > > > My problem is with the following para in Section 3: > > > > <quote> > > The ideal way of handling a PWCE2E packet is to > > have the CE perform the service specific encapsulation > > and to prepend the (inner) PW label, but no (outer) MPLS > > transport labels. The PE, which participates in the provider > > network signaling, then adds the appropriate MPLS labels > > as required. > > <end quote> > > > > IMO, it is easy to see why this will not work as written. > > > > Please consider the following use case: > > > > 1. There are three CEs (CE-1, CE-2 and CE-3) attached > > to 3 PEs (PE-1, PE-2 and PE3 respectively). > > 2. In each case the link between CE-i and PE-i is a > > "single-hop" link (i.e., there are no LSRs in the > > path, but there may be L2 switches - Ethernet, FR/ATM etc). > > 3. You want to run two PWs: > > a) PW-12 runs between CE-1 and CE-2 > > b)PW-13 runs between CE-1 and CE-3. > > > > How can PE-1 (which both these PWs have to cross on their ways > > to their peer CEs) know which transport labels to add to packets > > received from CE-1? > > > > This decision CANNOT be based on the PW labels in these packets, > > because these labels are independently allocated by CE-2 and CE-3 > > respectively, so that nothing prevents them from being equal > > (accidentally or else). > > And inspection of the encapsulated data will not help either. > > > > (BTW, this is exactly the difference between MPLS and, say, > > FR or ATM: in the latter cases, DLCI or VCI/VPI values are > > unique on the attachment link and known to the PE, > > in the former case they are not.) > > > > How can this be fixed? > > > > I see three ways to do so. > > > > 1. Limit this case to one PW per CE. IMO, this is > > a very problematic limitation (one could say, that > > it is ultimately non-scalable!) and does not > > justify any action wrt the existing documents. > > > > 2. Allow the CE to push both the PW and transport labels > > on top of the payload and PWE3 control info. > > This would make it equivalent to the "normal" PW,and no > > technical changes in the architecture doc are required. > > The transport label can be obtained in many different ways, > > including usage of the MPLS UNI (as suggested by David > > Sinicrope). > > > > 3. Use PW stitching. This would introduce a new element > > in the PWE3 architecture - the Pseudo-Wire > > Stitching Function (PSF) - located in the PEs. > > The PSF would operate like following: > > a) Terminate a "usual" PW running between two PEs > > adjacent to the CEs in question. > > Note that the PEs must exchange their incoming > > PW labels for this PW just as in the "normal" case > > b) Terminate the "spoke" PW between the CE and its adjacent PE. > > This PW would not require transport labels because > the CE<-->PE > > transport LSPs are just one hop, and PHP can be applied > > to them. > > The PW labels for the spoke PWs would be exchanged > > between the CE and > > its adjacent PE in the usual way. > > c) Stitch the spoke PW with the PE-PE PW. Such a stitching would: > > * Leave the PW packet payload and control info (if any) intact > > * Swap the inner label > > * In one direction (CE-->PE), push the transport > > label(s) required for the PE-PE PW. > > Opposite to the PW IWFs, one and only one PSF type is required. > > The resulting architecture resembles the Hierarchical VPLS > > defined in > > draft-ietf-l2vln-vpls-ldp-01.txt (hence the term "Spoke PW"). Its > > advantage > > stems from moving the service-specific IWF functionality > > towards the CE > > (and hence > > may be of special importance for TDM PWs), while possibility of > > misconfiguration > > (e.g., connection of IWFs with different service types) should be > > considered > > as a disadvantage. Another disadvantage, of course, is > > introduction of a > > new > > (albeit simple) architectural element in the high-speed > data plane. > > > > IMO, any technical changes in the architecture document > > should be considered > > only if we reach a conclusion that advantages of the PW > > stitching option > > outweigh its disadvantages. > > Sasha, > > I believe that option 3 is identical to the Distributed VPLS > model described in section 5.5 of draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-00.txt. > > IMO, CE-CE PWs is just one example of situations that require > multi-hop PWs. > > draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-00.txt talks about splicing PWs. > You talk about stitching PWs. In both cases the solution > sounds kludgy, to say the least. However, if you look at > these multi-hop PWs as regular LSPs established along a > multi-hop path, everything is pretty much straightforward. > Setup of such multi-hop LSPs would require a protocol like > CR-LDP or RSVP. RSVP is in my view the preferred solution, > but CR-LDP would be closer to the current control draft. > > In any case, as I said in another email, I would prefer it if > we would solve the multi-hop issue before progressing the > control draft. The response to that email was that it is not > clear that people are interested in the multi-hop solution. I > would argue that Yaakov's contribution shows that there is interest. > > Peter > > > > > Hope these notes would be helpful. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > -------- > > With best regards, > > Sasha Vainshtein > > email: sasha@axerra.com > > phone: +972-3-7659993 (office) > > +972-8-9254948 (home) > > +972-58-674833 (cellular) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pwe3 mailing list > > pwe3@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > >
- RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowir… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowir… Sasha Vainshtein
- RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowir… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowir… Sasha Vainshtein
- RE: CE-to-CE PWs, Hierarchical VPLS and Pseudowir… David Sinicrope