GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7041

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Balus, Ed. Request for Comments: 7041 Alcatel-Lucent Category: Informational A. Sajassi, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco

                                                         N. Bitar, Ed.
                                                               Verizon
                                                         November 2013
         Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
        Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging

Abstract

 The IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBBs) specification defines
 an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple
 Provider Bridged Networks (PBNs).  Provider backbone bridging was
 defined by IEEE as a connectionless technology based on multipoint
 VLAN tunnels.  PBB can be used to attain better scalability than
 Provider Bridges (PBs) in terms of the number of customer Media
 Access Control addresses and the number of service instances that can
 be supported.
 The Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) provides a framework for
 extending Ethernet LAN services, using MPLS tunneling capabilities,
 through a routed MPLS backbone without running the Rapid Spanning
 Tree Protocol (RSTP) or the Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP)
 across the backbone.  As a result, VPLS has been deployed on a large
 scale in service provider networks.
 This document discusses extensions to the VPLS Provider Edge (PE)
 model required to incorporate desirable PBB components while
 maintaining the service provider fit of the initial model.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7041.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
 2. General Terminology .............................................4
 3. PE Reference Model ..............................................6
 4. Packet Walkthrough ..............................................9
 5. Control Plane ..................................................11
 6. Efficient Packet Replication in PBB VPLS .......................12
 7. PBB VPLS OAM ...................................................12
 8. Security Considerations ........................................12
 9. References .....................................................13
    9.1. Normative References ......................................13
    9.2. Informative References ....................................13
 10. Contributors ..................................................14
 11. Acknowledgments ...............................................15

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

1. Introduction

 The IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridges specification [PBB] defines
 an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple
 Provider Bridged Networks (PBNs).  PBB can be used to attain better
 scalability than Provider Bridges [PB] in terms of the number of
 customer Media Access Control (MAC) addresses and the number of
 service instances that can be supported.  PBB provides a data-plane
 hierarchy and new addressing designed to achieve such better
 scalability in Provider Backbone Networks.  A number of Ethernet
 control-plane protocols, such as the Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol
 (RSTP), the Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP), and Shortest Path
 Bridging (SPB), could be deployed as the core control plane for loop
 avoidance and load balancing for PBB.  The applicability of these
 control protocols is out of scope for this document.
 The Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) provides a solution for
 extending Ethernet LAN services, using MPLS tunneling capabilities,
 through a routed MPLS backbone without requiring the use of a native
 Ethernet control-plane protocol across the backbone.  VPLS use of
 the structured FEC 129 [RFC4762] also allows for inter-domain,
 inter-provider connectivity and enables auto-discovery options across
 the network, improving the service delivery options.
 A hierarchical solution for VPLS was introduced in [RFC4761] and
 [RFC4762] to provide improved scalability and efficient handling of
 packet replication.  These improvements are achieved by reducing the
 number of Provider Edge (PE) devices connected in a full-mesh
 topology through the creation of two-tier PEs.  A User-facing PE
 (U-PE) aggregates all the Customer Edge (CE) devices in a lower-tier
 access network and then connects to the Network-facing PE (N-PE)
 device(s) deployed around the core domain.  In VPLS, Media Access
 Control (MAC) address learning and forwarding are done based on
 Customer MAC addresses (C-MACs); this poses scalability issues on the
 N-PE devices as the number of VPLS instances (and thus C-MACs)
 increases.  Furthermore, since a set of pseudowires (PWs) is
 maintained on a "per customer service instance" basis, the number of
 PWs required at N-PE devices is proportional to the number of
 customer service instances multiplied by the number of N-PE devices
 in the full-mesh set.  This can result in scalability issues (in
 terms of PW manageability and troubleshooting) as the number of
 customer service instances grows.
 This document describes how PBB can be integrated with VPLS to allow
 for useful PBB capabilities while continuing to avoid the use of MSTP
 in the backbone.  The combined solution referred to in this document

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 as PBB-VPLS results in better scalability in terms of the number of
 service instances, PWs, and C-MACs that need to be handled in the
 VPLS PEs.
 Section 2 provides a quick terminology reference.  Section 3 covers
 the reference model for PBB VPLS PEs.  Section 4 describes the packet
 walkthrough.  Sections 5 through 7 discuss the PBB-VPLS usage of
 existing VPLS mechanisms -- the control plane; efficient packet
 replication; and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM).

2. General Terminology

 Some general terminology is defined here; most of the terminology
 used is from [PBB], [PB], [RFC4664], and [RFC4026].  Terminology
 specific to this memo is introduced as needed in later sections.
 B-BEB: A backbone edge bridge positioned at the edge of a provider
    backbone bridged network.  It contains a B-component that supports
    bridging in the provider backbone based on Backbone MAC (B-MAC)
    and B-tag information.
 B-component: A bridging component contained in backbone edge and core
    bridges that bridges in the backbone space (B-MAC addresses,
    B-VLAN).
 B-MAC: The backbone source or destination MAC address fields defined
    in the PBB provider MAC encapsulation header.
 B-tag:  Field defined in the PBB provider MAC encapsulation header
    that conveys the backbone VLAN identifier information.  The format
    of the B-tag field is the same as that of an 802.1ad S-tag field.
 B-Tagged Service Interface: The interface between a BEB and a
    Backbone Core Bridge (BCB) in a provider backbone bridged network.
    Frames passed through this interface contain a B-tag field.
 B-VID: The specific VLAN identifier carried inside a B-tag.
 B-VLAN: The backbone VLAN associated with a B-component.
 B-PW: The pseudowire used to interconnect B-component instances.
 BEB: A backbone edge bridge positioned at the edge of a provider
    backbone bridged network.  It can contain an I-component, a
    B-component, or both I-components and B-components.
 C-VID: The VLAN identifier in a customer VLAN.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 DA: Destination Address.
 I-BEB: A backbone edge bridge positioned at the edge of a provider
    backbone bridged network.  It contains an I-component for bridging
    in the customer space (customer MAC addresses, service VLAN IDs).
 I-component: A bridging component contained in a backbone edge bridge
    that bridges in the customer space (customer MAC addresses,
    service VLAN identifier information (S-VLAN)).
 I-SID: The 24-bit service instance field carried inside the I-tag.
    I-SID defines the service instance that the frame should be
    "mapped to".
 I-tag: A field defined in the PBB provider MAC encapsulation header
    that conveys the service instance information (I-SID) associated
    with the frame.
 I-Tagged Service Interface: The interface defined between the
    I-components and B-components inside an IB-BEB or between two
    B-BEBs.  Frames passed through this interface contain an I-tag
    field.
 IB-BEB: A backbone edge bridge positioned at the edge of a provider
    backbone bridged network.  It contains an I-component for bridging
    in the customer space (customer MAC addresses, service VLAN IDs)
    and a B-component for bridging the provider's backbone space
    (B-MAC, B-tag).
 PBs: Provider Bridges (IEEE amendment (802.1ad) to 802.1Q for "QinQ"
    encapsulation and bridging of Ethernet frames [PB]).
 PBBs: Provider Backbone Bridges (IEEE amendment (802.1ah) to 802.1Q
    for "MAC tunneling" encapsulation and bridging of frames across a
    provider network [PBB]).
 PBBN: Provider Backbone Bridged Network.
 PBN: Provider Bridged Network.  A network that employs 802.1ad (QinQ)
    technology.
 PSN: Packet-Switched Network.
 S-tag: A field defined in the 802.1ad QinQ encapsulation header that
    conveys the service VLAN identifier information (S-VLAN).

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 S-Tagged Service Interface: The interface defined between the
    customer (CE) and the I-BEB or IB-BEB components.  Frames passed
    through this interface contain an S-tag field.
 S-VLAN: The specific service VLAN identifier carried inside an S-tag.
 SA: Source Address.
 S-VID: The VLAN identifier in a service VLAN.
 Tag: In Ethernet, a header immediately following the Source MAC
    Address field of the frame.

3. PE Reference Model

 The following gives a short primer on the Provider Backbone Bridge
 (PBB) before describing the PE reference model for PBB-VPLS.  The
 internal components of a PBB bridge module are depicted in Figure 1.
            +-------------------------------+
            |       PBB Bridge Model        |
            |                               |
 +---+      |  +------+      +-----------+  |
 |CE |---------|I-Comp|------|           |  |
 +---+      |  |      |      |           |--------
            |  +------+      |           |  |
            |     o          |   B-Comp  |  |
            |     o          |           |--------
            |     o          |           |  |
 +---+      |  +------+      |           |  |
 |CE |---------|I-Comp|------|           |--------
 +---+  ^   |  |      |  ^   |           |  |   ^
        |   |  +------+  |   +-----------+  |   |
        |   +------------|------------------+   |
        |                |                      |
        |                |                      |
   S-tagged            I-tagged             B-tagged
   Service Interface   Service I/F          Service I/F
   (I/F)
                      Figure 1: PBB Bridge Model

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 Provider Backbone Bridges (PBBs) [PBB] offer a scalable solution for
 service providers to build large bridged networks.  The focus of PBB
 is primarily on improving two main areas with provider Ethernet
 bridged networks:
  1. MAC-address table scalability
  2. Service instance scalability
 To obviate the above two limitations, PBB introduces a hierarchical
 network architecture with associated new frame formats that extend
 the work completed by Provider Bridges (PBs).  In the PBBN
 architecture, customer networks (using PBs) are aggregated into
 PBBNs, which utilize the IEEE PBB frame format.  The frame format
 employs a MAC tunneling encapsulation scheme for tunneling customer
 Ethernet frames within provider Ethernet frames across the PBBN.  A
 VLAN identifier (B-VID) is used to segregate the backbone into
 broadcast domains, and a new 24-bit service identifier (I-SID) is
 defined and used to associate a given customer MAC frame with a
 provider service instance (also called the service delimiter).  It
 should be noted that in [PBB] there is a clear segregation between
 provider service instances (represented by I-SIDs) and provider VLANs
 (represented by B-VIDs), which was not the case for PBs.
 As shown in Figure 1, a PBB bridge may consist of a single
 B-component and one or more I-components.  In simple terms, the
 B-component provides bridging in the provider space (B-MAC, B-VLAN),
 and the I-component provides bridging in the customer space (C-MAC,
 S-VLAN).  The customer frame is first encapsulated with the provider
 backbone header (B-MAC, B-tag, I-tag); then, the bridging is
 performed in the provider backbone space (B-MAC, B-VLAN) through the
 network till the frame arrives at the destination BEB, where it gets
 decapsulated and passed to the CE.  If a PBB bridge consists of both
 I-components and B-components, then it is called an IB-BEB, and if it
 only consists of either B-components or I-components, then it is
 called a B-BEB or an I-BEB, respectively.  The interface between an
 I-BEB or IB-BEB and a CE is called an S-tagged service interface, and
 the interface between an I-BEB and a B-BEB (or between two B-BEBs) is
 called an I-tagged service interface.  The interface between a B-BEB
 or IB-BEB and a Backbone Core Bridge (BCB) is called a B-tagged
 service interface.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 To accommodate the PBB components, the VPLS model defined in
 [RFC4664] is extended as depicted in Figure 2.
      +----------------------------------------+
      |       PBB-VPLS-Capable PE Model        |
      |   +---------------+          +------+  |
      |   |               |          |VPLS-1|------------
      |   |               |==========|Fwdr  |------------ PWs
 +--+ |   |     Bridge    ------------      |------------
 |CE|-|-- |               |          +------+  |
 +--+ |   |     Module    |             o      |
      |   |               |             o      |
      |   |    (PBB       |             o      |
      |   |    bridge)    |             o      |
      |   |               |             o      |
 +--+ |   |               |          +------+  |
 |CE|-|-- |               ------------VPLS-n|-------------
 +--+ |   |               |==========| Fwdr |------------- PWs
      |   |               |     ^    |      |-------------
      |   +---------------+     |    +------+  |
      |                         |              |
      +-------------------------|--------------+
                       LAN Emulation Interface
                  Figure 2: PBB-VPLS-Capable PE Model
 The PBB module as defined in the [PBB] specification is expanded to
 interact with VPLS Forwarders.  The VPLS Forwarders are used in
 [RFC4762] to build a PW mesh or a set of spoke PWs (Hierarchical VPLS
 (H-VPLS) topologies).  The VPLS instances are represented externally
 in the MPLS context by a Layer 2 Forwarding Equivalence Class (L2FEC)
 that binds related VPLS instances together.  VPLS Signaling
 advertises the mapping between the L2FEC and the PW labels and
 implicitly associates the VPLS bridging instance to the VPLS
 Forwarders [RFC4762].
 In the PBB-VPLS case, the backbone service instance in the
 B-component space (B-VID) is represented in the backbone MPLS network
 using a VPLS instance.  In the same way as for the regular VPLS case,
 existing signaling procedures are used to generate through PW labels
 the linkage between VPLS Forwarders and the backbone service
 instance.
 Similarly, with the regular H-VPLS, another L2FEC may be used to
 identify the customer service instance in the I-component space.
 This will be useful, for example, to address the PBB-VPLS N-PE case
 where H-VPLS spokes are connecting the PBB-VPLS N-PE to a VPLS U-PE.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 It is important to note that the PBB-VPLS solution inherits the PBB
 service aggregation capability where multiple customer service
 instances may be mapped to a backbone service instance.  In the
 PBB-VPLS case, this means multiple customer VPNs can be transported
 using a single VPLS instance corresponding to the backbone service
 instance, thus substantially reducing resource consumption in the
 VPLS core.

4. Packet Walkthrough

 Since the PBB bridge module inherently performs forwarding, the PE
 reference model of Figure 2 can be expanded as shown in Figure 3.
 Furthermore, the B-component is connected via several virtual
 interfaces to the PW Forwarder module.  The function of the PW
 Forwarder is defined in [RFC3985].  In this context, the PW Forwarder
 simply performs the mapping of the PWs to the virtual interface on
 the B-component, without the need for any MAC lookup.
 This simplified model takes full advantage of the PBB module -- where
 all the [PBB] procedures, including C-MAC/B-MAC forwarding and PBB
 encapsulation/decapsulation, take place -- and thus avoids the need
 to specify any of these functions in this document.
 Because of text-based graphics, Figure 3 only shows PWs on the
 core-facing side; however, in the case of MPLS access with spoke PWs,
 the PE reference model is simply extended to include the same PW
 Forwarder function on the access-facing side.  To avoid cluttering
 the figure, but without losing any generality, the access-side PW
 Forwarder (Fwdr) is not depicted.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

      +------------------------------------------------+
      |               PBB-VPLS-Capable PE Model        |
      |             +---------------+      +------+    |
      |             |               |      |      |    |
      |   +------+  |               ========      ---------
 +--+ |   |      |  |               |      |      --------- PWs
 |CE|-|-- | I-   ====               ========  PW  ---------
 +--+ |   | Comp |  |               |      | Fwdr |
      |   +------+  |               |      |      --------- PWs
      |             |    B-Comp     ========      ---------
      |             |               |  ^   |      |    |
      |   +------+  |               |  |   +------+    |
 +--+ |   | I-   |  |               OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO B-tag
 |CE|-|-- | Comp ====               |  |               |     I/Fs
 +--+ |   |      |^ |               OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      |   +------+| |               |  |               |
      |           | +---------------+  |               |
      |           |                    |               |
      +-----------|--------------------|---------------+
                  |                    |
            Internal I-tag I/Fs   Virtual Interfaces (I/Fs)
  +---------------+                                +--------------+
  | C-MAC DA,SA   |                                | PSN Header   |
  |---------------|                                |--------------|
  | S-VID, C-VID  |                                | PW Label     |
  |---------------|                                |--------------|
  |    Payload    |                                | B-MAC DA,SA  |
  +---------------+                                |--------------|
                                                   | PBB I-tag    |
                                                   |--------------|
                                                   | C-MAC DA,SA  |
                                                   |--------------|
                                                   | S-VID, C-VID |
                                                   |--------------|
                                                   |   Payload    |
                                                   +--------------+
              Figure 3: Packet Walkthrough for PBB VPLS PE
 In order to better understand the data-plane walkthrough, let us
 consider the example of a PBB packet arriving over a Backbone
 pseudowire (B-PW).  The PSN header is used to carry the PBB
 encapsulated frame over the backbone while the PW label will point to
 the related Backbone Service Instance (B-SI), in the same way as for
 regular VPLS.  The PW label has in this case an equivalent role with
 the backbone VLAN identifier on the PBB B-tagged interface.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 An example of the PBB packet for the regular Ethernet PW is depicted
 on the right-hand side of Figure 3.  The MPLS packet from the MPLS
 core network is received by the PBB-VPLS PE.  The PW Forwarder
 function of the PE uses the PW label to derive the virtual
 interface-id on the B-component, and then, after removing the PSN and
 PW encapsulation, it passes the packet to the B-component.  From
 there on, the processing and forwarding are performed according to
 [PBB], where bridging based on the Backbone MAC (B-MAC) Destination
 Address (DA) is performed.  This scenario results in one of the
 following outcomes:
 1. The packet is forwarded to a physical interface on the
    B-component.  In this case, the PBB Ethernet frame is forwarded
    as is.
 2. The packet is forwarded to a virtual interface on the B-component.
    This is not typically the case, because of a single split-horizon
    group within a VPLS instance; however, if there is more than one
    split-horizon group, then such forwarding takes place.  In this
    case, the PW Forwarder module adds the PSN and PW labels before
    sending the packet out.
 3. The packet is forwarded toward the access side via one of the
    I-tagged service interfaces connected to the corresponding
    I-components.  In this case, the I-component removes the B-MAC
    header according to [PBB] and bridges the packet using the
    C-MAC DA.
 If the destination B-MAC is an unknown MAC address or a Group MAC
 address (multicast or broadcast), then the B-component floods the
 packet to one or more of the three destinations described above.

5. Control Plane

 The control-plane procedures described in [RFC6074], [RFC4761], and
 [RFC4762] can be reused in a PBB-VPLS to set up the PW infrastructure
 in the service provider and/or customer bridging space.  This allows
 porting the existing control-plane procedures (e.g., BGP
 Auto-Discovery (BGP-AD), PW setup, VPLS MAC flushing, PW OAM) for
 each domain.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

6. Efficient Packet Replication in PBB VPLS

 The PBB VPLS architecture takes advantage of the existing VPLS
 features addressing packet replication efficiency.  The H-VPLS
 hierarchy may be used in both customer and backbone service instances
 to reduce the redundant distribution of packets over the core.  IGMP
 and PIM snooping may be applied on a "per customer service instance"
 basis to control the distribution of the multicast traffic to
 non-member sites.
 [IEEE-802.1Q] specifies the use of the Multiple MAC Registration
 Protocol (MMRP) for flood containment in the backbone instances.  The
 same solution can be ported in the PBB-VPLS solution.
 Further optimizations of the packet replication in PBB-VPLS are out
 of the scope of this document.

7. PBB VPLS OAM

 The existing VPLS, PW, and MPLS OAM procedures may be used in each
 customer service instance or backbone service instance to verify the
 status of the related connectivity components.
 PBB OAM procedures make use of the IEEE Ethernet Connectivity Fault
 Management [CFM] and ITU-T Y.1731 [Y.1731] tools in both I-components
 and B-components.
 Both sets of tools (PBB and VPLS) may be used for the combined
 PBB-VPLS solution.

8. Security Considerations

 No new security issues are introduced beyond those described in
 [RFC4761] and [RFC4762].

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
           LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
           Signaling", RFC 4761, January 2007.
 [RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
           LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
           Signaling", RFC 4762, January 2007.
 [RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
           "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
           Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074, January 2011.

9.2. Informative References

 [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
           Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
 [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
           Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
           September 2006.
 [PBB]     Clauses 25 and 26 of "IEEE Standard for Local and
           metropolitan area networks - Media Access Control (MAC)
           Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE
           Std 802.1Q-REV, 2013.
 [PB]      Clauses 15 and 16 of "IEEE Standard for Local and
           metropolitan area networks - Media Access Control (MAC)
           Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE
           Std 802.1Q-REV, 2013.
 [CFM]     CFM clauses of "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan
           area networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and
           Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-REV,
           2013.
 [IEEE-802.1Q]
           "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -
           Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged
           Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-REV, 2013.

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

 [Y.1731]  ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, "OAM functions and mechanisms
           for Ethernet based networks", July 2011.
 [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
           Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005.

10. Contributors

 The following people made significant contributions to this document:
    Matthew Bocci
    Alcatel-Lucent
    Voyager Place
    Shoppenhangers Road
    Maidenhead
    Berks, UK
    EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
    Raymond Zhang
    Alcatel-Lucent
    EMail: raymond.zhang@alcatel.com
    Geraldine Calvignac
    Orange
    2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
    22307 Lannion Cedex
    France
    EMail: geraldine.calvignac@orange.com
    John Hoffmans
    KPN
    Regulusweg 1
    2516 AC Den Haag
    The Netherlands
    EMail: john.hoffmans@kpn.com

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 7041 Extensions to VPLS PE Model for PBB November 2013

    Olen Stokes
    Extreme Networks
    PO Box 14129
    RTP, NC  27709
    USA
    EMail: ostokes@extremenetworks.com

11. Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to thank Wim Henderickx, Mustapha Aissaoui,
 Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pranjal Dutta, Jorge Rabadan, Maarten Vissers,
 and Don Fedyk for their insightful comments and probing questions.

Authors' Addresses

 Florin Balus (editor)
 Alcatel-Lucent
 701 E. Middlefield Road
 Mountain View, CA  94043
 USA
 EMail: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com
 Ali Sajassi (editor)
 Cisco
 170 West Tasman Drive
 San Jose, CA  95134
 USA
 EMail: sajassi@cisco.com
 Nabil Bitar (editor)
 Verizon
 60 Sylvan Road
 Waltham, MA  02145
 USA
 EMail: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com

Balus, et al. Informational [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7041.txt · Last modified: 2013/11/25 22:49 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki