Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:39:22 -0600

Network Working Group                                       Luca Martini
Internet Draft                                                Chris Metz
Expiration Date: January 2009                         Cisco Systems Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track
                                                        Thomas D. Nadeau
Matthew Bocci                                                         BT
Florin Balus
Mustapha Aissaoui                                           Mike Duckett
Alcatel-Lucent                                                 Bellsouth

                                                               July 2008

                         Segmented Pseudo Wire

                  draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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.

Abstract

   This document describes how to connect pseudowires (PW) between two
   distinct PW control planes or PSN domains. The PW control planes may
   belong to independent autonomous systems, or the PSN technology is
   heterogeneous, or a PW might need to be aggregated at a specific PSN
   point. The PW packet data units are simply switched from one PW to

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 1]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   another without changing the PW payload.

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 2]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

Table of Contents

    1        Specification of Requirements  ........................   4
    2        Terminology  ..........................................   5
    3        Introduction  .........................................   5
    4        General Description  ..................................   7
    5        PW Switching and Attachment Circuit Type  .............  10
    6        Applicability  ........................................  10
    7        PW-MPLS to PW-MPLS Control Plane Switching  ...........  10
    7.1      Static Control plane switching  .......................  11
    7.2      Two LDP control planes using the same FEC type  .......  11
    7.2.1    FEC 129 Active/Passive T-PE Election Procedure  .......  12
    7.3      LDP FEC 128 to LDP using the generalized FEC 129  .....  12
    7.4      LDP PW switching point TLV  ...........................  13
    7.4.1    PW Switching Point Sub-TLVs  ..........................  14
    7.4.2    Adaptation of Interface Parameters  ...................  15
    7.5      Group ID  .............................................  16
    7.6      PW Loop Detection  ....................................  16
    8        PW-MPLS to PW-L2TPv3 Control Plane Switching  .........  16
    8.1      Static MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs  ...........................  17
    8.2      Static MPLS PW and Dynamic L2TPv3 PW  .................  17
    8.3      Static L2TPv3 PW and Dynamic LDP/MPLS PW  .............  17
    8.4      Dynamic LDP/MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs  ......................  17
    8.4.1    Session Establishment  ................................  18
    8.4.2    Adaptation of PW Status message  ......................  18
    8.4.3    Session Tear Down  ....................................  19
    8.5      Adaptation of L2TPv3 AVPs to Interface Parameters  ....  19
    8.6      Switching Point TLV in L2TPv3  ........................  20
    8.7      L2TPv3 and MPLS PW Data Plane  ........................  20
    8.7.1    PWE3 Payload Convergence and Sequencing  ..............  21
    8.7.2    Mapping  ..............................................  21
    9        Operation And Management  .............................  22
    9.1      Extensions to VCCV to Support Switched PWs  ...........  22
    9.2      PW-MPLS to PW-MPLS OAM Data Plane Indication  .........  22
    9.2.1    Decreasing the PW Label TTL  ..........................  22
    9.3      Signaling OAM Capabilities for Switched Pseudowires  ..  23
    9.4      OAM Capability for MS-PWs Demultiplexed using MPLS  ...  23
    9.4.1    MS-PW and VCCV CC Type 1  .............................  24
    9.4.2    MS-PW and VCCV CC type 2  .............................  24
    9.4.3    MS-PW and VCCV CC type 3  .............................  24
    9.4.4    Detailed VCCV Procedures  .............................  24
    9.4.4.1  End to End verification between T-PEs  ................  24
    9.4.4.2  Partial verification from T-PE  .......................  25
    9.4.4.3  Partial verification between S-PEs  ...................  26
    9.4.5    Optional FEC Reply in VCCV LSP Ping packet  ...........  26
    9.4.6    Processing of an VCCV Echo Message in a MS-PW  ........  27

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 3]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

    9.4.6.1  Sending a VCCV Echo Request  ..........................  27
    9.4.6.2  Receiving an VCCV Echo Request  .......................  27
    9.4.7    VCCV Trace Operations  ................................  27
    9.5      Mapping Switched Pseudowire Status  ...................  28
    9.5.1    S-PE initiated PW status messages  ....................  30
    9.5.1.1  Local PW2 reverse direction fault  ....................  31
    9.5.1.2  Local PW1 reverse direction fault  ....................  31
    9.5.1.3  Local PW2 forward direction fault  ....................  32
    9.5.1.4  Local PW1 forward direction fault  ....................  32
    9.5.1.5  Clearing Faults  ......................................  32
    9.5.2    PW status messages and S-PE TLV processing  ...........  32
    9.5.3    T-PE processing of PW status messages  ................  33
    9.6      Pseudowire Status Negotiation Procedures  .............  33
    9.7      Status Dampening  .....................................  33
   10        Peering Between Autonomous Systems  ...................  33
   11        Security Considerations  ..............................  33
   11.1      Data Plane Security  ..................................  34
   11.1.1    VCCV Security considerations  .........................  34
   11.2      Control Protocol Security  ............................  34
   12        IANA Considerations  ..................................  35
   12.1      L2TPv3 AVP  ...........................................  35
   12.2      LDP TLV TYPE  .........................................  35
   12.3      LDP Status Codes  .....................................  36
   12.4      L2TPv3 Result Codes  ..................................  36
   12.5      New IANA Registries  ..................................  36
   13        Intellectual Property Statement  ......................  37
   14        Full Copyright Statement  .............................  37
   15        Acknowledgments  ......................................  38
   16        Normative References  .................................  38
   17        Informative References  ...............................  39
   18        Author Information  ...................................  40

1. Specification of Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 4]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

2. Terminology

     - PW Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE). A PE where the customer-
       facing attachment circuits (ACs) are bound to a PW forwarder. A
       Terminating PE is present in the first and last segments of a
       MS-PW. This incorporates the functionality of a PE as defined in
       [RFC3985].

     - Single-Segment Pseudowire (SS-PW). A PW setup directly between
       two T-PE devices. Each PW in one direction of a SS-PW traverses
       one PSN tunnel that connects the two T-PEs.

     - Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW).  A static or dynamically
       configured set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave
       and function as a single point-to-point PW. Each end of a MS-PW
       by definition MUST terminate on a T-PE.

     - PW Segment. A part of a single-segment or multi-segment PW, which
       is set up between two PE devices, T-PEs and/or S-PEs.

     - PW Switching Provider Edge (S-PE).  A PE capable of switching the
       control and data planes of the preceding and succeeding PW
       segments in a MS-PW. The S-PE terminates the PSN tunnels of the
       preceding and succeeding segments of the MS-PW. It is therefore a

     - PW switching point for a MS-PW. A PW Switching Point is never the
       S-PE and the T-PE for the same MS-PW. A PW switching point runs
       necessary protocols to setup and manage PW segments with other PW
       switching points and terminating PEs.

3. Introduction

   PWE3 defines the signaling and encapsulation techniques for
   establishing SS-PWs between a pair of ultimate PEs and in the vast
   majority of cases this will be sufficient. MS-PWs come into play in
   two general cases:

        -i. When it is not possible, desirable or feasible to establish
            a PW control channel between the ultimate source and
            destination PEs. At a minimum PW control channel
            establishment requires knowledge of and reachability to the
            remote (ultimate) PE IP address. The local (ultimate) PE may
            not have access to this information related to topology,
            operational or security constraints.

            An example is the inter-AS L2VPN scenario where the ultimate
            PEs reside in different provider networks (ASes) and it is

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 5]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

            the practice to MD5-key all control traffic exchanged
            between two networks. Technically a SS-PW could be used but
            this would require MD5-keying on ALL ultimate source and
            destination PE nodes. An MS-PW allows the providers to
            confine MD5 key administration to just the PW switching
            points connecting the two domains.

            A second example might involve a single AS where the PW
            setup path between the ultimate PEs is computed by an
            external entity (i.e. client-layer routing protocol). Assume
            a full mesh of PWE3 control channels established between
            PE-A, PE-B and PE-C. A client-layer L2 connection tunneled
            through a PW is required between ultimate PE-A and PE-C. The
            external entity computes a PW setup path that passes through
            PE-B. This results in two discrete PW segments being built:
            one between PE-A and PE-B and one between PE-B and PE-C. The
            successful client-layer L2 connection between ultimate PE-A
            and ultimate PE-C requires that PE-B performs the PWE3
            switching process.

            A third example involves the use of PWs in hierarchical
            IP/MPLS networks.  Access networks connected to a backbone
            use PWs to transport customer payloads between customer
            sites serviced by the same access network and up to the edge
            of the backbone where they can be terminated or switched
            onto a succeeding PW segment crossing the backbone. The use
            of PWE3 switching between the access and backbone networks
            can potentially reduce the PWE3 control channels and routing
            information processed by the access network T-PEs.

            It should be noted that PWE3 switching does not help in any
            way to reduce the amount of PW state supported by each
            access network T-PE.

       -ii. PWE3 signaling and encapsulation protocols are different.
            The ultimate PEs are connected to networks employing
            different PW signaling and encapsulation protocols. In this
            case it is not possible to use a SS-PW. A MS-PW with the
            appropriate interworking performed at the PW switching
            points can enable PW connectivity between the ultimate PEs
            in this scenario.

   There are four different signaling protocols that are defined to
   signal PWs:

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 6]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

        -i. Static configuration of the PW (MPLS or L2TPv3).
       -ii. LDP using FEC 128
      -iii. LDP using the generalized FEC 129
       -iv. L2TPv3

4. General Description

   A pseudowire (PW) is a tunnel established between two provider edge
   (PE) nodes to transport L2 PDUs across a packet switched network
   (PSN) as described in Figure 1 and in [PWE3-ARCH]. Many providers are
   looking at PWs as a means of migrating existing (or building new)
   L2VPN services (i.e.  Frame-Relay, ATM, Ethernet) on top of a PSN by
   using PWs. PWs may span multiple autonomous systems of the same or
   different provider networks. In these scenarios PW control channels
   (i.e. targeted LDP, L2TPv3) and PWs will cross AS boundaries.

   Inter-AS L2VPN functionality is currently supported and several
   techniques employing MPLS encapsulation and LDP signaling have been
   documented [2547BIS]. It is also straightforward to support the same
   inter-AS L2VPN functionality employing L2TPv3. In this document we
   define methodology to switch a PW between two PW control planes.

         |<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
         |                                                  |
         |          |<-------- Pseudowire ------>|          |
         |          |                            |          |
         |          |    |<-- PSN Tunnel -->|    |          |
         |          V    V                  V    V          |
         V    AC    +----+                  +----+     AC   V
   +-----+    |     | PE1|==================| PE2|     |    +-----+
   |     |----------|............PW1.............|----------|     |
   | CE1 |    |     |    |                  |    |     |    | CE2 |
   |     |----------|............PW2.............|----------|     |
   +-----+  ^ |     |    |==================|    |     | ^  +-----+
         ^  |       +----+                  +----+     | |  ^
         |  |   Provider Edge 1         Provider Edge 2  |  |
         |  |                                            |  |
   Customer |                                            | Customer
   Edge 1   |                                            | Edge 2
            |                                            |
      native service                               native service

                     Figure 1: PWE3 Reference Model

   There are two methods for switching a PW between two PW control
   planes. In the first method (Figure 2), the two control planes

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 7]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   terminate on different PEs.

                |<------------Emulated Service---------->|
                |      PSN                      PSN      |
            AC  |    |<-1->|                  |<-2->|    |  AC
            |   V    V     V                  V     V    V  |
            |   +----+     +-----+       +----+     +----+  |
   +----+   |   |    |=====|     |       |    |=====|    |  |    +----+
   |    |-------|......PW1.......|--AC1--|......PW2......|-------|    |
   | CE1|   |   |    |     |     |       |    |     |    |  |    |CE2 |
   |    |-------|......PW3.......|--AC2--|......PW4......|-------|    |
   +----+   |   |    |=====|     |       |    |=====|    |  |    +----+
        ^       +----+     +-----+       +----+     +----+       ^
        |         PE1        PE2          PE3         PE4        |
        |                     ^            ^                     |
        |                     |            |                     |
        |                  PW stitching points                   |
        |                                                        |
        |                                                        |
        |<-------------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|

            Figure 2: PW Switching using ACs Reference Model

   In Figure 2, pseudowires in two separate PSNs are stitched together
   using native service attachment circuits. PE2 and PE3 only run the
   control plane for the PSN to which they are directly attached. At PE2
   and PE3, PW1 and PW2 are connected using attachment circuit AC1,
   while PW3 and PW4 are connected using attachment circuit AC2.

           Native  |<-----------Pseudowire------------>|  Native
           Layer2  |                                   |  Layer2
          Service  |    |<-PSN1-->|     |<--PSN2->|    |  Service
           (AC)    V    V         V     V         V    V   (AC)
             |     +----+         +-----+         +----+     |
   +----+    |     | PE1|=========| PE2 |=========| PE3|     |    +----+
   |    |----------|........PW1.........|...PW3........|----------|    |
   | CE1|    |     |    |         |     |         |    |     |    |CE2 |
   |    |----------|........PW2.........|...PW4........|----------|    |
   +----+    |     |    |=========|     |=========|    |     |    +----+
        ^          +----+         +-----+         +----+     |    ^
        |      Provider Edge 1       ^        Provider Edge 3     |
        |      (Terminating PE)      |        (Terminating PE)    |
        |                            |                            |
        |                    PW switching point                   |
        |            (Optional PW adaptation function)            |
        |                                                         |
        |<------------------- Emulated Service ------------------>|

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 8]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

                 Figure 3: PW Control Plane Switching Reference Model

   In Figure 3 PE2 runs two separate control planes: one toward PE1, and
   one Toward PE3. The PW switching point is at PE2 which is configured
   to connect PW1 and PW3 together to complete the multi-hop PW between
   PE1 and PE3.  PW1 and PW3 MUST be of the same PW type, but PSN1 and
   PSN2 need not be the same technology. In the latter case, if the PW
   is switched to a different technology, the PEs must adapt the PDU
   encapsulation between the different PSN technologies. In the case
   where PSN1 and PSN2 are the same technology the PW PDU does not need
   to be modified, and PDUs are then switched between the pseudowires at
   the PW label level.

   It should be noted that it is possible to adapt one PSN technology to
   a different one, for example MPLS over an IP or GRE [RFC4023]
   encapsulation, but this is outside the scope of this document.
   Further, one could perform an interworking function on the PWs
   themselves at the PW switching point, allowing conversion from one PW
   type to another, but this is also outside the scope of this document.

   This document describes procedures for building multi-segment
   pseudowires using manual configuration of the switching point PE2.
   Other documents may build on this base specification to automate the
   configuration and selection of PE2. It should also be noted that a PW
   can traverse multiple PW switching points along it's path, and the
   edge PEs will not require any specific knowledge of how many PW
   switching points the PW has traversed (though this may be reported
   for troubleshooting purposes).

   In general the approach taken is to connect the individual control
   planes by passing along any signaling information immediately upon
   reception. First the PW switching point is configured to switch a
   SS-PW from a specific peer to another SS-PW destined for a different
   peer. No control messages are exchanged yet as the PW switching point
   PE does not have enough information to actually initiate the PW setup
   messages. However, if a session does not already exist, a control
   protocol (LDP/L2TP) session is setup. In this model the MS-PW setup
   is starting from the T-PE devices. Next once the T-PE is configured
   it sends the PW control setup messages. These messages are received,
   and immediately used to form the PW setup messages for the next SS-PW
   of the MS-PW. If one of the Switching PEs doesn't accept an LDP Label
   Mapping message then a Label Release message may be sent back to the
   originator T-PE depending on the cause of the error. LDP liberal
   label retention mode still applies, hence if a PE is simply not
   configured yet , the label mapping is stored for future use. A MS-PW
   is declared UP when all the constituent SS-PWs are UP.

Martini, et al.                                                 [Page 9]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

5. PW Switching and Attachment Circuit Type

   The PWs in each PSN are established independently, with each PSN
   being treated as a separate PWE3 domain. For example, in Figure 2 for
   case of MPLS PSNs, PW1 is setup between PE1 and PE2 using the LDP
   targeted session as described in [RFC4447], and at the same time a
   separate pseudowire, PW2, is setup between PE3 and PE4. The ACs for
   PW1 and PW2 at PE2 and PE3 MUST be configured such that they are the
   same PW type e.g. ATM VCC, Ethernet VLAN, etc.

6. Applicability

   The general applicability of MS-PWs and their relationship to L2VPNs
   is described in [MS-PW-ARCH]. The applicability of a PW type, as
   specified in the relevant RFC for that encapsulation (e.g. [RFC4717]
   for ATM), applies to each segment. This section describes further
   applicability considerations.

   In comon with SS-PWs, the performance of any segment of a MS-PW is
   equal to the performance of the PSN plus any impairments introduced
   by the PW layer itself. Therefore it is not possible for the MS-PW to
   provide better performance than the PSN over which it is transported.
   Furthermore, the overall performance of an MS-PW is no better than
   the worst performing segment of that MS-PW.

   Since different PSN types may be able to achieve different maximum
   performance objectives, it is necessary to carefully consider which
   PSN types are used along the path of a MS-PW.

7. PW-MPLS to PW-MPLS Control Plane Switching

   Referencing Figure 3, PE2 sets up a PW1 using the LDP targeted
   session as described in [RFC4447], at the same time a separate
   pseudowire PW3 is setup to PE3. Each PW is configured independently
   on the PEs, but on PE2 pseudowire PW1 is connected to pseudowire PW3.
   PDUs are then switched between the pseudowires at the PW label level.
   Hence the data plane does not need any special knowledge of the
   specific pseudowire type. A simple standard MPLS label swap operation
   is sufficient to connect the two PWs, and in this case the PW
   adaptation function is not used. However when pushing a new PSN label
   the TTL SHOULD be set to 255, or some other locally configured fixed
   value.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 10]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   This process can be repeated as many times as necessary, the only
   limitation to the number of PW switching points traversed is imposed
   by the TTL field of the PW MPLS Label. The setting of the TTL is a
   matter of local policy on the originating PE, but SHOULD be set to
   255.

   There are three MPLS to MPLS PW control planes:
        -i. Static configuration of the PW.
       -ii. LDP using FEC 128
      -iii. LDP using the generalized FEC 129
   This results in four distinct PW switching situations that are
   significantly different, and must be considered in detail:
        -i. PW Switching between two static control planes.
       -ii. Static Control plane switching to LDP dynamic control plane.
      -iii. Two LDP control planes using the same FEC type
       -iv. LDP using FEC 128, to LDP using the generalized FEC 129

7.1. Static Control plane switching

   In the case of two static control planes the PW switching point MUST
   be configured to direct the MPLS packets from one PW into the other.
   There is no control protocol involved in this case. When one of the
   control planes is a simple static PW configuration and the other
   control plane is a dynamic LDP FEC 128 or generalized PW FEC, then
   the static control plane should be considered identical to an
   attachment circuit (AC) in the reference model of Figure 1. The
   switching point PE SHOULD signal the proper PW status if it detects a
   failure in sending or receiving packets over the static PW.  Because
   the PW is statically configured, the status communicated to the
   dynamic LDP PW will be limited to local interface failures. In this
   case, the PW switching point PE behaves in a very similar manner to a
   T-PE, assuming an active role. This means that the S-PE will
   immediately send the LDP Label Mapping message if the static PW is
   deemed to be UP.

7.2. Two LDP control planes using the same FEC type

   As stated in a section above, the PW switching point PE should assume
   an initial passive role. This means that once independent PWs are
   configured on the switching point, the LSR does not advertise the LDP
   PW FEC mapping until it has received at least one of the two PW LDP
   FECs from a remote PE. This is necessary because the switching point
   LSR does not know a priori what the interface parameter field in the
   initial FEC advertisement will contain.

   The PWID is a unique number between each pair of PEs. Hence Each SS-

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 11]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   PW that forms an MS-PW may have a different PWID. In the case of The
   Generalized PW FEC, the AGI/SAI/TAI may have to also be different for
   some, or sometimes all, SS-PWs.

7.2.1. FEC 129 Active/Passive T-PE Election Procedure

   When a MS-PW is signaled using FEC 129, each T-PE might independently
   start signaling the MS-PW. If the MS-PW path is not statically
   configured, in certain cases the signaling procedure could result in
   an attempt to setup each direction of the MS-PW through different
   paths. To avoid this situation one of the T-PE MUST start the PW
   signaling (active role), while the other waits to receive the LDP
   label mapping before sending the respective PW LDP label mapping
   message. (passive role). When the MS-PW path not statically
   configured, the Active T-PE (the ST-PE) and the passive T-PE (the
   TT-PE) MUST be identified before signaling is initiated for a given
   MS-PW.

   The determination of which T-PE assume the active role SHOULD be done
   as follows:

   the SAII and TAII are compared as unsigned integers, if the SAII is
   bigger then the T-PE assumes the active role.

   The selection process to determine which T-PE assumes the active role
   MAY be superseded by manual provisioning.

7.3. LDP FEC 128 to LDP using the generalized FEC 129

   When a PE is using the generalized FEC 129, there are two distinct
   roles that a PE can assume: active and passive. A PE that assumes the
   active role will send the LDP PW setup message, while a passive role
   PE will simply reply to an incoming LDP PW setup message. The PW
   switching point PE, will always remain passive until a PWID FEC 128
   LDP message is received, which will cause the corresponding
   generalized PW FEC LDP message to be formed and sent. If a
   generalized FEC PW LDP message is received while the switching point
   PE is in a passive role, the corresponding PW FEC 128 LDP message
   will be formed and sent.

   PW IDs need to be mapped to the corresponding AGI/TAI/SAI and vice
   versa.  This can be accomplished by local PW switching point
   configuration, or by some other means, such as some form of auto
   discovery. Such other means are outside the scope of this document.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 12]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

7.4. LDP PW switching point TLV

   The edge to edge PW might traverse several switching points, in
   separate administrative domains. For management and troubleshooting
   reasons it is useful to record information about the switching points
   that the PW traverses. This is accomplished by using a PW switching
   point TLV.

   Note that sending the PW switching point TLV is OPTIONAL, however the
   PE or S-PE MUST process the TLV upon reception. The PW switching
   point TLV is appended to the PW FEC at each switching point. Each S-
   PE can append a PW switching point TLV, and the order of the PW
   switching point TLVs MUST be preserved. The S-PE TLV MUST be sent if
   VCCV operation is required beyond the first MS-PW segment from a T-
   PE.

   The PW switching point TLV encoded 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|     PW sw TLV  (0x096D)   |     PW sw TLV  Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Variable Length Value                   |
   |                               "                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   [note] LDP TLV type is pending IANA approval.

     - PW sw TLV  Length

       Specifies the total length of all the following PW switching
       point TLV fields in octets

     - Type

       Encodes how the Value field is to be interpreted.

     - Length

       Specifies the length of the Value field in octets.

     - Value

       Octet string of Length octets that encodes information to be
       interpreted as specified by the Type field.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 13]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   PW Switching point TLV Types are assigned by IANA according the the
   process defined in the "IANA Allocations" section below.

   The PW switching Point TLV is an OPTIONAL TLV that should appear only
   once for each switching point traversed. If the S-PE TLV is not
   present with the required sub-TLVs, VCCV operation will not function.

   For local policy reasons, a particular S-PE can filter out all S-PE
   TLVs in a label mapping message that traverses it and not include
   it's own S-PE TLV.  In this case, from any upstream PE, it will
   appear as if this particular S-PE is the T-PE. This might be
   necessary , depending on local policy if the S-PE is at the Service
   provider administrative boundary.

7.4.1. PW Switching Point Sub-TLVs

   Below are details specific to PW Switching Point Sub-TLVs described
   in this document:

     - PW ID of last PW segment traversed. This is only applicable if
       the last PW segment traversed used LDP FEC 128 to signal the PW.

       This sub-TLV type contains a PW ID in the format of the PWID
       described in [RFC4447]. This is just a 32 bit unsigned integer
       number.

     - PW Switching Point description string.

       An optional description string of text up to 80 characters long.

     - Local IP address of PW Switching Point.

       The Local IP V4 or V6 address of the PW Switching Point. This is
       an OPTIONAL Sub-TLV. In most cases this will be the local LDP
       session IP address of the S-PE.

     - Remote IP address of the last PW Switching Point traversed or of
       the T-PE

       The IP V4 or V6 address of the last PW Switching Point traversed
       or of the T-PE. This is an OPTIONAL Sub-TLV. In most cases this
       will be the remote IP address of the LDP session. This Sub-TLV
       SHOULD only be included if there are no other S-PE TLV present
       from other S-PEs, or if the remote ip address of the LDP session
       does not correspond to the "Local IP address of PW Switching
       Point" TLV value contained in the last S-PE TLV.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 14]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

     - The FEC of last PW segment traversed.

       This is only applicable if the last PW segment traversed used LDP
       FEC 129 to signal the PW.

       The Attachment Identifier of the last PW segment traversed. This
       is coded in the following format:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   AGI Type    |    Length     |      Value                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                    AGI  Value (contd.)                        ~
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   AII Type    |    Length     |      Value                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                   SAII  Value (contd.)                        ~
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   AII Type    |    Length     |      Value                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                   TAII Value (contd.)                         ~
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     - L2 PW address of PW Switching Point (recommended format).

   This sub-TLV type contains a L2 PW address of PW Switching Point in
   the format described in [RFC5003]. This includes the AII type field ,
   and length, as well as the L2 PW address.

7.4.2. Adaptation of Interface Parameters

   [RFC4447] defines several interface parameters, which are used by the
   Network Service Processing (NSP) to adapt the PW to the Attachment
   Circuit (AC). The interface parameters are only used at the end
   points, and MUST be passed unchanged across the PW switching point.
   However the following interface parameters MAY be modified as
   follows:

     - 0x03 Optional Interface Description string This Interface
       parameter MAY be modified, or altogether removed from the FEC
       element depending on local configuration policies.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 15]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

     - 0x09 Fragmentation indicator This parameter MAY be inserted in
       the FEC by the switching point if it is capable of re-assembly of
       fragmented PW frames according to [PWE3-FRAG].

     - 0x0C VCCV parameter This Parameter contains the CC type , and CV
       type bit fields. The CV type bit field MUST be reset to reflect
       the CV type supported by the S-PE. CC type bit field MUST have
       bit 1 "Type 2: MPLS Router Alert Label " set to 0.  The other bit
       fields MUST be reset to reflect the CC type supported by the S-
       PE.

7.5. Group ID

   The Group ID (GR ID) is used to reduce the number of status messages
   that need to be sent by the PE advertising the PW FEC. The GR ID has
   local significance only, and therefore MUST be mapped to a unique GR
   ID allocated by the PW switching point PE.

7.6. PW Loop Detection

   A switching point PE SHOULD check the OPTIONAL PW switching Point
   TLV, to verify if it's own IP address appears in it. If it's IP
   address appears in a received PW switching Point TLV, the PE SHOULD
   break the loop, and send a label release message with the following
   error code:
      Assignment E Description
      0x0000003A 0 "PW Loop Detected"

   [ note: error code pending IANA allocation ]

8. PW-MPLS to PW-L2TPv3 Control Plane Switching

   Both MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs may be static or dynamic. This results in
   four possibilities when switching between L2TPv3 and MPLS.

        -i. Switching between MPLS and L2TPv3 static control planes.
       -ii. Switching between a static MPLS PW and a dynamic L2TPv3 PW.
      -iii. Switching between a static L2TPv3 PW and a dynamic MPLS PW.
       -iv. Switching between a dynamic MPLS PW and a dynamic L2TPv3 PW.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 16]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

8.1. Static MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs

   In the case of two static control planes, the PW switching point MUST
   be configured to direct packets from one PW into the other. There is
   no control protocol involved in this case. The configuration MUST
   include which MPLS VC Label maps to which L2TPv3 Session ID (and
   associated Cookie, if present) as well as which MPLS Tunnel Label
   maps to which PE destination IP address.

8.2. Static MPLS PW and Dynamic L2TPv3 PW

   When a statically configured MPLS PW is switched to a dynamic L2TPv3
   PW, the static control plane should be considered identical to an
   attachment circuit (AC) in the reference model of Figure 1. The
   switching point PE SHOULD signal the proper PW status if it detects a
   failure in

   sending or receiving packets over the static PW. Because the PW is
   statically configured, the status communicated to the dynamic L2TPv3
   PW will be limited to local interface failures. In this case, the PW
   switching point PE behaves in a very similar manner to a T-PE,
   assuming an active role.

8.3. Static L2TPv3 PW and Dynamic LDP/MPLS PW

   When a statically configured L2TPv3 PW is switched to a dynamic
   LDP/MPLS PW, then the static control plane should be considered
   identical to an attachment circuit (AC) in the reference model of
   Figure 1. The switching point PE SHOULD signal the proper PW status
   (via an L2TPv3 SLI message) if it detects a failure in sending or
   receiving packets over the static PW.  Because the PW is statically
   configured, the status communicated to the dynamic LDP/MPLS PW will
   be limited to local interface failures. In this case, the PW
   switching point PE behaves in a very similar manner to a T-PE,
   assuming an active role.

8.4. Dynamic LDP/MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs

   When switching between dynamic PWs, the switching point always
   assumes an initial passive role. Thus, it does not initiate an
   LDP/MPLS or L2TPv3 PW until it has received a connection request
   (Label Mapping or ICRQ) from one side of the node. Note that while
   MPLS PWs are made up of two unidirectional LSPs bonded together by
   FEC identifiers, L2TPv3 PWs are bidirectional in nature, setup via a
   3-message exchange (ICRQ, ICRP and ICCN). Details of Session

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 17]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   Establishment, Tear Down, and PW Status signaling are detailed below.

8.4.1. Session Establishment

   When the PW switching point receives an L2TPv3 ICRQ message, the
   identifying AVPs included in the message are mapped to FEC
   identifiers and sent in an LDP label mapping message. Conversely, if
   an LDP Label Mapping message is received, it is either mapped to an
   ICRP message or causes an L2TPv3 session to be initiated by sending
   an ICRQ.

   Following are two example exchanges of messages between LDP and
   L2TPv3. The first is a case where an L2TPv3 T-PE initiates an MS-PW,
   the second is a case where an MPLS T-PE initiates an MS-PW.

      PE 1 (L2TPv3)      PW Switching Node       PE3 (MPLS/LDP)

        AC "Up"
        L2TPv3 ICRQ --->
                         LDP Label Mapping  --->
                                                    AC "UP"
                                           <--- LDP Label Mapping
                   <--- L2TPv3 ICRP
        L2TPv3 ICCN  --->
      <-------------------- MH PW Established ------------------>

      PE 1 (MPLS/LDP)      PW Switching Node       PE3 (L2TPv3)

        AC "Up"
        LDP Label Mapping --->
                              L2TPv3 ICRQ  --->
                                              <--- L2TPv3 ICRP
                         <--- LDP Label Mapping
                              L2TPv3 ICCN --->
                                                   AC "Up"
      <-------------------- MH PW Established ------------------>

8.4.2. Adaptation of PW Status message

   L2TPv3 uses the SLI message to indicate a interface status change
   (such as the interface transitioning from "Up" or "Down"). MPLS/LDP
   PWs either signal this via an LDP Label Withdraw or the PW Status
   Notification message defined in section 4.4 of [RFC4447].

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 18]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

8.4.3. Session Tear Down

   L2TPv3 uses a single message, CDN, to tear down a pseudowire. The CDN
   message translates to a Label Withdraw message in LDP. Following are
   two example exchanges of messages between LDP and L2TPv3. The first
   is a case where an L2TPv3 T-PE initiates the termination of an MS-PW,
   the second is a case where an MPLS T-PE initiates the termination of
   an MS-PW.

   PE 1 (L2TPv3)      PW Switching Node       PE3 (MPLS/LDP)

   AC "Down"
     L2TPv3 CDN --->
                      LDP Label Withdraw  --->
                                                 AC "Down"
                                      <-- LDP Label Release

   <--------------- MH PW Data Path Down ------------------>

   PE 1 (MPLS LDP)     PW Switching Node       PE3 (L2TPv3)

   AC "Down"
   LDP Label Withdraw  --->
                           L2TPv3 CDN -->
                       <-- LDP Label Release
                                                 AC "Down"

   <---------------- MH PW Data Path Down ------------------>

8.5. Adaptation of L2TPv3 AVPs to Interface Parameters

   [RFC4447] defines several interface parameters which MUST be mapped
   to the equivalent AVPs in L2TPv3 setup messages.

     * Interface MTU

       The Interface MTU parameter is mapped directly to the L2TP
       Interface MTU AVP defined in [RFC4667]

     * Max Number of Concatenated ATM cells

       This interface parameter is mapped directly to the L2TP "ATM
       Maximum Concatenated Cells AVP" described in section 6 of
       [RFC4454].

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 19]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

     * Optional Interface Description String

       This string may be carried as the "Call-Information AVP"
       described in section 2.2 of [L2TP-INFOMSG]

     * PW Type

       The PW Type defined in [RFC4446] is mapped to the L2TPv3 "PW
       Type" AVP defined in [L2TPv3].

     * PW ID (FEC 128)

       For FEC 128, the PW ID is mapped directly to the L2TPv3 "Remote
       End ID" AVP defined in [L2TPv3].

     * Generalized FEC 129 SAI/TAI

       Section 4.3 of [RFC4667] defines how to encode the SAI and TAI
       parameters. These can be mapped directly.

   Other interface parameter mappings will either be defined in a future
   version of this document, or are unsupported when switching between
   LDP/MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs.

8.6. Switching Point TLV in L2TPv3

   When translating between LDP and L2TPv3 control messages, the PW
   Switching Point TLV described earlier in this document is carried in
   a single variable length L2TP AVP present in the ICRQ, ICRP messages,
   and optionally in the ICCN message.

   The L2TP "Switching Point AVP" is Attribute Type TBA-L2TP-AVP-1. The
   AVP MAY be hidden (the L2TP AVP H-bit may be 0 or 1), the length of
   the AVP is 6 plus the length of the series of Switching Point sub-
   TLVs included in the AVP, and the AVP MUST NOT be marked Mandatory
   (the L2TP AVP M-bit MUST be 0).

8.7. L2TPv3 and MPLS PW Data Plane

   When switching between an MPLS and L2TP PW, packets are sent in their
   entirety from one PW to the other, replacing the MPLS label stack
   with the L2TPv3 and IP header or vice versa. There are some
   situations where an additional amount of interworking must be
   provided between the two data planes at the PW switching node.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 20]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

8.7.1. PWE3 Payload Convergence and Sequencing

   Section 5.4 of [PWE3-ARCH] discusses the purpose of the various shim
   headers necessary for enabling a pseudowire over an IP or MPLS PSN.
   For L2TPv3, the Payload Convergence and Sequencing function is
   carried out via the Default L2-Specific Sublayer defined in [L2TPv3].
   For MPLS, these two functions (together with PSN Convergence) are
   carried out via the MPLS Control Word. Since these functions are
   different between MPLS and L2TPv3, interworking between the two may
   be necessary.

   The L2TP L2-Specific Sublayer and MPLS Control Word are shim headers
   which in some cases are not necessary to be present at all. For
   example, an Ethernet PW with sequencing disabled will generally not
   require an MPLS Control Word or L2TP Default L2-Specific Sublayer to
   be present at all. In this case, Ethernet frames are simply sent from
   one PW to the other without any modification beyond the MPLS and
   L2TP/IP encapsulation and decapsulation.

   The following section offers guidelines for how to interwork between
   L2TP and MPLS for those cases where the Payload Convergence,
   Sequencing, or PSN Convergence functions are necessary on one or both
   sides of the switching node.

8.7.2. Mapping

   The MPLS Control Word consists of (from left to right):

        -i. These bits are always zero in MPLS are not necessary to be
            mapped to L2TP.

       -ii. These six bits may be used for Payload Convergence depending
            on the PW type. For ATM, the first four of these bits are
            defined in [RFC4717]. These map directly to the bits defined
            in [RFC4454]. For Frame Relay, these bits indicate how to
            set the bits in the Frame Relay header which must be
            regenerated for L2TP as it carries the Frame Relay header
            intact.

      -iii. L2TP determines its payload length from IP. Thus, this
            Length field need not be carried directly to L2TP. This
            Length field will have to be calculated and inserted for
            MPLS when necessary.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 21]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

       -iv. The Default L2-Specific Sublayer has a sequence number with
            different semantics than that of the MPLS Control Word. This
            difference eliminates the possibility of supporting
            sequencing across the MS-PW by simply carrying the sequence
            number through the switching point transparently. As such,
            sequence numbers MAY be supported by checking the sequence
            numbers of packets arriving at the switching point and
            regenerating a new sequence number in the proper format for
            the PW on egress. If this type of sequence interworking at
            the switching node is not supported, and a T-PE requests
            sequencing of all packets via the L2TP control channel
            during session setup, the switching node SHOULD NOT allow
            the session to be established by sending a CDN message with
            Result Code set to 17 "sequencing not supported" (subject to
            IANA Assignment).

9. Operation And Management

9.1. Extensions to VCCV to Support Switched PWs

   Single-hop pseudowires are signaled using the Virtual Circuit
   Connectivity Verification (VCCV) parameter included in the interface
   parameter field of the PW ID FEC TLV or the sub-TLV interface
   parameter of the Generalized PW ID FEC TLV as described in [RFC5085].
   When a switching point exist between PE nodes, it is required to be
   able to continue operating VCCV end-to-end across a switching point
   and to provide the ability to trace the path of the MS-PW over any
   number of segments.

   This document provides a method for achieving these two objectives.
   This method is based on re-using the existing VCCV CW and
   decrementing the TTL of the PW label at each hop in the path of the
   MS-PW.

9.2. PW-MPLS to PW-MPLS OAM Data Plane Indication

9.2.1. Decreasing the PW Label TTL

   As stated above the S-PE MUST perform a standard MPLS label swap
   operation on the MPLS PW label. By the rules defined in [RFC3032] the
   PW label TTL MUST be decreased at every S-PE. Once the PW label TTL
   reaches the value of 0, the packet is sent to the control plane to be
   processed. Hence, by controlling the PW TTL value of the PW label it
   is possible to select exactly which hop will respond to the VCCV
   packet.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 22]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

9.3. Signaling OAM Capabilities for Switched Pseudowires

   Like in SS-PW, MS-PW VCCV capabilities are signaled using the VCCV
   parameter included in the interface parameter field of the PW ID FEC
   TLV or the sub-TLV interface parameter of the Generalized PW ID FEC
   TLV as described in [RFC5085].

   In Figure 3 T-PE1 uses the VCCV parameter included in the interface
   parameter field of the PW ID FEC TLV or the sub-TLV interface
   parameter of the Generalized PW ID FEC TLV to indicate to the far end
   T-PE2 what VCCV capabilities T-PE1 supports. This is the same VCCV
   parameter as would be used if T-PE1 and T-PE2 were connected
   directly. S-PE2, which is a PW switching point, as part of the
   adaptation function for interface parameters, processes locally the
   VCCV parameter then passes it to T-PE2. If there were multiple S-PEs
   on the path between T-PE1 and T-PE2, each would carry out the same
   processing, passing along the VCCV parameter. The local processing of
   the VCCV parameter removes CC Types specified by the originating T-PE
   that are not supported on the S-PE. For example, if T-PE1 indicates
   supports CC Types 1,2,3 and the Then the S-PE removes the Router
   Alert CC Type=2, leaving the rest of the TLV unchanged, and passes
   the modified VCCV parameter to the next S-PE along the path.

   The far end T-PE (T-PE2) receives the VCCV parameter indicating only
   the CC types that are supported by the initial T-PE (T-PE1) and all
   S-PEs along the PW path.

9.4. OAM Capability for MS-PWs Demultiplexed using MPLS

   The VCCV parameter ID is defined as follows in [RFC4446]:

        Parameter ID   Length     Description
          0x0c           4           VCCV

   The format of the VCCV parameter field is 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 0
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      0x0c     |       0x04    |   CC Types    |   CV Types    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          0x01 Type 1: PWE3 control word with 0001b as first nibble
                       as defined in [RFC4385].
          0x02 Type 2: MPLS Router Alert Label.
          0x04 Type 3: MPLS PW De-multiplexor Label TTL = 1 (Type 3).

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 23]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

9.4.1. MS-PW and VCCV CC Type 1

   VCCV CC type 1 is normally supported between T-PEs, and MAY be
   removed by an S-PE as a matter of local security policy. When using
   CC type 1 for MS-PWs the PE transmitting the VCCV packet MUST set the
   TTL to the appropriate value to reach the destination S-PE. However
   if the packet is destined for the T-PE, the TTL can be set to any
   value that is sufficient for the packet to reach the T-PE.

9.4.2. MS-PW and VCCV CC type 2

   VCCV CC type 2 is not supported for MS-PWs and MUST be removed form a
   VCCV parameter field by the S-PE.

9.4.3. MS-PW and VCCV CC type 3

   VCCV CC type 3 can be used for MS-PWs, however if the CW is enabled
   VCCV type 1 is preferred according to the rules in [RFC5085]. Note
   that for using the VCCV type 3, TTL method, the PE will set the PW
   label TTL to the appropriate value necessary to reach the target PE,
   otherwise the VCCV packet might be forwarded over the AC to the CPE.

9.4.4. Detailed VCCV Procedures

   In order to test the end-to-end connectivity of the multi-segment PW,
   a S-PE must include the FEC used in the last segment to the
   destination T-PE. This information is either configured at the
   sending T-PE or is obtained by processing the corresponding sub-TLVs
   of the PW switching point TLV. The necessary S-PE sub-TLVs are :

   Type Description
   0x01 PW ID of last PW segment traversed
   0x03 Local IP address of PW Switching Point
   0x04 Remote IP address of last PW Switching Point traversed or
        of the T-PE

9.4.4.1. End to End verification between T-PEs

   In Figure 3, if T-PE1, S-PE and T-PE2 support Control Word , the PW
   control plane will automatically negotiate the use of the CW. VCCV CC
   type 3 will function correctly whether the CW is enable or not on the
   PW. However VCCV type 1 for ( which can be use for end to end

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 24]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   verification only), is only supported if the CW is enabled.

   At the S-PE the data path operations include an outer label pop,
   inner label swap and new outer label push. Note that there is no
   requirement for the S-PE to inspect the CW. Thus, the end-to-end
   connectivity of the multi-segment pseudowire can be verified by
   performing all of the following steps:

        -i. T-PE forms a VCCV-ping echo request message with the FEC
            matching that of the last segment PW to the destination T-
            PE.

       -ii. T-PE sets the inner PW label TTL to the exact value to allow
            the packet to reach the far end T-PE. ( the value is
            determined by counting the number of S-PEs from the control
            plane information ) Alternatively, if CC type 1 is supported
            the packet can be encapsulated according to CC type 1 in
            [RFC5085]

      -iii. T-PE sends a VCCV packet that will follow the exact same
            data path at each S-PE as that taken by data packets.

       -iv. S-PE may performs an outer label pop, if PHP is disabled,
            and will perform an inner label swap with TTL decrement, and
            new outer label push.

        -v. There is no requirement for the S-PE to inspect the CW.

       -vi. The VCCV packet is diverted to VCCV control processing at
            the destination T-PE.

      -vii. Destination T-PE replies using the specified reply mode,
            i.e., reverse PW path or IP path.

9.4.4.2. Partial verification from T-PE

   In order to trace part of the multi-segment pseudowire, the TTL of
   the PW label may be used to force the VCCV message to 'pop out' at an
   intermediate node. When the TTL expires, the S-PE can determine that
   the packet is a VCCV packet by either checking the control word (CW)
   , or if the CW is not in use by checking for a valid IP header with
   UDP destination port 3503.  The packet should then be diverted to
   VCCV processing.

   In Figure 2, if T-PE1 sends a VCCV message with the TTL of the PW
   label equal to 1, the TTL will expire at the S-PE. T-PE1 can thus
   verify the first segment of the pseudowire.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 25]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   The VCCV packet is built according to [RFC4379] section 3.2.9 for FEC
   128, or 3.2.10 for a FEC 129 PW. All the information necessary to
   build the VCCV LSP ping packet is collected by inspecting the S-PE
   TLVs.

   Note that this use of the TTL is subject to the caution expressed in
   [RFC5085]. If a penultimate LSR between S-PEs or between an S-PE and
   a T-PE manipulates the PW label TTL, the VCCV message may not emerge
   from the MS-PW at the correct S-PE.

9.4.4.3. Partial verification between S-PEs

   Assuming that all nodes along an MS-PW support the Control Word CC
   Type 3, VCCV between S-PEs may be accomplished using the PW label TTL
   as described above. In Figure 3, the S-PE may verify the path between
   it and T-PE2 by sending a VCCV message with the PW label TTL set to
   1. Given a more complex network with multiple S-PEs, an S-PE may
   verify the connectivity between it and an S-PE two segments away by
   sending a VCCV message with the PW label TTL set to 2. Thus, an S-PE
   can diagnose connectivity problems by successively increasing the
   TTL.  All the information needed to build the proper VCCV echo
   request packet as described in [RFC4379] section 3.2.9 or 3.2.10 is
   obtained automatically from the LDP label mapping that contains S-PE
   TLVs.

9.4.5. Optional FEC Reply in VCCV LSP Ping packet

   When A S-PE along the PW path receives an VCCV LSP Ping echo request
   packet the following OPTIONAL procedure can be followed in addition
   to the procedure described below:

        -i. S-PE validates the echo request with the FEC.
       -ii. The S-PE build the standard LSP ping reply packet to be sent
            back.
      -iii. The S-PE appends the FEC128 information for the next segment
            along the MS-PW to the LSP PING reply packet.

   This FEC information can then be compared to the S-PE TLV information
   received from the control plane when the PW was first signalled. This
   FEC information MUST not be sent in the reply if the S-PE is not
   sending an S-PE TLV for administrative reasons in the same situation
   as explained previously.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 26]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

9.4.6. Processing of an VCCV Echo Message in a MS-PW

   The challenge for the control plane is to be able to build the VCCV
   echo request packet with the necessary information such as the target
   FEC 128 PW sub-TLV (FEC128) of the downstream PW segment which the
   packet is destined for. This could be even more difficult in
   situations in which the MS-PW spans different providers and
   Autonomous Systems.

9.4.6.1. Sending a VCCV Echo Request

   When in the "ping" mode of operation, the sender of the echo request
   message requires the FEC of the last segment to the target S-PE/T-PE
   node. This information can either be configured manually or be
   obtained by inspecting the corresponding sub-TLVs of the PW switching
   point TLV. However, the PW switching point TLV is optional and there
   is no guarantee that all S-PE nodes will populate it with their
   system address, the PWid of the last PW segment traversed, and the
   last system address of of the last PE traversed by the label mapping
   message. If all information is not available, VCCV LSP ping mode will
   not function.

9.4.6.2. Receiving an VCCV Echo Request

   Upon receiving a VCCV echo request the control plane on S-PEs (or the
   target node of each segment of the MS-PW) validates the request and
   responds to the request with an echo reply consisting of a return
   code of 8 (label switched at stack-depth ) indicating that it is an
   S-PE and not the egress router for the MS-PW.

   If the node is the T-PE or the egress node of the MS-PW, it responds
   to the echo request with an echo reply with a return code of 3
   (egress router).

9.4.7. VCCV Trace Operations

   As an example, in Figure 3, VCCV trace can be performed on the MS-PW
   originating from T-PE1 by a single operational command. The following
   process ensues:
        -i. T-PE1 sends a VCCV echo request with TTL set to 1 and a FEC
            containing the pseudowire information of the first segment
            (PW1 between T-PE1 and S-PE) to S-PE for validation. If FEC
            Stack Validation is enabled, the request may also include
            additional sub-TLV such as LDP Prefix and/or RSVP LSP
            dependent on the type of transport tunnel the segmented PW

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 27]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

            is riding on.

       -ii. S-PE validates the echo request with the FEC. Since it is a
            switching point between the first and second segment it
            builds an echo reply with a return code of 8 and sends the
            echo reply back to T-PE1.

      -iii. T-PE1 builds a second VCCV echo request based on the
            infomation obtained from the control plane (S-PE TLV). It
            then increments the TTL and sends it out to T-PE2. Note that
            the VCCV echo request packet is switched at the S-PE
            datapath and forwarded to the next downstream segment
            without any involvement from the control plane.

       -iv. T-PE2 receives and validates the echo request with the FEC.
            Since T-PE2 is the destination node or the egress node of
            the MS-PW it replies to T-PE1 with an echo reply with a
            return code of 3 (Egress Router).

        -v. T-PE1 receives the echo reply from T-PE2. T-PE1 is made
            aware that T-PE2 is the destination of the MS-PW because the
            echo reply has a return code of is 3. The trace process is
            completed.

   If no echo reply is received, or an error code is received from a
   particular PE, the trace process MUST stop immediately, and no
   packets MUST be sent further along the MS-PW.

   For more detail on the format of the VCCV echo packet, refer to
   [RFC5085] and [RFC4379]. The TTL here refers to that of the inner
   (PW) label TTL.

9.5. Mapping Switched Pseudowire Status

   In the PW switching with attachment circuits case (Figure 2), PW
   status messages indicating PW or attachment circuit faults SHOULD be
   mapped to fault indications or OAM messages on the connecting AC as
   defined in [PW-MSG-MAP]. If the AC connecting two PWs crosses an
   administrative boundary, then the manner in which those OAM messages
   are treated at the boundary is out of scope of this draft.

   In the PW control plane switching case (Figure 3), there is no
   attachment circuit at the PW switching point, but the two PWs are
   connected together. Similarly, the status of the PWs are forwarded
   unchanged from one PW to the other by the control plane switching
   function. However, it may sometimes be necessary to communicate
   status of one of the locally attached SS-PW at a PW switching point.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 28]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   For LDP this can be accomplished by sending an LDP notification
   message containing the PW status TLV, as well as an OPTIONAL PW
   switching point TLV 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Notification   (0x0001)   |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Message ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|1| Status (0x0300)           |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|1|                 Status Code=0x00000028                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID=0                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Message Type=0           |      PW Status TLV            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         PW Status TLV                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         PW Status TLV         |            PWId FEC           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                 PWId FEC or Generalized ID FEC                |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|     PW sw TLV  (0x096D)   |     PW sw TLV  Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Only one PW switching point TLV can be present in this message. This
   message is then relayed by each PW switching point unchanged. The T-
   PE decodes the status message and the included PW switching point TLV
   to detect exactly where the fault occurred. At the T-PE if there is
   no PW switching point TLV included in the LDP status notification
   then the status message can be assumed to have originated at the
   remote T-PE.

   The merging of the received T-LDP status and the local status for the
   PW segments at an S-PE can be summarized as follows:

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 29]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

        -i. When the local status for both PW segments is UP, the S-PE
            passes any received AC or PW status bits unchanged, i.e.,
            the status notification TLV is unchanged but the VCid in the
            case of a FEC 128 TLV is set to value of the PW segment to
            the next hop.

       -ii. When the local status for any of the PW segments is Down,
            the S-PE always sends "PW Down" status bits regardless if
            the received status bits from the remote node indicated "PW
            UP/Down". AC status bit are passed along unchanged.

9.5.1. S-PE initiated PW status messages

   The PW fault directions are defined as follows:

                         +-------+
      ---PW1 forward---->|       |-----PW2 reverse---->
   S-PE1                 | S-PE2 |                   S-PE3
      <--PW1 reverse-----|       |<----PW2 forward-----
                         +-------+

   When a local fault is detected by the S-PE, a PW status message is
   sent in both directions along the PW. Since there are no attachment
   circuits on an S-PE, only the following status messages are relevant:

      0x00000008 - Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault
      0x00000010 - Local PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault

   Each S-PE needs to store only two 32-bit PW status words for each
   SS-PW: One for local failures , and one for remote failures (normally
   received from another PE). The first failure will set the appropriate
   bit in the 32-bit status word, and each subsequent failure will be
   ORed to the appropriate PW status word. In the case of the PW status
   word storing remote failures, this rule has the effect of a logical
   OR operation with the first failure received on the particular SS-PW.

   It should be noted that remote failures received on an S-PE are just
   passed along the MS-PW unchanged while local failures detected an an
   S-PE are signalled on both SS-PWs.

   A T-PE can receive multiple failures from S-PEs along the MH-PW,
   however only the failure from the remote closest S-PE will be stored
   (last pw status message received). The PW status word received are

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 30]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   just ORed to any existing remote PW status already stored on the T-
   PE.

   Given that there are two SS-PW at a particular S-PE for a particular
   MH-PW, there are for possible failure cases as follows:

        -i. PW2 reverse direction fault
       -ii. PW1 reverse direction fault
      -iii. PW2 forward direction fault
       -iv. PW1 forward direction fault

   It should also be noted that once a PW status notification message is
   initiated at a PW switching point for a particular PW status bit any
   further status message, for the same status bit, received from an
   upstream neighbor is processed locally and not forwarded until the PW
   switching point original status error state is cleared.

   Each S-PE along the MS-PW MUST store any PW status messages
   transiting it.  If more then one status message with the same PW
   status bit set is received by a T-PE only the last PW status message
   is stored.

9.5.1.1. Local PW2 reverse direction fault

   When this failure occurs the S-PE will take the following actions:

     * Send a PW status message to S-PE3 containing "0x00000010 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault"
     * Send a PW status message to S-PE1 containing "0x00000008 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault"
     * Store 0x00000010 in the local PW status word for the SS-PW toward
       S-PE3.

9.5.1.2. Local PW1 reverse direction fault

   When this failure occurs the S-PE will take the following actions:

     * Send a PW status message to S-PE1 containing "0x00000010 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault"
     * Send a PW status message to S-PE3 containing "0x00000008 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault"
     * Store 0x00000010 in the local PW status word for the SS-PW toward
       S-PE1.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 31]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

9.5.1.3. Local PW2 forward direction fault

   When this failure occurs the S-PE will take the following actions:
     * Send a PW status message to S-PE3 containing "0x00000008 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault"
     * Send a PW status message to S-PE1 containing "0x00000010 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault"
     * Store 0x00000008 in the local PW status word for the SS-PW toward
       S-PE3.

9.5.1.4. Local PW1 forward direction fault

   When this failure occurs the S-PE will take the following actions:
     * Send a PW status message to S-PE1 containing "0x00000008 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault"
     * Send a PW status message to S-PE3 containing "0x00000010 - Local
       PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault"
     * Store 0x00000008 in the local PW status word for the SS-PW toward
       S-PE1.

9.5.1.5. Clearing Faults

   Remote PW status fault clearing messages received by an S-PE will
   only be forwarded if there are no corresponding local faults on the
   S-PE. (local faults always supersede remote faults)

   Once the local fault has cleared, and there is no corresponding (
   same PW status bit set ) remote fault, a PW status messages is sent
   out to the adjacent PEs clearing the fault.

   When a PW status fault clearing message is forwarded, the S-PE will
   always send the S-PE TLV associated with the PE which cleared the
   fault.

9.5.2. PW status messages and S-PE TLV processing

   When a PW status message is received that includes a S-PE TLV, the
   S-PE TLV information MAY be stored, along with the contents of the PW
   status Word according to the procedures described above. The S-PE TLV
   stored is always the S-PE TLV that is associated with the PE that set
   that particular last fault. If subsequent PW status message for the
   same PW status bit are received the S-PE TLV will overwrite the
   previously stored S-PE TLV.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 32]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

9.5.3. T-PE processing of PW status messages

   The PW switching architecture is based on the concept that the T-PE
   should process the PW LDP messages in the same manner as if it was
   participating in the setup of a SS-PW. However T-PE participating a
   MS-PW, SHOULD be able to process the PW switching point TLV.
   Otherwise the processing of PW status messages , and other PW setup
   messages is exactly as described in [RFC4447].

9.6. Pseudowire Status Negotiation Procedures

   Pseudowire Status signaling methodology, defined in [RFC4447], SHOULD
   be transparent to the switching point.

9.7. Status Dampening

   When the PW control plane switching methodology is used to cross an
   administrative boundary it might be necessary to prevent excessive
   status signaling changes from being propagated across the
   administrative boundary.  This can be achieved by using a similar
   method as commonly employed for the BGP protocol route advertisement
   dampening. The details of this OPTIONAL algorithm are a matter of
   implementation, and are outside the scope of this document.

10. Peering Between Autonomous Systems

   The procedures outlined in this document can be employed to provision
   and manage MS-PWs crossing AS boundaries.

   The use of more advanced mechanisms involving auto-discovery and
   ordered PWE3 MS-PW signaling will be covered in a separate document.

11. Security Considerations

   This document specifies the LDP and L2TPv3 extensions that are needed
   for setting up and maintaining pseudowires. The purpose of setting up
   pseudowires is to enable layer 2 frames to be encapsulated and
   transmitted from one end of a pseudowire to the other. Therefore we
   treat the security considerations for both the data plane and the
   control plane.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 33]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

11.1. Data Plane Security

   Data plane security consideration as discussed in [RFC4447],
   [L2TPv3], and [PWE3-ARCH] apply to this extension without any
   changes.

11.1.1. VCCV Security considerations

   The VCCV technology for MS-PW offers a method for the service
   provider to verify the data path of a specific PW. This involves
   sending a packet to a specific PE and receiving an answer which
   either confirms , or indicates that the information contained in the
   packet is incorrect. This is a very similar process to the commonly
   used IP ICMP ping , and TTL expired methods for IP networks. It
   should be noted that when using VCCV Type 3 for PW when the CW is not
   enabled, if a packet is crafted with a TTL greater then the number of
   hops along the MS-PW path, or an S-PE along the path mis-processes
   the TTL, the packet could mistakenly be forwarded out the attachment
   circuit as a native PW packet. This packet would most likely be
   treated as an error packet by the CE. However if this possibility is
   not acceptable, the CW should be enabled to guarantee that a VCCV
   packet will never be mistakenly forwarded to the AC.

11.2. Control Protocol Security

   General security considerations with regard to the use of LDP are
   specified in section 5 of RFC 3036. Security considerations with
   regard to the L2TPv3 control plane are specified in [L2TPv3]. These
   considerations apply as well to the case where LDP or L2TPv3 is used
   to set up PWs.

   A Pseudowire connects two attachment circuits. It is important to
   make sure that LDP connections are not arbitrarily accepted from
   anywhere, or else a local attachment circuit might get connected to
   an arbitrary remote attachment circuit. Therefore an incoming session
   request MUST NOT be accepted unless its IP source address is known to
   be the source of an "eligible" peer. The set of eligible peers could
   be pre-configured (either as a list of IP addresses, or as a list of
   address/mask combinations), or it could be discovered dynamically via
   an auto-discovery protocol which is itself trusted. (Obviously if the
   auto-discovery protocol were not trusted, the set of "eligible peers"
   it produces could not be trusted.)

   Even if a connection request appears to come from an eligible peer,
   its source address may have been spoofed.  So some means of
   preventing source address spoofing must be in place.  For example, if

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 34]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   all the eligible peers are in the same network, source address
   filtering at the border routers of that network could eliminate the
   possibility of source address spoofing.

   For a greater degree of security, the LDP MD5 authentication key
   option, as described in section 2.9 of RFC 3036, or the Control
   Message Authentication option of [L2TPv3] MAY be used.  This provides
   integrity and authentication for the control messages, and eliminates
   the possibility of source address spoofing.  Use of the message
   authentication option does not provide privacy, but privacy of
   control messages are not usually considered to be highly urgent.
   Both the LDP and L2TPv3 message authentication options rely on the
   configuration of pre-shared keys, making it difficult to deploy when
   the set of eligible neighbors is determined by an auto-configuration
   protocol.

   When the Generalized ID FEC Element is used, it is possible that a
   particular peer may be one of the eligible peers, but may not be the
   right one to connect to the particular attachment circuit identified
   by the particular instance of the Generalized ID FEC element.
   However, given that the peer is known to be one of the eligible peers
   (as discussed above), this would be the result of a configuration
   error, rather than a security problem.  Nevertheless, it may be
   advisable for a PE to associate each of its local attachment circuits
   with a set of eligible peers, rather than having just a single set of
   eligible peers associated with the PE as a whole.

12. IANA Considerations

12.1. L2TPv3 AVP

   This document uses a ne L2TP parameter, IANA already maintains a
   registry of name "Control Message Attribute Value Pair" defined by
   [RFC3438]. The following new values are required:

   TBA-L2TP-AVP-1 - PW Switching Point AVP

12.2. LDP TLV TYPE

   This document uses several new LDP TLV types, IANA already maintains
   a registry of name "TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC3036. The
   following value is suggested for assignment:

      TLV type  Description
       0x096D   Pseudowire Switching TLV

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 35]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

12.3. LDP Status Codes

   This document uses several new LDP status codes, IANA already
   maintains a registry of name "STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by
   RFC3036. The following value is suggested for assignment:

      Assignment E Description
      0x0000003A 0 "PW Loop Detected"

12.4. L2TPv3 Result Codes

   This document uses several new L2TPv3 status codes, IANA already
   maintains a registry of name "L2TPv3 Result Codes" defined by
   RFCxxxx. The following value is suggested for assignment:

      Assignment  Description
          17      "sequencing not supported"

12.5. New IANA Registries

   IANA needs to set up a registry of "PW Switching Point TLV Type".
   These are 8-bit values. Types value 1 through 3 are defined in this
   document. Type values 4 through 64 are to be assigned by IANA using
   the "Expert Review" policy defined in RFC2434. Type values 65 through
   127, 0 and 255 are to be allocated using the IETF consensus policy
   defined in [RFC2434]. Types values 128 through 254 are reserved for
   vendor proprietary extensions and are to be assigned by IANA, using
   the "First Come First Served" policy defined in RFC2434.

   The Type Values are assigned as follows:
   Type  Length   Description

   0x01     4     PW ID of last PW segment traversed
   0x02  variable PW Switching Point description string
   0x03    4/16   Local IP address of PW Switching Point
   0x04    4/16   Remote IP address of last PW Switching Point traversed
                  or of the T-PE
   0x05  variable AI of last PW segment traversed
   0x06     10    L2 PW address of PW Switching Point

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 36]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

13. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   [email-masked].

14. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 37]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

15. Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Satoru
   Matsushima, Wei Luo, Neil Mcgill, Skip Booth, Neil Hart, Michael Hua,
   and Tiberiu Grigoriu.

16. Normative References

   [RFC4385] " Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
        Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", S. Bryant, et al.,
        RFC4385, February 2006.

   [RFC4446] "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
        mulation (PWE3)", L. Martini, RFC4446,  April 2006.

   [RFC4447] "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS", Martini, L.,
         et al., rfc4447 April 2006.

   [RFC3985] Stewart Bryant, et al., PWE3 Architecture,
        RFC3985

   [2547BIS] "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", Rosen, E, Rekhter, Y.
        draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt ( work in progress ),
        October 2004.

   [L2TPv3] "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version 3)", J. Lau,
        M. Townsley, I. Goyret, RFC3931

   [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., et al."Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit Connection
        Verification (VCCV),   A Control Channel for Pseudowires",
        RFC5085 December 2007.

   [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
        IANA Considerations section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
        1998.

   [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
        Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5003] C. Metz, L. Martini, F. Balus, J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
        Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregati", RFC5003,
        September 2007.

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 38]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

17. Informative References

   [RFC4023] "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic
        Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", Rosen, E, Rekhter, Y.
        RFC4023, March 2005.

   [PWE3-ARCH] "PWE3 Architecture" Bryant, et al.,
        draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-07.txt ( work in progress ), June 2003.

   [PWE3-FRAG] "PWE3 Fragmentation and Reassembly", A. Malis,
        W. M. Townsley, draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-05.txt
        ( work in progress ) February 2004

   [RFC4667] "Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
        Extensions for Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)", Luo, Wei,
        RFC4667, W. Luo, September 2006

   [L2TP-INFOMSG] "L2TP Call Information Messages", Mistretta,
        Goyret, McGill, Townsley, draft-mistretta-l2tp-infomsg-02.txt,
        ( work in progress ), July 2004

   [RFC4454] "Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over Layer 2
        Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)", Singh, Townsley,
        Pignataro, RFC4454, May 2006
        ( work in progress ), March 2004.

   [RFC4717] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of (ATM)
        MPLS Networks", Martini et al., RFC4717, December 2006

   [RFC3438]  W. M. Townsley, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
        (L2TP) Internet"

   [PW-MSG-MAP] "Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping", Nadeau et al,
        draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt, ( work in progress ),
        February 2005

   [RFC4379] "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data
        Plane Failures", RFC4379, February 2006.

   [RFC3032] "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC3032, January 2001

   [MS-PW-ARCH] "An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation
        Edge-to-Edge", Bocci et al, draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-03.txt
        June 2007

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 39]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

18. Author Information

   Luca Martini
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
   Englewood, CO, 80112
   e-mail: [email-masked]

   Thomas D. Nadeau
   BT
   BT Centre
   81 Newgate Street
   London,   EC1A 7AJ
   United Kingdom
   e-mail: [email-masked]

   Chris Metz
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   e-mail: [email-masked]

   Mike Duckett
   Bellsouth
   Lindbergh Center
   D481
   575 Morosgo Dr
   Atlanta, GA  30324
   e-mail: [email-masked]

   Matthew Bocci
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Grove House, Waltham Road Rd
   White Waltham, Berks, UK. SL6 3TN
   e-mail: [email-masked]

   Florin Balus
   Alcatel-Lucent
   701 East Middlefield Rd.
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   e-mail: [email-masked]

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 40]

Internet Draft    draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-09.txt          July 2008

   Mustapha Aissaoui
   Alcatel-Lucent
   600, March Road,
   Kanata, ON, Canada
   e-mail: [email-masked]

Martini, et al.                                                [Page 41]
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3