RFC 7338
Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS Packet Switched Networks
RFC 7338: Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS Packet Switched Networks 🎀
Okay bestie, so this is RFC 7338 💖, an Informational doc (not a Standards Track spec) published by the IETF in September 2014 with ISSN 2070-1721 ✨. The editors are F. Jounay, Ed. (Orange CH) and Y. Kamite, Ed. (NTT Communications), with co-authors G. Heron (Cisco Systems) and M. Bocci (Alcatel-Lucent) 🫶. The header doesn't list any RFCs that it obsoletes or updates, so it's a standalone vibe 🌸.
Abstract 🦋
Okay so this doc lays out a set of requirements and a framework for giving you a point-to-multipoint pseudowire (PW) over MPLS Packet Switched Networks 🧚. The requirements are about architecture, signaling, and maintenance stuff for P2MP PW operation, and they're proposed as guidelines for standardizing those mechanisms. Among other possible uses, P2MP PWs can optimize multicast Layer 2 services, like Virtual Private LAN Service and Virtual Private Multicast Service 💅.
Status of This Memo 📜
This doc is not an Internet Standards Track specification. It's published just for informational purposes 🍓.
This doc is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), so it represents the consensus of the IETF community 🫶. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every doc the IESG approves is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so check out Section 2 of RFC 5741 if you want the details 🙈.
Info about the current status of this doc, any errata, and how to give feedback can be found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7338 ✨.
Copyright Notice ⚖️
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 🌈.
This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they're in effect on the publication date. Please read these carefully, bestie, because they explain your rights and restrictions for this doc 📖. Code Components pulled out of this doc must include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come with no warranty, just like the Simplified BSD License describes 🔥.
This doc may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions that were published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) who control the copyright in some of that material may not have given the IETF Trust permission to allow modifications outside the IETF Standards Process 💀. Unless you get an adequate license from those copyright holders, this doc may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process. The exceptions are formatting it for publication as an RFC or translating it into languages other than English 🎀.
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Problem Statement ..........................................3
1.2. Scope of This Document .....................................4
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Definitions .....................................................5
2.1. Acronyms ...................................................5
2.2. Terminology ................................................5
3. P2MP PW Requirements ............................................6
3.1. Reference Model ............................................6
3.2. P2MP PW and Underlying Layer ...............................7
3.3. P2MP PW Construction .......................................9
3.4. P2MP PW Signaling Requirements ............................10
3.4.1. P2MP PW Identifier .................................10
3.4.2. PW Type Mismatch ...................................10
3.4.3. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV .......................10
3.4.4. Leaf Grafting/Pruning ..............................10
3.4.5. Failure Detection and Reporting ....................11
3.4.6. Protection and Restoration .........................11
3.4.7. Scalability ........................................13
4. Backward Compatibility .........................................13
5. Security Considerations ........................................13
6. References .....................................................14
6.1. Normative References ......................................14
6.2. Informative References ....................................14
7. Acknowledgments ................................................15
8. Contributors ...................................................161. Introduction ✨
1.1. Problem Statement 🧩
Okay so, as the pseudowire architecture [RFC3985] defines it, a pseudowire (PW) is a mechanism that copies the essential attributes of a telecom service (like a T1 leased line or Frame Relay) over an IP or MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN) 🌸. It gives its user one service that feels like an unshared link or circuit of the chosen service, which is so iconic 👑. A pseudowire carries Layer 1 or Layer 2 traffic (like Ethernet, Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM), ATM, and Frame Relay) over a Layer 3 PSN 💜. Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) works "edge to edge" to give the two endpoints of the PW the connectivity they need 🦋.
The point-to-multipoint (P2MP) topology described in [VPMS-REQS], which you need for a P2MP Layer 2 VPN service, can be built using one or more P2MP PWs 🫧. P2MP services can carry Layer 1 or Layer 2 data because of PW encapsulation 🎀. You could do this with a set of point-to-point PWs and replicate the traffic at the Root Provider Edge (PE), but it's not very bandwidth efficient, since the duplicate traffic gets sent multiple times over shared links 😭.
This doc defines the requirements for a point-to-multipoint PW (P2MP PW) ✨. A P2MP PW is a mechanism that emulates the essential attributes of a P2MP telecom service, like a P2MP ATM Virtual Circuit over a Packet Switched Network 🧚.
The required functions of P2MP PWs include encapsulating service-specific Protocol Data Units (PDUs) that arrive at an ingress Attachment Circuit (AC), carrying them across a tunnel to one or more egress ACs, managing their timing and order, and doing any other operations needed to emulate the behavior and characteristics of the service as faithfully as possible 💅.
1.2. Scope of This Document 🔭
This doc describes the general architecture of a P2MP PW with a reference model, mentions the idea of data encapsulation, and outlines specific requirements for setting up and maintaining a P2MP PW 🍓. Here the requirements focus on the Single-Segment PW model. The requirements for doing P2MP PW in the Multi-Segment PW model [RFC5254] are left for further study 🙈. For other parts of P2MP PW implementation, this doc points you to [RFC3916], like "Packet Processing" (Section 4 of that document) and "Faithfulness of Emulated Services" (Section 7 of that document) 📖.
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document 📏
Okay, real talk: this is a requirements spec, not a protocol spec 🤓. Still, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this doc get interpreted to apply to protocol solutions designed to meet these requirements, as described in [RFC2119] 🔥.
2. Definitions 📚
2.1. Acronyms 🔤
P2P: Point-to-Point
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
PW: Pseudowire
PSN: Packet Switched Network
SS-PW: Single-Segment Pseudowire2.2. Terminology 💜
This doc uses the terminology described in [RFC5659], and it also introduces some extra terms needed for P2MP PW 🧚.
P2MP PW (also referred to as PW tree): Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire. It's a PW attached to a source Customer Edge (CE) that distributes Layer 1 or Layer 2 traffic to a set of one or more receiver CEs. The P2MP PW is unidirectional (carrying traffic from Root PE to Leaf PEs), and it optionally supports a return path 🌈.
P2MP SS-PW: Point-to-Multipoint Single-Segment Pseudowire. It's a single-segment P2MP PW set up between the Root PE attached to the source CE and the Leaf PEs attached to the receiver CEs. The P2MP SS-PW uses P2MP Label Switched Paths (LSPs) as PSN tunnels 🦋.
Root PE: P2MP PW Root Provider Edge. This is the PE attached to the traffic source CE for the P2MP PW, via an Attachment Circuit (AC) 👑.
Leaf PE: P2MP PW Leaf Provider Edge. A PE attached to a set of one or more traffic receiver CEs via ACs. The Leaf PE replicates traffic to the CEs based on its Forwarder function [RFC3985] 🫶.
P2MP PSN Tunnel: In the P2MP SS-PW topology, the PSN tunnel is a general term for a virtual P2MP connection between the Root PE and the Leaf PEs. A P2MP tunnel may potentially carry multiple P2MP PWs inside it (aggregation). This doc uses terminology from the doc describing the MPLS multicast architecture [RFC5332] for MPLS PSN 🎀.
3. P2MP PW Requirements 🧚
3.1. Reference Model 🧚
okay so bestie, quick refresher 💅 As per [RFC3985], a pseudowire (PW) both originates and terminates on the edge of the same packet switched network (PSN). The PW label stays the same between the originating and terminating Provider Edges (PEs). This is also called a single-segment pseudowire (SS-PW), the most fundamental network model of PWE3 💖
A P2MP PW is point-to-multipoint connectivity from a Root PE, which connects to a traffic source CE, to one or more Leaf PEs, which connect to traffic receiver CEs. It's basically an extended version of the existing P2P SS-PW tech, and it's giving main character energy 🦋
Figure 1 shows the P2MP PW reference model, derived from [RFC3985] to support P2MP emulated services 🌸
|<-------------P2MP PW------------->|
Native | | Native
ROOT Service | |<----P2MP PSN tunnel --->| | Service LEAF
V (AC) V V V V (AC) V
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ |
| |PE1 | | P |=========|PE2 |AC2 | +----+
| | | | ......PW1.......>|---------->|CE2 |
| | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+ |
+----+ | AC1 | | | . |=========|PE3 |AC3 | +----+
|CE1 |-------->|........PW1.............PW1.......>|---------->|CE3 |
+----+ | | | | . |=========| | | +----+
| | | | . | +----+ |
| | |=========| . | |
| | | | . | +----+AC4 | +----+
| | | | . |=========|PE4 |---------->|CE4 |
| | | | ......PW1.......>| | +----+
| | | | |=========| |AC5 | +----+
| | | | | | |---------->|CE5 |
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ | +----+
Figure 1: P2MP PW Reference ModelThis architecture covers the case where a P2MP PSN tunnel stretches between edge nodes of a single PSN domain to carry a unidirectional P2MP PW with endpoints at those edge nodes. In this model, a single copy of each PW packet goes over the PW on the P2MP PSN tunnel, and every Leaf PE receives it thanks to the P2MP nature of the tunnel ✨ The P2MP PW SHOULD be traffic optimized, meaning only one copy of a P2MP PW packet or PSN tunnel (underlying layer) packet is sent on any single link along the P2MP path. P routers join in on P2MP PSN tunnel operation, but they don't take part in the signaling of P2MP PWs 🫶
The Reference Model covers the basic pieces of a P2MP PW, but you have to think about several levels of replication when designing a P2MP PW solution 👑
- Ingress PE replication to CEs: traffic is replicated to a set of local receiver CEs
- P router replication in the core: traffic is replicated by means of a P2MP PSN tunnel (P2MP LSP)
- Egress PE replication to CEs: traffic is replicated to local receiver CEs
Theoretically, you could also do Ingress PE replication in the core, where all traffic gets copied to a set of P2P PSN transport tunnels at ingress and P routers don't do any replication at all 🤔
However, this approach may lead to duplicate copies of each PW packet being sent over the same physical link, especially when multiple PSN tunnels go over that physical link. So this approach is not preferred 🙅♀️
Specific operations that MUST be performed at the PE on the native data units aren't described here, since the required pre-processing (Forwarder (FWRD) and Native Service Processing (NSP)) defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC3985] also applies to P2MP PW 💅
P2MP PWs are generally unidirectional, but a Root PE may need to receive unidirectional P2P return traffic from any Leaf PE. For that, the P2MP PW solution MAY support an optional return path from each Leaf PE to the Root PE 🦋
3.2. P2MP PW and Underlying Layer 🌈
The definition of MPLS multicast encapsulation [RFC5332] lays out how to carry MPLS packets that need to be replicated, with a copy sent to each of the specified next hops. This idea also works for a P2MP PW packet carried by a P2MP PSN tunnel 💜
To be more precise, a P2MP PSN tunnel corresponds to a "point-to-multipoint data link or tunnel" described in Section 3 of [RFC5332] ✨
Similarly, P2MP PW labels correspond to "the top labels (before applying the data link or tunnel encapsulation) of all MPLS packets that are transmitted on a particular point-to-multipoint data link or tunnel" 🎀
In the P2MP PW architecture using the SS-PW network model, the PW-PDU [RFC3985] gets replicated by the underlying P2MP PSN tunnel layer. Also, the PW label stays unchanged, and the transit P routers hide it while switching 🧚
In a solution, a P2MP PW MUST be supported over a single P2MP PSN tunnel as the underlying layer of traffic distribution. Figure 2 shows an example of a P2MP PW topology relying on a single P2MP LSP. The PW tree is made up of one Root PE (i1) and several Leaf PEs (e1, e2, e3, e4) 🌸
The mechanisms for setting up the PSN tunnel are outside the scope of this document, as long as they enable the essential attributes of the service to be emulated 🍓
i1
/
/ \
/ \
/ \
/\ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ / \
e1 e2 e3 e4
Figure 2: Example of P2MP Underlying Layer for P2MP PWA single P2MP PSN tunnel MUST be able to serve the traffic from more than one P2MP PW in an aggregated way, which is called multiplexing 🫧
A P2MP PW solution MAY support different P2MP PSN tunneling technology (e.g., MPLS over GRE [RFC4023] or P2MP MPLS LSP) or different setup protocols (e.g., multipoint extensions for LDP (mLDP) [RFC6388] and P2MP RSVP-TE [RFC4875]) 🌷
The P2MP LSP associated with the P2MP PW can be picked either by user configuration or dynamically using a multiplexing/demultiplexing mechanism 💖
The P2MP PW multiplexing SHOULD be used based on the overlap rate between P2MP LSP and P2MP PW. For example, an existing P2MP LSP may attach more leaves than the ones defined as Leaf PEs for a given P2MP PW. It might be tempting to reuse it to minimize new configuration, but using this P2MP LSP would cause non-Leaf PEs (i.e., not part of the P2MP PW) to receive unwanted traffic 😬
Note: no special configuration is needed for non-Leaf PEs to drop that unwanted traffic, because they don't have forwarding information entries unless they process the setup operation for corresponding P2MP PWs (e.g., signaling).
The operator SHOULD determine whether it's acceptable to partially multiplex the P2MP PW onto a P2MP LSP. A minimum congruency rate may be defined so the Root PE can make this call 🧠 The congruency rate SHOULD take into account several items, including:
- the amount of overlap between the Leaf PEs of the P2MP PW and the existing egress PE routers of the P2MP LSP. If there is a complete overlap, the congruency is perfect and the rate is 100%.
- the impact on other traffic (e.g., from other VPNs) supported over the P2MP LSP.
So with this procedure, a P2MP PW gets nested within a P2MP LSP, which lets several PWs share a common P2MP LSP 🦋 Before the P2MP PW signaling phase, the Root PE decides which P2MP LSP will be used for this P2MP PW. The PSN tunnel can be an existing one, or the Root PE can create a new P2MP PSN tunnel. Also, the ingress PE may modify or re-create an existing P2MP PSN tunnel to add one or more leaf PEs so it can carry the P2MP PW 🎀
3.3. P2MP PW Construction 🛠️
[RFC5332] introduces two approaches to assigning MPLS labels (meaning PW labels in the P2MP PW context): Upstream-Assigned [RFC5331] and Downstream-Assigned. However, which one should be used in PW construction is out of scope for this document. It's left up to the specification of the solution 🤷♀️
The following requirements apply to establishing P2MP PWs 📋
- PE nodes MUST be configurable with the P2MP PW identifiers and ACs.
- A discovery mechanism SHOULD allow the Root PE to discover the Leaf PEs, or vice versa.
- Solutions SHOULD allow single-sided operation at the Root PE for the selection of some AC(s) at the Leaf PE(s) to be attached to the PW tree, so that the Root PE controls the leaf attachment.
- The Root PE SHOULD support a method to be informed about whether a Leaf PE has successfully attached to the PW tree.
3.4. P2MP PW Signaling Requirements 📡
3.4.1. P2MP PW Identifier 🪪
The P2MP PW MUST be uniquely identified. This unique P2MP PW identifier MUST be used for all signaling procedures related to this PW (PW setup, monitoring, etc.) 💜
3.4.2. PW Type Mismatch 🙈
The Root PE and Leaf PEs of a P2MP PW MUST be configured with the same PW type as defined in [RFC4446] for P2P PW. In case of a type mismatch, a PE SHOULD abort attempts to attach the Leaf PE to the P2MP PW 🚫
3.4.3. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV 🎛️
Some interface parameters [RFC4446] related to AC capability have been defined according to the PW type and get signaled during PW setup 🌸
Where applicable, a solution is REQUIRED to ascertain whether the AC at the Leaf PE is capable of supporting traffic coming from the AC at the Root PE 🫶
In case of a mismatch, the passive PE (Root or Leaf PE, depending on the signaling process) SHOULD support mechanisms to reject attempts to attach the Leaf PE to the P2MP PW 🙅♀️
3.4.4. Leaf Grafting/Pruning 🌿
Once the PW tree is established, the solution MUST allow the addition or removal of a Leaf PE, or a subset of leaves, to or from the existing tree, without any impact on the PW tree (data and control planes) for the remaining Leaf PEs 🧚
The addition or removal of a Leaf PE MUST also allow the P2MP PSN tunnel to be updated accordingly. This may cause the P2MP PSN tunnel to add or remove the corresponding Leaf PE 🦋
3.4.5. Failure Detection and Reporting 💔
okay so the underlying layer is basically one end-to-end P2MP topology between the Root PE and the Leaf PEs, which means the failure reporting and processing stuff only happens on the edge nodes 🫶
Failure events may cause one or more Leaf PEs to get detached from the PW tree. These events MUST be reported to the Root PE, using appropriate out-of-band or in-band Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) messages for monitoring. 📡
It MUST be possible for the operator to pick out-of-band monitoring, in-band monitoring, or both to keep an eye on the Leaf PE status. For management purposes, the solution SHOULD allow the Root PE to be informed of Leaf PEs' failure. 👀
Based on these failure notifications, solutions MUST allow the Root PE to update the remaining leaves of the PW tree. ✨
- A solution MUST support an in-band status notification mechanism to detect failures: unidirectional point-to-multipoint traffic failure. This MUST be realized by enhancing existing unicast PW methods, such as Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) for seamless and familiar operation as defined in [RFC5085]. 🦋
- In case of failure, it MUST correctly report which Leaf PEs are affected. This MUST be realized by enhancing existing PW methods, such as LDP Status Notification. The notification message SHOULD include the type of fault (P2MP PW, AC, or PSN tunnel). 🔥
- A Leaf PE MAY be notified of the status of the Root PE's AC. 🌸
- A solution MUST support OAM message mapping [RFC6310] at the Root PE and Leaf PE if a failure is detected on the source CE. 💅
3.4.6. Protection and Restoration 🛡️
It is assumed that if recovery procedures are required, the P2MP PSN tunnel will support standard MPLS-based recovery techniques. In that case, a mechanism SHOULD be implemented to avoid race conditions between recovery at the PSN level and recovery at the PW level. 🙈
An alternative protection scheme MAY rely on the PW layer. 🧚
Leaf PEs MAY be protected via a P2MP PW redundancy mechanism. In the example depicted below, a standby P2MP PW is used to protect the active P2MP PW. In that protection scheme, the AC at the Root PE MUST serve both P2MP PWs. In this scenario, the criteria for switching over SHOULD be defined, e.g., failure of one or all leaves of the active P2MP PW will trigger switchover of the whole P2MP PW. 💖
CE1
|
ROOT active PE1 standby
P2MP PW .../ \....P2MP PW
/ \
P2 P3
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
LEAF PE4 PE5 PE6 PE7
| | | |
| \ / |
\ CE2 /
\ /
------CE3-----Figure 3: Example of P2MP PW Redundancy for Protecting Leaf PEs
Note that some of the nodes/links in this figure can be physically shared; this depends on the service provider policy of network redundancy. 🤷♀️
The Root PE MAY be protected via a P2MP PW redundancy mechanism. In the example depicted below, a standby P2MP PW is used to protect the active P2MP. A single AC at the Leaf PE MUST be used to attach the CE to the primary and the standby P2MP PW. The Leaf PE MUST support protection mechanisms in order to select the active P2MP PW. 👑
CE1
/ \
| |
ROOT active PE1 PE2 standby
P2MP PW1 | | P2MP PW2
| |
P2 P3
/ \/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
LEAF PE4 PE5
| |
CE2 CE3Figure 4: Example of P2MP PW Redundancy for Protecting Root PEs
3.4.7. Scalability 📈
The solution SHOULD scale at worst linearly for message size, memory requirements, and processing requirements, with the number of Leaf PEs. 🌈
Increasing the number of P2MP PWs between a Root PE and a given set of Leaf PEs SHOULD NOT cause the P router to increase the number of entries in its forwarding table by the same or greater proportion. Multiplexing P2MP PWs to P2MP PSN tunnels achieves this. 🍓
4. Backward Compatibility ✨
Solutions MUST be backward compatible with current PW standards. Solutions SHOULD utilize existing capability advertisement and negotiation procedures for the PEs implementing P2MP PW endpoints. 🎀
The implementation of OAM mechanisms also implies the advertisement of PE capabilities to support specific OAM features. The solution MAY allow advertising P2MP PW OAM capabilities. A solution MUST NOT allow a P2MP PW to be established to PEs that do not support P2MP PW functionality. It MUST have a mechanism to report an error for incompatible PEs. 🙅♀️
In some cases, upstream traffic is needed from downstream CEs to upstream CEs. The P2MP PW solution SHOULD allow a return path (i.e., from the Leaf PE to the Root PE) that provides upstream connectivity. 🔁
In particular, the same ACs MAY be shared between the downstream and upstream directions. For downstream, a CE receives traffic originated by the Root PE over its AC. For upstream, the CE MAY also send traffic destined to the same Root PE over the same AC. 🫶
5. Security Considerations 💀
The security requirements common to PW are raised in Section 11 of [RFC3916]. P2MP PW is a variant of the initial P2P PW definition, and those requirements (and the security considerations from [RFC3985]) also apply. The security considerations from [RFC5920] and [RFC6941] also apply to the IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP deployment scenarios, respectively. 🔐
Some issues specifically due to P2MP topology need to be addressed in the definition of the solution:
- The solution SHOULD provide means to protect the traffic delivered to receivers (Integrity, Confidentiality, Endpoint Authentication). 🔒
- The solution SHOULD support means to protect the P2MP PW as a whole against attacks that would lead to any kind of denial of service. 🚨
Specifically, safeguard mechanisms should be considered to avoid any negative impact on the whole PW tree when any one receiver or any group of receivers is attacked. Safeguard mechanisms for both the data plane and the control plane need to be considered. 😭
6. References 📚
6.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
- [RFC3916] Xiao, X., Ed., McPherson, D., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Requirements for Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 3916, September 2004.
- [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
- [RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
- [RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Ed., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
- [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, October 2009.
- [RFC6310] Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Martini, L., Morrow, M., Nadeau, T., and Y(J). Stein, "Pseudowire (PW) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping", RFC 6310, July 2011.
6.2. Informative References
- [RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 4023, March 2005.
- [RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
- [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
- [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
- [RFC5254] Bitar, N., Ed., Bocci, M., Ed., and L. Martini, Ed., "Requirements for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 5254, October 2008.
- [RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC 5331, August 2008.
- [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
- [RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
- [RFC6941] Fang, L., Ed., Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Mansfield, S., Ed., and R. Graveman, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security Framework", RFC 6941, April 2013.
- [VPMS-REQS] Kamite, Y., Jounay, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)", Work in Progress, October 2012.
7. Acknowledgments 🫶
The authors thank the following people: the authors of [RFC4461] since the structure and content of this document were, for some sections, largely inspired by [RFC4461]; JL. Le Roux and A. Cauvin for the discussions, comments, and support; Adrian Farrel for his Routing Area Director review; and IESG reviewers. 💜
8. Contributors 🌸
Philippe Niger
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
EMail: philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO 80112
US
EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
Lei Wang
Telenor
Snaroyveien 30
Fornebu 1331
Norway
EMail: lei.wang@telenor.com
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
EMail: rahul@juniper.net
Simon Delord
Telstra
380 Flinders Lane
Melbourne
Australia
EMail: simon.delord@gmail.com
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent France
Route de Villejust
91620 Nozay
France
EMail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr
Lizhong Jin
ZTE Corporation
889, Bibo Road
Shanghai, 201203
China
EMail: lizho.jin@gmail.comAuthors' Addresses ✨
okay bestie, here are the four people behind RFC 7338 and how to reach each of them 💌 two editors and two other co-authors 🫶
Frederic Jounay (editor) 🇨🇭
Frederic Jounay (editor)
Orange CH
4 rue caudray 1020 Renens
Switzerland
EMail: frederic.jounay@orange.chYuji Kamite (editor) 🇯🇵
Yuji Kamite (editor)
NTT Communications Corporation
1-1-6 Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8019
Japan
EMail: y.kamite@ntt.comGiles Heron 🇬🇧
Giles Heron
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9 New Square
Bedfont Lakes
Feltham
Middlesex
TW14 8HA
United Kingdom
EMail: giheron@cisco.comMatthew Bocci 🇬🇧
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent Telecom Ltd
Voyager Place
Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead
Berks
United Kingdom
EMail: Matthew.Bocci@alcatel-lucent.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7338 2014-09
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms