RFC 8024
Multi-Chassis Passive Optical Network (MC-PON) Protection in MPLS
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 💖
Okay bestie, here's the header situation 🎀. This is RFC 8024, titled Multi-Chassis Passive Optical Network (MC-PON) Protection in MPLS. It's a Standards Track document, which means it's an actual Internet standard and not just a vibe. It was published in November 2016 and is an ISSN 2070-1721 document 🌸.
The authors are Y. Jiang (Ed.), Y. Luo, and E. Mallette (Ed.), plus Y. Shen and W. Cheng. Jiang, Luo, and Cheng are from Huawei and China Mobile, respectively, and Mallette is from Charter Communications. Shen is from Juniper Networks. The "Ed." tag means that person is an editor, so they did the heavy lifting of stitching everything together 🫶. The title block doesn't list anything this RFC obsoletes or updates, so it's standing on its own ✨.
Abstract
Okay so the big idea 🦋: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is getting pushed out to the edge of operator networks, all the way to the network access nodes. Meanwhile, Passive Optical Network (PON) Optical Line Terminations (OLTs) have leveled up to offer first-mile access protection, where more than one physical OLT gives first-mile diversity to the customer edge. The MPLS-enabled PON OLT needs multihoming support so the services it provides stay resilient 💅.
This document describes the Multi-Chassis PON (MC-PON) protection architecture in MPLS. It also specifies an extension to the Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) that makes the whole thing work 🔥.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document 👑.
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), so it represents the consensus of the IETF community. It went through public review and got approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want the deeper details on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 7841 🧚.
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, head to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8024 🌈.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 🫶.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents, which you can find at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info. Those rules are the ones in effect on the date of publication, so please read them carefully. They spell out your rights and restrictions with respect to this document 💜. Any Code Components pulled out of this document have to include the Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions. They're provided without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License ⚠️.
Table of Contents 🗺️
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. ICCP Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Multi-Chassis PON Application TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. PON Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3. PON Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.4. PON State TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Considerations on PON ONU Database Synchronization . . . . . 9
4. Multi-Chassis PON Application Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Protection Procedure upon PON Link Failures . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Protection Procedure upon PW Failures . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Protection Procedure upon the Working OLT Failure . . . . 12
4.4. Protection Procedure for a Dual-Homing PE . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161. Introduction ✨
MPLS is spreading out to the edge of operator networks. The multi-segment pseudowires (PWs) with Passive Optical Network (PON) access use case covers this, and it's described in [RFC6456] 🦋. Pairing MPLS with Optical Line Termination (OLT) access also makes multi-service convergence cheaper, which is honestly iconic 💅.
Tens of millions of Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx) lines have been deployed over the years, where x = H for home, P for premises, or C for curb. A lot of those lines are some kind of PON 🏠. PON gives operators a cost-effective way to deliver high bandwidth, like 1 Gbps or even 10 Gbps, to a dozen or more subscribers at the same time 🚀.
Back in the day, access technologies like PON and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) were mostly used for subscribers, and there wasn't any redundancy built into those deployments 🙈.
Now mobile data traffic is growing fast, and more and more Long Term Evolution (LTE) small cells and Wi-Fi hotspots are showing up. PON is seen as a viable low-cost backhaul option for these mobile services 📶. On top of high bandwidth and scalability, PON also provides frequency and time-synchronization features. For example, SyncE [G.8261] and IEEE 1588v2 [IEEE-1588] functionality can cover the synchronization needs of mobile backhaul services 🧚.
The Broadband Forum sets out a reference architecture for mobile backhaul networks that use MPLS transport in [TR-221]. In that architecture, PON can be the access technology 🌸.
Typical residential service has a single end-user or a small handful of them hanging off one PON OLT port in a physical optical distribution network. A PON port serving a dozen LTE small cells or Wi-Fi hotspots, though, could be serving hundreds of subscribers at once 😭. Small-cell backhaul usually wants the economics of a PON first mile, but it also expects the first-mile protection you normally find in a point-to-point access portfolio 💜.
Some optical layer protection mechanisms, like Trunk and Tree protection, are specified in [IEEE-1904.1] to avoid a single point of failure in the access. In [G.983.1] they're called Type B and Type C protection, respectively 🛡️.
Trunk protection is an economical PON resiliency mechanism. The working OLT, plus the working link between the working splitter port and the working OLT (aka the working trunk fiber), gets protected by a redundant protection OLT and a redundant trunk fiber between the protection splitter port and the protection OLT. The catch is that it only protects part of the optical path from the OLT to the Optical Network Units (ONUs) 🙃. That's different from the more complex and costly Tree protection architecture. Tree protection has a working optical distribution network path from the working OLT, and a complete protected optical distribution network path from the protection OLT to the ONUs 🌳. Figure 1 shows a typical Trunk protection scenario 🎀.
| |
|<--Optical Distribution Network->|
| |
| branch trunk +-----+
+-----+ fibers fibers | |
Base ------| | | | . OLT |
Stations ------| ONU |\ | | ,'`| A |
------| | \ V V -` +-----+
+-----+ \ .'
. \ +----------+ ,-`
+-----+ . \| -` Working
Base ------| | . | Optical |
Stations ------| ONU |---------| Splitter |
------| | . /| -, Protection
+-----+ . / +----------+ `'.,
/ `-, +-----+
+-----+ / `'.,| |
Base ------| |/ | OLT |
Stations ------| ONU | | B |
------| | +-----+
+-----+
Figure 1: Trunk Protection Architecture in PONBesides small-cell backhaul, this protection architecture can also work for other services, like DSL and Multiple System Operator (MSO) services 📡. In those cases, an ONU in Figure 1 can play a similar role to a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) or a Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) Remote Physical Layer (PHY) device [remote-phy]. It may also have dozens of Customer Premises devices attached to it 🏘️.
Sometimes only some of the ONUs need protection, and that's totally allowed 🫧.
The PON architecture in Figure 1 gives you redundancy in its physical topology. But all traffic, including link Operation Administration and Maintenance (OAM), gets blocked on the protection link. That messes with end-to-end protection mechanisms like the ones in ITU-T G.8031 [G.8031] 😤. So OLTs need some standard signaling to swap information, like PON link status, registered ONU information, and network status. That way protection and restoration can happen quickly and reliably, especially when the OLTs also support MPLS 🧠.
ICCP [RFC7275] is a framework for inter-chassis synchronization of state and configuration data between two or more Provider Edges (PEs) 🤝. Right now ICCP only defines application-specific messages for Pseudowire Redundancy (PW-RED) and Multi-Chassis LACP (mLACP). It can easily be extended to support PON as an Attachment Circuit (AC) redundancy, though 🔧.
So this document proposes extending ICCP to support multi-chassis PON protection in MPLS 💖.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119]. Those are the official vibes-check words, so pay attention to them 🧐.
1.2. Terminology 📚
DSL: Digital Subscriber Line
FTTx: Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx) (x = H for home, P for premises, C for
curb)
ICCP: Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol
OLT: Optical Line Termination
ONU: Optical Network Unit
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
PON: Passive Optical Network
RG: Redundancy Group2. ICCP Protocol Extensions 🧚♀️
2.1. Multi-Chassis PON Application TLVs 🎀
A set of MC-PON application Type-Length-Values (TLVs) are defined in the following subsections 💅.
2.1.1. PON Connect TLV ✨
okay bestie, this TLV rides along in the RG Connect message 🎀 and it's how you announce that a PON application connection is getting set up 💖
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x200D | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol Version |A| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
~ ~
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- U and F bits: both are set to 0. 🫶
- Type: set to
0x200Dfor "PON Connect TLV". 🌸 - Length: length of the TLV in octets, excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. 📏
- Protocol Version: the version of this PON-specific protocol for the purposes of inter-chassis communication. This is set to
0x0001. 💅 - A bit: the Acknowledgement bit. It MUST be set to 1 if the sender has received a PON Connect TLV from the recipient. Otherwise, set to 0. ✨
- Reserved: reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero. 🙈
- Optional Sub-TLVs: there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this version of the protocol. The structure of optional Sub-TLVs is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Sub-TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Variable Length Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- U bit: set to 1. The unknown Sub-TLV is silently ignored. 🦋
- F bit: set to 0.
- The optional Sub-TLV Type values will be allocated by IANA in a registry named "ICC RG Parameter Types" for Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3). 🧚
- Length: length of the TLV in octets, excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields.
2.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV 💔
this one shows up in the RG Disconnect message 🥀 and its whole job is to say the connection for the PON application is about to be terminated 🙅♀️
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x200E | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- U and F bits: both are set to 0. 🫶
- Type: set to
0x200Efor "PON Disconnect TLV". 🌸 - Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. 📏
- Optional Sub-TLVs: there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this version of the protocol. 💅
2.1.3. PON Configuration TLV ⚙️
the "PON Configuration TLV" gets included in the "RG Application Data" message 📬 and it's how an OLT announces its system parameters to the other members in the same RG 📣
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x200F | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System Priority | Port ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- U and F bits: both are set to 0. 🫶
- Type: set to
0x200Ffor "PON Configuration TLV". 🌸 - Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. 📏
- System ID: 8 octets encoding the System ID used by the OLT, which is the chassis Media Access Control (MAC) address. If a 6-octet System ID is used, the least significant 2 octets of the 8-octet field will be encoded as 0000. 🆔
- System Priority: a 2-octet value assigned by management or administration policy; the OLT with the numerically lower value of System Priority has the higher priority. 👑
- Port ID: 2-octet PON Port ID. 🔌
2.1.4. PON State TLV 🚦
this is the "PON State TLV", which is included in the "RG Application Data" message and used by an OLT to report its PON states to the other members in the same RG 🫧
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x2010 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ROID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local PON Port State |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote PON Port State |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- U and F bits: both are set to 0. 🫶
- Type: set to
0x2010for "PON State TLV". 🌸 - Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. 📏
- ROID: Redundant Object ID (ROID) as defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC7275]. 🔁
- Local PON Port State: the status of the local PON port as determined by the sending OLT (PE). The last bit is defined as Fault indication of the PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in fault; 0 - in normal). 🚨
- Remote PON Port State: the status of the remote PON port as determined by the remote peer of the sending OLT (i.e., the sending PE). The last bit is defined as Fault indication of the PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in fault; 0 - in normal). 🛰️
3. Considerations on PON ONU Database Synchronization 🗂️
okay this part is all about keeping the ONU info in sync, and honestly it's the reason switchovers can be fast 🏃♀️💨
Without an effective mechanism to communicate the registered ONUs between the working and protection OLT, all registered ONUs would be de-registered and go through re-registration during a switchover, which would significantly increase protection time. To enable faster switchover capability, the working and protection OLTs need to know about the protected ONUs. To enable service continuity, a mechanism needs to be employed such that the operational state and significant configuration data of both the protected ONU and the services provisioned to it can be distributed to the working and protection OLT.
The specific ONU's configuration and operational data can be synchronized by some policy mechanism or provisioned in the management plane. Alternatively, said synchronization could occur by some other signaling options. Describing how to synchronize the configuration objects associated with both protected ONU as well as the services constructed to the ONU (e.g., ONU MAC address, IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, VLAN identifiers, etc.) is outside of the scope of this document. 🙅♀️
4. Multi-Chassis PON Application Procedures 🌐
this is where the network diagrams come in, and they're giving architecture 😭🔥
Two typical MPLS protection network architectures for PON access are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 (their PON access segments are the same as in Figure 1 and thus omitted for simplification). OLTs with MPLS functionality are connected to a single PE (Figure 2) or dual-homing PEs (Figure 3), respectively, i.e., the working OLT to PE1 by a working PW and the protection OLT to PE1 or PE2 by a protection PW; thus, these devices constitute an MPLS network that provides PW transport services between ONUs and a Customer Edge (CE), and the PWs can provide protection for each other. 🦢
+-----+
| |
|OLT -,
| A | `.,
+-----+ ', PW1
`',
`., +-----+ +-----+
', | | | |
`. PE1 ------------ CE |
.'`| | | |
,-` +-----+ +-----+
.`
+-----+ .'` PW2
| | ,-`
|OLT -`
| B |
+-----+Figure 2: An MPLS Network with a Single PE
+-----+ +-----+
| | PW1 | |
|OLT ----------------- PE1 -,
| A | | | ',
+-----+ +--/--+ ',
| `.
| `. +-----+
| `' |
| | CE |
| . |
| ,'+-----+
| ,-`
+-----+ +--\--+ ,'
| | PW2 | | .`
|OLT ----------------- PE2 -`
| B | | |
+-----+ +-----+Figure 3: An MPLS Network with Dual-Homing PEs
Faults may be encountered in PON access links or in the MPLS network (including the working OLT). Procedures for these cases are described in this section (it is assumed that both OLTs and PEs are working in the independent mode of PW redundancy [RFC6870]). 🛠️✨
4.1. Protection Procedure upon PON Link Failures ✨
okay so, when a fault shows up on a working PON link, the working OLT basically bails on its broken PON interface and switches over to the protection PON link attached to its protection OLT 🔥. It turns off the faulty PON interface so the protection trunk link to the protection OLT can get activated. Then the working OLT MUST send an LDP fault notification message (the one with the status bit "Local AC (ingress) Receive Fault" set) to its peer PE on the far end of the PW 💌. At the same time, it MUST send an ICCP message carrying a PON State TLV with Local PON Port State set, so the protection OLT knows the PON is down 🫶.
Once a protection OLT gets a PON State TLV with Local PON Port State set, it MUST activate the protection PON link in the protection group and advertise a notification message for the protection PW with the Preferential Forwarding status bit of active to the remote PE 🦋.
according to [RFC6870], the remote PE(s) can match the local and remote Preferential Forwarding status and select PW2 as the new active PW for data traffic. Main character glow-up 👑✨
4.2. Protection Procedure upon PW Failures 🌸
so MPLS networks usually have their own protection mechanisms, like Label Switched Path (LSP) protection or Fast Reroute (FRR). But in a link-sparse access or aggregation network, where protecting a PW at the LSP layer just isn't possible, the following PW layer protection procedures can be turned on 🧚.
When a fault is detected on the working PW (for example, by Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)), a working OLT SHOULD turn off its associated PON interface and then send an ICCP message with a PON State TLV with Local PON Port State set, to tell the protection OLT about the PON fault 💅.
Once a protection OLT gets a PON State TLV with Local PON Port State set, it MUST activate its PON interface to the protection trunk fiber. At the same time, it MUST send a notification message for the protection PW with the Preferential Forwarding status bit of active to the remote PE, so traffic can be switched over to the protection PW 🔥.
4.3. Protection Procedure upon the Working OLT Failure 💜
picture Figure 2: a service is provisioned with a working PW and a protection PW, and both PWs terminate on PE1. If PE1 loses its connection to the working OLT, it SHOULD send an LDP notification message on the protection PW with the Request Switchover bit set 😭.
When a protection OLT gets an LDP notification message from its remote PE with the Request Switchover bit set, it MUST activate its optical interface to the protection trunk fiber and activate the associated protection PW. That way, traffic can be reliably switched to the protection trunk PON link and the protection PW 🌈.
4.4. Protection Procedure for a Dual-Homing PE 🎀
in the Figure 3 setup, PE1 can use the PW-RED State TLV described in Section 7.1 of [RFC7275] to tell PE2 about faults in all the scenarios. And PE2 behaves exactly the same as described in Sections 4.1 to 4.3 of this document. Consistency is everything, bestie 🫶💖.
5. Security Considerations 🙈
okay this part is seriously important, so listen up 💀. Just like ICCP itself, this ICCP application SHOULD only be used in well-managed and highly monitored service provider PON access networks inside a single administrative domain. That includes implementing rogue ONU attachment detection and mitigation via device authentication. So a lot of the security considerations described in [RFC7275] apply here too 🔐.
Again, just like ICCP, activity on the attachment circuits may cause security threats or be exploited to create denial-of-service attacks. In many passive optical networks, the optical paths between OLT and ONUs run through publicly accessible facilities, including public attachments (like telephone poles). That opens up the risk of excessive link bouncing caused by optical layer impairment 😱. ICCP for MC-PON interconnects in the MPLS domain and does not traverse the PON network, but the risks still include a malicious ONU that could cause, for example, excessive link bouncing. This link bouncing could result in increased ICCP exchanges, similar to the malicious CE case described in [RFC7275]. Operators of such networks should take additional care to restrict unauthorized ONUs and to limit the impact of link bouncing at the OLT, because these could result in service impairment 🚨.
6. IANA Considerations 🧚♀️
IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)". It has a subregistry called "ICC RG Parameter Types", and the following values have been allocated from that subregistry 🍓:
0x200D PON Connect TLV
0x200E PON Disconnect TLV
0x200F PON Configuration TLV
0x2010 PON State TLV7. References 📚
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6870] Muley, P., Ed. and M. Aissaoui, Ed., "Pseudowire
Preferential Forwarding Status Bit", RFC 6870,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6870, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6870>.
[RFC7275] Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M.,
Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
(L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>.7.2. Informative References
[G.8031] International Telecommunications Union, "Ethernet Linear
Protection Switching", ITU-T Recommendation G.8031,
January 2015.
[G.8261] International Telecommunications Union, "Timing and
synchronization aspects in packet networks", ITU-T
Recommendation G.8261, August 2013.
[G.983.1] International Telecommunications Union, "Broadband optical
access systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON)",
ITU-T Recommendation G.983.1, January 2005.
[IEEE-1588]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Std 1588-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760, July
2008.
[IEEE-1904.1]
IEEE, "Standard for Service Interoperability in Ethernet
Passive Optical Networks (SIEPON)", IEEE Std 1904.1-2013,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6605490, June 2013.
[remote-phy]
CableLabs, "Remote PHY Specification", DCN: CM-SP-R-PHY-
I05-160923, September 2016.
[RFC6456] Li, H., Zheng, R., and A. Farrel, "Multi-Segment
Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks", RFC 6456,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6456, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6456>.
[TR-221] The Broadband Forum, "Technical Specifications for MPLS in
Mobile Backhaul Networks", BBF TR-221, October 2011.Acknowledgements 🫶
the authors want to thank Min Ye, Hongyu Li, Wei Lin, Xifeng Wan, Yannick Legoff, Shrinivas Joshi, Alexey Melnikov, and Stephen Farrell for their valuable discussions and comments. Real ones, all of them 💖✨.
Contributors 🌟
these people made significant contributions to this document 👑:
Chengbin Shen
China Telecom
1835 South Pudong Road
Shanghai 200122, China
Email: shencb@sttri.com.cn
Guangtao Zhou
China Unicom
No.9 Shouti South Road
Beijing 100048, China
Email: zhouguangtao@chinaunicom.cnAuthors' Addresses 🦋
Yuanlong Jiang (editor)
Huawei
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Yong Luo
Huawei
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: dennis.luoyong@huawei.com
Edwin Mallette (editor)
Charter Communications
4145 S. Falkenburg Road
Tampa, FL 33578
United States of America
Email: edwin.mallette@gmail.com
Yimin Shen
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
United States of America
Email: yshen@juniper.net
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
Beijing 100053
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8024 2016-11
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms