[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-pignataro-l2tpext-pwe3-ipl2) 00 01 02 03 04 05

L2TPEXT Working Group                                       C. Pignataro
Internet-Draft                                                    W. Luo
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: February 16, 2008                               August 15, 2007


    Signaling and Encapsulation for the Transport of IP over L2TPv3
                     draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ip-05

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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3, (L2TPv3) defines a
   protocol for tunneling a variety of data link protocols over IP
   networks.  This document defines the control messaging, signaling
   procedures and encapsulation specifics of how to tunnel IPv4 and IPv6
   packets directly over L2TPv3.






Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


Requirements Language

   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].


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   2.  Control Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

   3.  Session Establishment and IP Interface Status Notification . .  6
     3.1.  L2TPv3 Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  L2TPv3 Session Teardown  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  L2TPv3 Session Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Use of Circuit Status AVP for IP Transport Pseudowires . .  8

   4.  Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Data Packet Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Data Packet Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   5.  Point-to-Point Address Resolution Considerations . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Static Address Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  Dynamic ARP Mediation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.2.1.  CE IP Address AVP usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   6.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Pseudowire Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.2.  Control Message Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs) . . . . . . . 16
     8.3.  Result Code AVP Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Preventing forwarding loops with Ethernet and VLAN ACs . . 17

   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20


















































Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


1.  Introduction

   The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) [RFC3931] defines
   a base protocol for Layer 2 Tunneling over IP networks.  This
   document describes the specifics necessary for tunneling IPv4 and
   IPv6 packets over L2TPv3.  Such emulated circuits are referred to as
   IP Transport Pseudowires (IP PWs).

   One application of IP PWs is to interconnect Attachment Circuits of
   disparate Layer 2 protocols by locally terminating the Layer 2 and
   transporting IP datagrams directly over L2TPv3 sessions.  This
   document refers to these Attachment Circuits as IP interfaces.

   Protocol specifics defined in this document for L2TPv3 IP PWs include
   those necessary for simple point-to-point (e.g., between two L2TPv3
   nodes) IP PW signaling, IP datagram encapsulation, address resolution
   considerations and simple interface up and interface down
   notifications.  This document also defines a new AVP to be used in
   point-to-point IP PWs.

   The reader is expected to be very familiar with the terminology and
   protocol constructs defined in [RFC3931].

1.1.  Abbreviations

   AC     Attachment Circuit

   CE     Customer Edge (Typically also the L2TPv3 Remote System).

   IP PW  IP Transport Pseudowire

   LAC    L2TP Access Concentrator (See [RFC3931])

   LCCE   L2TP Control Connection Endpoint (See [RFC3931])

   NSP    Native Service Processing

   PE     Provider Edge (Typically also the LCCE).

   PW     Pseudowire

1.2.  Requirements

   The Pseudowire architecture [RFC3985] defines a Native Service
   Processing (NSP) function to restrict a Pseudowire to homogeneous
   operation by having the NSP perform actions that need knowledge of
   the semantics of the payload.




Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   The following figure depicts the PW termination and NSP function
   within an LCCE:

                  +---------------------------------------+
                  |                 LCCE                  |
                  +-+   +-----+   +------+   +------+   +-+
                  |P|   |IP PW|   |  PW  |   | PSN  |   |P|
       AC (IP <==>|h|<=>| NSP |<=>| Term |<=>|Tunnel|<=>|h|<==> PSN
   Interface)     |y|   |     |   |      |   |      |   |y|
                  +-+   +-----+   +------+   +------+   +-+
                  |                                       |
                  +---------------------------------------+

   Figure 1: Requirements for IP PWs

   In IP Transport, the NSP function acts as the interface between the
   AC and the PW termination, and performs the following operations:

   o  Terminates the data link layer.

   o  Extracts IP datagrams from the Layer 2 frames and injects them
      into the PW.

   o  Drops non-IP payloads.

   o  Performs Address Resolution mediation and proxy functions
      (optionally).

   To the right of the NSP in Figure 1, only IP datagrams are forwarded
   to the PW termination point.  The PW termination point receives raw
   IP datagrams and delivers them unaltered to the PW termination point
   on the remote LCCE, providing an IP Transport emulation service.
   Consequently, in one application, the IP PW emulation allows for
   interworking between Attachment Circuits of different Layer 2
   technologies.


2.  Control Connection Establishment

   In order to tunnel IP datagrams over an IP packet switched network
   using L2TPv3, an L2TPv3 Control Connection MUST first be established
   as described in [RFC3931].  The L2TPv3 SCCRQ Control Message and
   corresponding SCCRP Control Message MUST include the IP Transport
   Pseudowire Type of 0x000B (See IANA Considerations Section), in the
   Pseudowire Capabilities List as defined in 5.4.3 of [RFC3931].
   Signaling such a capability in the control messages indicates that
   L2TP sessions support IP PWs.




Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   An LCCE MUST be able to uniquely identify itself in the SCCRQ and
   SCCRP messages via a globally unique value.  This is advertised via
   the structured Router ID AVP [RFC3931], though the unstructured
   Hostname AVP [RFC3931] MAY be used to identify LCCEs as well.


3.  Session Establishment and IP Interface Status Notification

   This section specifies how the status of the IP interface is reported
   between two LCCEs, and the associated L2TP session creation and
   deletion that occurs.

3.1.  L2TPv3 Session Establishment

   Associating an IP interface with a PW and its transition to "Ready"
   or "Up" results in the establishment of an L2TP session via the
   standard three-way handshake described in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC3931].
   For the purposes of this discussion, the action of locally
   associating an IP interface with a PW by local configuration or
   otherwise is referred to as "provisioning" the interface.  The
   transition of the interface to "ready" or "up" will be referred to as
   the interface becoming ACTIVE.  The transition of the interface to
   "not-ready" or "down" will be referred to as the interfacing becoming
   INACTIVE.

   An LCCE MAY initiate the session immediately upon association with an
   IP interface, or wait until the interface becomes ACTIVE before
   attempting to establish an L2TP session.

   The Pseudowire Type AVP defined in Section 5.4.4 of [RFC3931],
   Attribute Type 68, MUST be present in the ICRQ messages and MUST
   include the Pseudowire Type of 0x000B for IP PWs.

   The Circuit Status AVP (see Section 3.4) MUST be present in the ICRQ,
   ICRP messages and MAY be present in the SLI message for IP PWs.

   The Interface Maximum Transmission Unit AVP defined in Section 4.3 of
   [RFC4667], Attribute Type 91, MAY be present in the ICRQ and ICRP
   messages.  When an LCCE receives an Interface MTU AVP with an MTU
   value different from its own, it MAY respond with a CDN with a result
   code of 23 indicating Mismatching interface MTU.










Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   Following is an example of the L2TP messages exchanged for an IP PW
   which is initiated after an IP interface is provisioned and becomes
   ACTIVE.

         LCCE (LAC) A                     LCCE (LAC) B
      ------------------               ------------------
      IP Interface Provisioned
                                       IP Interface Provisioned
      IP Interface ACTIVE

                   ICRQ (status = 0x03) ---->

                                       IP Interface ACTIVE

                   <---- ICRP (status = 0x03)

      L2TP session established,
      OK to send data into tunnel

                   ICCN ----->
                                       L2TP session established,
                                       OK to send data into tunnel

   In the example above, an ICRQ is sent after the interface is
   provisioned and becomes ACTIVE.  The Circuit Status AVP (see
   Section 3.4) indicates that this link is ACTIVE and New (0x03).  The
   Remote End ID AVP [RFC3931] MUST be present in the ICRQ in order to
   identify the IP Transport AC (together with the identity of the LCCE
   itself as defined in Section 2) to associate the L2TP session with.
   The Remote End ID AVP defined in [RFC3931] is of opaque form and
   variable length, though an implementation MUST at a minimum support
   use of an unstructured four-octet value that is known to both LCCEs
   (either by direct configuration, or some other means).  The exact
   method of how this value is configured, retrieved, discovered, or
   otherwise determined at each LCCE is outside the scope of this
   document.

   As with the ICRQ, the ICRP is sent only after the associated IP
   interface transitions to ACTIVE as well.  If LCCE B had not been
   provisioned for the interface identified in the ICRQ, a CDN would
   have been immediately returned indicating that the associated link
   was not provisioned or available at this LCCE.  LCCE A SHOULD then
   exhibit a periodic retry mechanism.  If so, the period and maximum
   number of retries MUST be configurable.

   An Implementation MAY send an ICRQ or ICRP before an IP interface is
   ACTIVE, as long as the Circuit Status AVP reflects that the link is
   INACTIVE and an SLI is sent when the IP interface becomes ACTIVE (see



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   Section 3.3).

   The ICCN is the final stage in the session establishment, confirming
   the receipt of the ICRP with acceptable parameters to allow
   bidirectional traffic.

3.2.  L2TPv3 Session Teardown

   In the event a link is removed (unprovisioned) at either LCCE, the
   associated L2TP session MUST be torn down via the CDN message defined
   in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC3931].  General Result Codes regarding L2TP
   session establishment are defined in [RFC3931].

3.3.  L2TPv3 Session Maintenance

   IP PWs over L2TP make use of the Set Link Info (SLI) control message
   defined in [RFC3931] to signal IP interface status notifications
   between PEs.  The SLI message is a single message that is sent over
   the L2TP control channel, signaling the interface state change.

   The SLI message MUST be sent any time there is a status change of the
   Active value identified in the Circuit Status AVP.  The only
   exception to this is the initial ICRQ, ICRP and CDN messages which
   establish and teardown the L2TP session itself.  The SLI message may
   be sent from either PE at any time after the first ICRQ is sent (and
   perhaps before an ICRP is received, requiring the peer to perform a
   reverse Session ID lookup).

   All sessions established by a given control connection utilize the
   L2TP Hello facility defined in [RFC3931] for session keepalive.  This
   gives all sessions basic dead peer and path detection between PEs.

3.4.  Use of Circuit Status AVP for IP Transport Pseudowires

   IP Transport reports Circuit Status with the Circuit Status AVP
   defined in [RFC3931], Attribute Type 71.

   For reference, this AVP is shown below:

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Reserved        |N|A|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Value is a 16 bit mask with the two least significant bits
   defined and the remaining bits reserved for future use.  Reserved
   bits MUST be set to 0 when sending, and ignored upon receipt.



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   The N (New) bit SHOULD be set to one (1) if the Circuit Status
   indication is for a new IP interface, zero (0) otherwise.

   The A (Active) bit indicates whether the IP interface is ACTIVE (1)
   or INACTIVE (0).


4.  Encapsulation

4.1.  Data Packet Encapsulation

   IP PWs use the default encapsulations defined in [RFC3931] for
   demultiplexing, sequencing, and flags.

   The L2TPv3 encapsulation carrying an IP datagram 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Session ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Cookie (optional, maximum 64 bits)...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                 ...                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Default L2-Specific Sublayer (optional)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          IP datagram                          |
   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Because Layer 2 frames of different encapsulation are normalized into
   IP datagrams when transporting over the IP over L2TP Pseudowire, it
   becomes possible to interconnect a pair of disparate attachment
   circuits.  In consequence, the IP PW does not have any operational
   mode contraints, (i.e., it can either operate in an "interface to
   interface" fashion, "virtual circuit to virtual circuit" fashion, or
   hybrid "interface to virtual circuit" fashion).  For example one AC
   can be a Frame-Relay DLCI while the other AC can be a PPP interface;
   or one AC can be an ATM PVC, while the other AC can be an ethernet
   VLAN.

   The Layer 2 is terminated on the LAC, the IPv4 or IPv6 datagram
   extracted and transported over the IP PW.  If a non-IP packet is
   received over the AC, it MUST be dropped and not transported over the



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   PW.

4.2.  Data Packet Sequencing

   Data Packet Sequencing MAY be enabled for IP PWs.  The sequencing
   mechanisms described in Section 4.6.1 of [RFC3931] MUST be used for
   signaling sequencing support.  IP PW over L2TP MUST request the
   presence of the L2TPv3 Default L2-Specific Sublayer defined in
   Section 4.6 of [RFC3931] when sequencing is enabled, and MAY request
   its presence at all times.

   It should be noted that the following two values for the Data
   Sequencing AVP, Attribute Type 70, have the exact same meaning for IP
   PWs:

      0 - No incoming data packets require sequencing.

      1 - Only non-IP data packets require sequencing.

   As such, the value of 1 SHOULD NOT be used for IP PWs.  Additionally,
   the requirement of sequencing MUST be signaled with the following
   value:

      2 - All incoming data packets require sequencing.

   This value implies that all IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams transported
   include sequencing as described in Section 4.6.1 of [RFC3931].

4.3.  MTU Considerations

   With L2TPv3 as the tunneling protocol, the packet resulting from the
   encapsulation is N bytes longer than the raw IP datagram transported.

   The value of N depends on the following fields:

      L2TP Session Header:
         Flags, Ver, Res - 4 octets (L2TPv3 over UDP only)
         Session ID      - 4 octets
         Cookie Size     - 0, 4 or 8 octets
      L2-Specific Sublayer - 0 or 4 octets (i.e., using sequencing)











Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   Hence the range for N in octets is:

      N = 4-16,  for L2TPv3 data messages are over IP;
      N = 16-28, for L2TPv3 data messages are over UDP;
      (N does not include the IP header).

   The MTU and fragmentation implications resulting from this are
   discussed in Section 4.1.4 of [RFC3931].


5.  Point-to-Point Address Resolution Considerations

   Different data link layers implement different address resolution
   mechanisms.

   The following sections describe the two address resolution
   operational modes: the REQUIRED Static Address Resolution mode (see
   Section 5.1) and the OPTIONAL Dynamic ARP Mediation mode (see
   Section 5.2).

5.1.  Static Address Resolution

   An IP PW is intended to provide point-to-point connectivity, in one
   application between two CE devices.  When dynamic ARP mediation
   procedures are not used, the following considerations and
   requirements apply to the specific data link layers that connect PE
   and CE devices.

   o  Ethernet
      Because only one CE device is expected to be attached to the
      Ethernet port, the LAC SHOULD act as proxy ARP for the segment
      responding with its own MAC address to all ARP requests.  The LAC
      MUST provide a configuration option to turn off this behavior, for
      the cases where more than one CE device may be connected to the
      Ethernet port.  Additionally, the LAC MAY provide an option to
      configure the remote CE's IP address and when doing so the LAC
      MUST respond with its own MAC address (source hardware address) to
      ARP requests for this configured IP address (destination protocol
      address) only.  If neither of these options are provided, address
      resolution is achieved by configuring static ARP entries for the
      locally attached devices.

   o  VLAN
      Same as Ethernet.

   o  PPP
      The LAC MUST provide an option to configure the remote CE's IP
      address and use it in IPCP negotiations.



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   o  Frame-Relay
      Because it is expected that the CE device treats the link as
      point-to-point, no specific address resolution requirements are
      needed.  For the cases where the CE device may treat the link as
      multi-point, the LAC MAY provide an option to configure the remote
      CE's IP address and use it when replying to Inverse ARP messages
      from the local CE; additionally, when the CE device treats the
      link as multi-point, address resolution can be achieved by a
      static Inverse ARP configuration at the CE device.

   o  ATM
      Same as Frame-Relay

   o  HDLC
      The CE MUST treat the link as point-to-point.

   Note that for Ethernet and VLAN links, the PE device MUST discover
   the MAC address of the locally attached CE device, and MAY use the
   procedures in [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation] to do so.  This
   discovery is a local process that does not affect interoperability.

5.2.  Dynamic ARP Mediation

   The IP Transport NSP function MAY implement dynamic ARP mediation
   mechanisms and procedures to signal the CE IP addresses between PE
   devices for point-to-point IP PWs, and SHOULD follow
   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation] if doing so.  The dynamic ARP
   mediation defined in [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation] outlines a three-
   step procedure for PE devices:

   1.  Discover the IP addresses of the locally attached CE device.

   2.  Distribute those IP Addresses to the remote PE.

   3.  Notify the locally attached CE of the remote CE's IP address.

   The dynamic ARP mediation procedures for L2TPv3 IP PWs make use of
   steps 1 and 3 and define the signaling procedures for step 2.

   Additionally, if the AC data link layer is Ethernet or VLAN, the PE
   device also needs to discover the MAC address of the locally attached
   CE device and MAY use the procedures in
   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation].

   When using the Dynamic ARP Mediation signaling procedures for L2TPv3
   IP PWs, the CE IP Address AVP, Attribute Type AVP-TBD-1, is used to
   distribute the CE IP address to the remote PE.




Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   The Attribute Value field for this AVP has the following format:

   CE IP Address AVP (ICRQ, ICRP, SLI)

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Address Family        |         CE IP Address ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           ... (4 or 16 octets)       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Address Family is a two octet quantity containing a value from
   IANA's "Address Family Numbers" in [IANA.address-family-numbers] that
   encodes the address contained in the CE IP Address field.

   The following address encodings to be used in this AVP are hereby
   defined:

   +----------------+----------------------------+
   | Address Family |      Address Encoding      |
   +----------------+----------------------------+
   |    IPv4 (1)    |  4 octet full IPv4 address |
   |    IPv6 (2)    | 16 octet full IPv6 address |
   +----------------+----------------------------+

                                  Table 1

   The CE IP Address encodes the IP address of the CE attached to the
   advertising PE.  The encoding depends on the Address Family field,
   either a 4 octet IPv4 address or a 16 octet IPv6 address.

   The Length of this AVP is either 12 (when encoding an IPv4 address)
   or 24 (when encoding an IPv6 address).  The M bit for this AVP MUST
   be set to 0 (zero).  This AVP MAY be hidden (the H bit MAY be 1 or
   0).

5.2.1.  CE IP Address AVP usage

   The presence of this AVP in an ICRQ or ICRP message indicates that
   the LCCE is willing to perform ARP mediation procedures.  A null CE
   IP Address value indicates that the LCCE has not yet learned the IP
   address of his attached Remote System for the given address family.
   In this case, this AVP MUST be included in SLI messages sent
   asynchronously when the IP address of the local Remote System is
   discovered, with a non-null value denoting the IP address of the
   Remote System.




Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   The following example depicts the L2TP signaling messages exchanged
   for an IP PW establishment using the dynamic ARP Mediation procedures
   assuming an IPv4 address family.

         LCCE (LAC) A                     LCCE (LAC) B
      ------------------               ------------------
      IP Interface Provisioned
      with ARP Mediation
                                       IP Interface Provisioned
                                       with ARP Mediation
      IP Interface ACTIVE

                 ICRQ (IP address = NULL) ---->

                                       IP Interface ACTIVE

                 <---- ICRP (IP address = NULL)

      L2TP session established,
      OK to send data into tunnel

                 ICCN ----->
                                       L2TP session established,
                                       OK to send data into tunnel

      CE A's IP Address learned.

                 SLI (IP address = CE_A) ---->

                                       CE B's IP Address learned.

                 <---- SLI (IP address = CE_B)

   Likewise, this AVP MAY be re-advertised with a null CE IP Address
   value in an SLI message to indicate that the CE IP Address has become
   unavailable or is no longer valid.  This mechanism serves as a CE IP
   Address withdrawal.

   Continuing with the same example, the following figure depicts the
   L2TP signaling message sent when PE A discovers that CE A's IP
   Address is no longer valid.

         LCCE (LAC) A                     LCCE (LAC) B
      ------------------               ------------------
      CE A's IP Address invalidated.

                 SLI (IP address = NULL) ---->




Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   If an ICRQ or ICRP message is received containing the CE IP Address
   AVP and the receiving LCCE is not capable, configured or willing to
   perform ARP mediation procedures, the session MUST be rejected via a
   CDN mesage with the following General Result Code:

   RC-TBD1:  Mismatching ARP Mediation

   If an ICRP message is received lacking the CE IP Address AVP when the
   respective ICRQ was sent including this AVP, the session MUST be
   rejected via a CDN mesage with the same General Result Code.


6.  Applicability Statement

   This document defines the specifics necessary for tunneling IP
   datagrams over L2TPv3 IP PWs.  Some characteristics of the IP
   Transport Pseudowires are:

   o  The length of the resulting L2TPv3 packet is longer than the
      encapsulated IP packet as detailed in Section 4.3.  The resulting
      MTU and fragmentation implications and procedures are discussed in
      Section 4.1.4 of [RFC3931] and in Section 5 of [RFC4623].

   o  Sequencing may be enabled in the IP PW by using the Default L2-
      Specific Sublayer to detect lost, duplicate, or out-of-order
      packets on a per-session basis (see Section 4.2).

   o  To allow for payload integrity checking transparency on IP PWs
      using L2TP over IP or L2TP over UDP/IP, the L2TPv3 session can
      utilize IPSec as specified in Section 4.1.3 of [RFC3931].

   In one application of IP PWs, the mechanism described in this
   document can be used to provide L2TPv3 sessions that connects unlike
   data link technologies (e.g., Ethernet and PPP) in an interworking
   fashion when the access service payloads are known beforehand to
   consist only of IP datagrams.  This is achieved by terminating the
   Layer 2 protocol in the LCCE and transporting only the IP datagrams
   over L2TPv3, such that the L2TPv3 session links uniform Pseudowire
   terminations (i.e.  IP Transport Pseudowire Type) and an NSP function
   provides translation from the AC before presentation to the PW and
   viceversa.  The ACs carrying IP-framed can be interfaces (such as
   PPP, HDLC or Ethernet interfaces) or virtual circuits (such as Frame-
   Relay or ATM virtual circuits).  IP PWs can in turn operate in an
   "interface to interface" mode, "virtual circuit to virtual circuit"
   mode or a hybrid "interface to virtual circuit" mode, because the
   Pseudowire payload is normalized and the NSP function performs
   operations between the Pseudowire termination and the Attachment
   Circuit.



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   Because disparate attachment circuit types may be used in conjunction
   with an IP Pseudowire, there is an increased likelihood that an
   L2TPv3 session will be established to carry traffic between
   attachment circuits with mismatched MTU sizes, and that partial
   communication between CE devices over the pseudowire will result.
   The possibility of mismatched MTUs is avoided if the LCCEs advertise
   their respective attachment circuit MTU sizes using the Interface
   Maximum Transmission Unit AVP as described in Section 3.1.


7.  Acknowledgements

   This document heavily borrows and adapts format and text from the
   "HDLC Frames over L2TPv3" Internet-Draft, and we would like to
   acknowledge its authors and contributors.

   Many thanks to Maria Alice Dos Santos, George Wilkie, Bill Storer and
   Mark Lewis for providing a thorough review and valuable comments and
   suggestions.


8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  Pseudowire Type

   The signaling mechanisms defined in this document rely upon the
   assignment of an IP Transport Pseudowire Type (see Pseudowire
   Capabilities List as defined in 5.4.3 of [RFC3931] and L2TPv3
   Pseudowire Types in 10.6 of [RFC3931]) by the IANA (number space
   created as part of publication of [RFC3931]).  The IP Transport
   Pseudowire Type is defined in Section 2 of this specification:

   0x000B  IP Transport Pseudowire Type.

8.2.  Control Message Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs)

   A new AVP appears in Section 5.2 which needs assignment by IANA as
   described in Section 2.2 of [RFC3438].

   AVP-TBD-1:  CE IP Address AVP

8.3.  Result Code AVP Values

   A new L2TP Result Code for the CDN message appears in Section 5.2.1
   which need assignment by IANA as described in Section 2.3 of
   [RFC3438].





Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   RC-TBD1:  Mismatching ARP Mediation


9.  Security Considerations

   The IP Transport over L2TPv3 is subject to the security
   considerations defined in [RFC3931] and
   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation].  Additionaly, Section 9.1 includes a
   specific consideration to IP Transport Pseudowires using the Static
   Address Resolution procedures not present when carrying other data
   link types.

9.1.  Preventing forwarding loops with Ethernet and VLAN ACs

   IP PWs are intended to provide point-to-point connectivity between
   two CE devices, and therefore it is expected that the CE devices be
   configured with a subnet mask of at least 30-bits.  In an IP PW where
   the ACs are either Ethernet or Ethernet VLAN, an undesired side
   effect arises if the CE device is configured with a subnet mask
   shorter than 30-bits and the LCCE acts as a proxy ARP for the segment
   responding to all ARP requests with its own MAC Address: If an IP
   Address falls within the prefix in the segment but is not at either
   end of the PW, IP datagrams destined to it would loop back and forth
   until the TTL field expires.  To prevent this unwanted behavior, the
   mechanisms defined in Section 5.1 MUST be used.  They are copied
   verbatim as follows:

      Because only one CE device is expected to be attached to the
      Ethernet port, the LAC SHOULD act as proxy ARP for the segment
      responding with its own MAC address to all ARP requests.  The LAC
      MUST provide a configuration option to turn off this behavior, for
      the cases where more than one CE device may be connected to the
      Ethernet port.  Additionally, the LAC MAY provide an option to
      configure the remote CE's IP address and when doing so the LAC
      MUST respond with its own MAC address (source hardware address) to
      ARP requests for this configured IP address (destination protocol
      address) only.  If neither of these options are provided, address
      resolution is achieved by configuring static ARP entries for the
      locally attached devices.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation]
              Shah, H., "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2
              VPN", draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-08 (work in



Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


              progress), July 2007.

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

   [RFC3931]  Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
              Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.

10.2.  Informative References

   [IANA.address-family-numbers]
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Address Family
              Numbers",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.

   [RFC3438]  Townsley, W., "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations
              Update", BCP 68, RFC 3438, December 2002.

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

   [RFC4623]  Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,
              August 2006.

   [RFC4667]  Luo, W., "Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
              Extensions for Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)",
              RFC 4667, September 2006.


Authors' Addresses

   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200 Kit Creek Road
   PO Box 14987
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   USA

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com










Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


   Wei Luo
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: luo@cisco.com












































Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               IP over L2TPv3                  August 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.


Intellectual Property

   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-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Pignataro & Luo         Expires February 16, 2008              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/