GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc8024

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Jiang, Ed. Request for Comments: 8024 Y. Luo Category: Standards Track Huawei ISSN: 2070-1721 E. Mallette, Ed.

                                                Charter Communications
                                                               Y. Shen
                                                      Juniper Networks
                                                              W. Cheng
                                                          China Mobile
                                                         November 2016
 Multi-Chassis Passive Optical Network (MC-PON) Protection in MPLS

Abstract

 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge of
 operator networks including the network access nodes.  Separately,
 network access nodes such as Passive Optical Network (PON) Optical
 Line Terminations (OLTs) have evolved to support first-mile access
 protection, where one or more physical OLTs provide first-mile
 diversity to the customer edge.  Multihoming support is needed on the
 MPLS-enabled PON OLT to provide resiliency for provided services.
 This document describes the Multi-Chassis PON (MC-PON) protection
 architecture in MPLS and also specifies the Inter-Chassis
 Communication Protocol (ICCP) extension to support it.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 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).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 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/rfc8024.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (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
   1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 2.  ICCP Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.1.  Multi-Chassis PON Application TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.1.  PON Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.2.  PON Disconnect TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.3.  PON Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.1.4.  PON State TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 3.  Considerations on PON ONU Database Synchronization  . . . . .   9
 4.  Multi-Chassis PON Application Procedures  . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.1.  Protection Procedure upon PON Link Failures . . . . . . .  11
   4.2.  Protection Procedure upon PW Failures . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.3.  Protection Procedure upon the Working OLT Failure . . . .  12
   4.4.  Protection Procedure for a Dual-Homing PE . . . . . . . .  12
 5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

1. Introduction

 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge of
 operator networks, as is described in the multi-segment pseudowires
 (PWs) with Passive Optical Network (PON) access use case [RFC6456].
 Combining MPLS with Optical Line Termination (OLT) access further
 facilitates a low-cost, multi-service convergence.
 Tens of millions of Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx) (x = H for home, P for
 premises, C for curb) lines have been deployed over the years, with
 many of those lines being some PON variant.  PON provides operators a
 cost-effective solution for delivering high bandwidth (1 Gbps or even
 10 Gbps) to a dozen or more subscribers simultaneously.
 In the past, access technologies such as PON and Digital Subscriber
 Line (DSL) are usually used for subscribers, and no redundancy is
 provided in their deployment.
 But, with the rapid growth of mobile data traffic, more and more Long
 Term Evolution (LTE) small cells and Wi-Fi hotspots are deployed.
 PON is considered a viable low-cost backhaul solution for these
 mobile services.  Besides its high bandwidth and scalability, PON
 further provides frequency and time-synchronization features, e.g.,
 SyncE [G.8261] and IEEE 1588v2 [IEEE-1588] functionality, which can
 fulfill synchronization needs of mobile backhaul services.
 The Broadband Forum specifies reference architecture for mobile
 backhaul networks using MPLS transport in [TR-221] where PON can be
 the access technology.
 Unlike typical residential service where a single or handful of end-
 users hang off a single PON OLT port in a physical optical
 distribution network, a PON port that supports a dozen LTE small
 cells or Wi-Fi hotspots could be providing service to hundreds of
 simultaneous subscribers.  Small-cell backhaul often demands the
 economics of a PON first mile and yet expects first-mile protection
 commonly available in a point-to-point access portfolio.
 Some optical layer protection mechanisms, such as Trunk and Tree
 protection, are specified in [IEEE-1904.1] to avoid a single point of
 failure in the access.  They are called Type B and Type C protection,
 respectively, in [G.983.1].
 Trunk protection architecture is an economical PON resiliency
 mechanism, where the working OLT and the working link between the
 working splitter port and the working OLT (i.e., the working trunk

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

 fiber) is protected by a redundant protection OLT and a redundant
 trunk fiber between the protection splitter port and the protection
 OLT; however, it only protects a portion of the optical path from OLT
 to Optical Network Units (ONUs).  This is different from the more
 complex and costly Tree protection architecture where there is a
 working optical distribution network path from the working OLT and a
 complete protected optical distribution network path from the
 protection OLT to the ONUs.  Figure 1 depicts a typical scenario of
 Trunk protection.
                         |                                 |
                         |<--Optical Distribution Network->|
                         |                                 |
                         |   branch               trunk    +-----+
                   +-----+   fibers               fibers   |     |
    Base     ------|     |     |                    |      . OLT |
    Stations ------| ONU |\    |                    |   ,'`|  A  |
             ------|     |  \  V                    V -`   +-----+
                   +-----+    \                    .'
                             .  \  +----------+ ,-`
                   +-----+   .    \|          -`   Working
    Base     ------|     |   .     | Optical  |
    Stations ------| ONU |---------| Splitter |
             ------|     |   .    /|          -,   Protection
                   +-----+   .  /  +----------+ `'.,
                              /                     `-,    +-----+
                   +-----+  /                          `'.,|     |
    Base     ------|     |/                                | OLT |
    Stations ------| ONU |                                 |  B  |
             ------|     |                                 +-----+
                   +-----+
                Figure 1: Trunk Protection Architecture in PON
 Besides small-cell backhaul, this protection architecture can also be
 applicable to other services, for example, DSL and Multiple System
 Operator (MSO) services.  In that case, an ONU in Figure 1 can play
 the similar role as a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer
 (DSLAM) or a Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)
 Remote Physical Layer (PHY) device [remote-phy], and it may further
 be attached with dozens of Customer Premises devices.
 In some deployments, it is also possible that only some ONUs need to
 be protected.
 The PON architecture as depicted in Figure 1 can provide redundancy
 in its physical topology; however, all traffic, including link
 Operation Administration and Maintenance (OAM), is blocked on the

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

 protection link, which frustrates end-to-end protection mechanisms
 such as those specified in ITU-T G.8031 [G.8031].  Therefore, some
 standard signaling mechanisms are needed between OLTs to exchange
 information, for example, PON link status, registered ONU
 information, and network status, so that protection and restoration
 can be done rapidly and reliably, especially when the OLTs also
 support MPLS.
 ICCP [RFC7275] provides a framework for inter-chassis synchronization
 of state and configuration data between a set of two or more Provider
 Edges (PEs).  Currently, ICCP only defines application-specific
 messages for Pseudowire Redundancy (PW-RED) and Multi-Chassis LACP
 (mLACP), but it can be easily extended to support PON as an
 Attachment Circuit (AC) redundancy.
 This document proposes the extension of ICCP to support multi-
 chassis PON protection in MPLS.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

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

1.2. Terminology

 DSL:  Digital Subscriber Line
 FTTx: Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx) (x = H for home, P for premises, C for
       curb)
 ICCP: Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol
 OLT:  Optical Line Termination
 ONU:  Optical Network Unit
 MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
 PON:  Passive Optical Network
 RG:   Redundancy Group

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

2. ICCP Protocol Extensions

2.1. Multi-Chassis PON Application TLVs

 A set of MC-PON application Type-Length-Values (TLVs) are defined in
 the following subsections.

2.1.1. PON Connect TLV

 This TLV is included in the RG Connect message to signal the
 establishment of PON application connection.
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|   Type=0x200D             |    Length                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |      Protocol Version         |A|         Reserved            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                    Optional Sub-TLVs                          |
    ~                                                               ~
    |                                                               |
    +                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |             ...                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o  U and F bits: both are set to 0.
 o  Type: set to 0x200D for "PON Connect TLV".
 o  Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
    Type, and Length fields.
 o  Protocol Version: the version of this PON-specific protocol for
    the purposes of inter-chassis communication.  This is set to
    0x0001.
 o  A bit: Acknowledgement bit.  It MUST be set to 1 if the sender has
    received a PON Connect TLV from the recipient.  Otherwise, set to
    0.
 o  Reserved: reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

 o  Optional Sub-TLVs: there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this
    version of the protocol.  The structure of optional Sub-TLVs is
    defined as follows:
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |U|F|     Sub-TLV Type          |    Length                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Variable Length Value                    |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o  U bit: set to 1.  The unknown Sub-TLV is silently ignored.
 o  F bit: set to 0.
 o  The optional Sub-TLV Type values will be allocated by IANA in a
    registry named "ICC RG Parameter Types" for Pseudowire Name Spaces
    (PWE3).
 o  Length: length of the TLV in octets, excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
    Type, and Length fields.

2.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV

 This TLV is included in the RG Disconnect message to indicate that
 the connection for the PON application is to be terminated.
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|   Type=0x200E             |    Length                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Optional Sub-TLVs                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o  U and F bits: both are set to 0.
 o  Type: set to 0x200E for "PON Disconnect TLV".
 o  Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
    Type, and Length fields.
 o  Optional Sub-TLVs: there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this
    version of the protocol.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

2.1.3. PON Configuration TLV

 The "PON Configuration TLV" is included in the "RG Application Data"
 message and announces an OLT's system parameters to other members in
 the same RG.
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|   Type=0x200F             |    Length                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         System ID                             |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     System Priority           |             Port ID           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o  U and F bits: both are set to 0.
 o  Type: set to 0x200F for "PON Configuration TLV".
 o  Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
    Type, and Length fields.
 o  System ID: 8 octets encoding the System ID used by the OLT, which
    is the chassis Media Access Control (MAC) address.  If a 6-octet
    System ID is used, the least significant 2 octets of the 8-octet
    field will be encoded as 0000.
 o  System Priority: a 2-octet value assigned by management or
    administration policy; the OLT with the numerically lower value of
    System Priority has the higher priority.
 o  Port ID: 2-octet PON Port ID.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

2.1.4. PON State TLV

 The "PON State TLV" is included in the "RG Application Data" message
 and used by an OLT to report its PON states to other members in the
 same RG.
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|   Type=0x2010             |    Length                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                              ROID                             |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                    Local PON Port State                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                    Remote PON Port State                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o  U and F bits: both are set to 0.
 o  Type: set to 0x2010 for "PON State TLV".
 o  Length: length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
    Type, and Length fields.
 o  ROID: Redundant Object ID (ROID) as defined in Section 4.3 of
    [RFC7275].
 o  Local PON Port State: the status of the local PON port as
    determined by the sending OLT (PE).  The last bit is defined as
    Fault indication of the PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in
    fault; 0 - in normal).
 o  Remote PON Port State: the status of the remote PON port as
    determined by the remote peer of the sending OLT (i.e., the
    sending PE).  The last bit is defined as Fault indication of the
    PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in fault; 0 - in normal).

3. Considerations on PON ONU Database Synchronization

 Without an effective mechanism to communicate the registered ONUs
 between the working and protection OLT, all registered ONUs would be
 de-registered and go through re-registration during a switchover,
 which would significantly increase protection time.  To enable faster
 switchover capability, the working and protection OLTs need to know
 about the protected ONUs.  To enable service continuity, a mechanism

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

 needs to be employed such that the operational state and significant
 configuration data of both the protected ONU and the services
 provisioned to it can be distributed to the working and protection
 OLT.
 The specific ONU's configuration and operational data can be
 synchronized by some policy mechanism or provisioned in the
 management plane.  Alternatively, said synchronization could occur by
 some other signaling options.  Describing how to synchronize the
 configuration objects associated with both protected ONU as well as
 the services constructed to the ONU (e.g., ONU MAC address, IPv4
 addresses, IPv6 addresses, VLAN identifiers, etc.) is outside of the
 scope of this document.

4. Multi-Chassis PON Application Procedures

 Two typical MPLS protection network architectures for PON access are
 depicted in Figures 2 and 3 (their PON access segments are the same
 as in Figure 1 and thus omitted for simplification).  OLTs with MPLS
 functionality are connected to a single PE (Figure 2) or dual-homing
 PEs (Figure 3), respectively, i.e., the working OLT to PE1 by a
 working PW and the protection OLT to PE1 or PE2 by a protection PW;
 thus, these devices constitute an MPLS network that provides PW
 transport services between ONUs and a Customer Edge (CE), and the PWs
 can provide protection for each other.
                   +-----+
                   |     |
                   |OLT  -,
                   | A   | `.,
                   +-----+    ', PW1
                                `',
                                   `.,   +-----+          +-----+
                                      ', |     |          |     |
                                        `. PE1 ------------  CE |
                                      .'`|     |          |     |
                                   ,-`   +-----+          +-----+
                                 .`
                   +-----+    .'` PW2
                   |     | ,-`
                   |OLT  -`
                   | B   |
                   +-----+
                Figure 2: An MPLS Network with a Single PE

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

                   +-----+               +-----+
                   |     |     PW1       |     |
                   |OLT  ----------------- PE1 -,
                   | A   |               |     | ',
                   +-----+               +--/--+   ',
                                            |        `.
                                            |          `. +-----+
                                            |            `'     |
                                            |             |  CE |
                                            |             .     |
                                            |           ,'+-----+
                                            |        ,-`
                   +-----+               +--\--+   ,'
                   |     |     PW2       |     | .`
                   |OLT  ----------------- PE2 -`
                   | B   |               |     |
                   +-----+               +-----+
                Figure 3: An MPLS Network with Dual-Homing PEs
 Faults may be encountered in PON access links or in the MPLS network
 (including the working OLT).  Procedures for these cases are
 described in this section (it is assumed that both OLTs and PEs are
 working in the independent mode of PW redundancy [RFC6870]).

4.1. Protection Procedure upon PON Link Failures

 When a fault is detected on a working PON link, a working OLT
 switches to the corresponding protection PON link attached with its
 protection OLT, i.e., the working OLT turns off its faulty PON
 interface so that the protection trunk link to its protection OLT can
 be activated.  Then, the working OLT MUST send an LDP fault
 notification message (i.e., with the status bit "Local AC (ingress)
 Receive Fault" being set) to its peer PE on the remote end of the PW.
 At the same time, the working OLT MUST send an ICCP message with PON
 State TLV with Local PON Port State being set to notify the
 protection OLT of the PON fault.
 Upon receiving a PON state TLV where Local PON Port State is set, a
 protection OLT MUST activate the protection PON link in the
 protection group and advertise a notification message for the
 protection PW with the Preferential Forwarding status bit of active
 to the remote PE.
 According to [RFC6870], the remote PE(s) can match the local and
 remote Preferential Forwarding status and select PW2 as the new
 active PW over which data traffic is sent.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

4.2. Protection Procedure upon PW Failures

 Usually, MPLS networks have their own protection mechanism such as
 Label Switched Path (LSP) protection or Fast Reroute (FRR).  But, in
 a link-sparse access or aggregation network where protection for a PW
 is impossible in its LSP layer, the following PW layer protection
 procedures can be enabled.
 When a fault is detected on its working PW (e.g., by Virtual Circuit
 Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
 (BFD)), a working OLT SHOULD turn off its associated PON interface
 and then send an ICCP message with PON State TLV with Local PON Port
 State being set to notify the protection OLT of the PON fault.
 Upon receiving a PON state TLV where Local PON Port State is set, the
 protection OLT MUST activate its PON interface to the protection
 trunk fiber.  At the same time, the protection OLT MUST send a
 notification message for the protection PW with the Preferential
 Forwarding status bit of active to the remote PE, so that traffic can
 be switched to the protection PW.

4.3. Protection Procedure upon the Working OLT Failure

 As depicted in Figure 2, a service is provisioned with a working PW
 and a protection PW, and both PWs are terminated on PE1.  If PE1 lost
 its connection to the working OLT, it SHOULD send an LDP notification
 message on the protection PW with the Request Switchover bit set.
 Upon receiving an LDP notification message from its remote PE with
 the Request Switchover bit set, a protection OLT MUST activate its
 optical interface to the protection trunk fiber and activate the
 associated protection PW, so that traffic can be reliably switched to
 the protection trunk PON link and the protection PW.

4.4. Protection Procedure for a Dual-Homing PE

 In the case of Figure 3, the PW-RED State TLV as described in
 Section 7.1 of [RFC7275] can be used by PE1 to notify PE2 of the
 faults in all the scenarios, and PE2 operates the same as described
 in Sections 4.1 to 4.3 of this document.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

5. Security Considerations

 Similar to ICCP itself, this ICCP application SHOULD only be used in
 well-managed and highly monitored service provider PON access
 networks in a single administrative domain, including the
 implementation of rogue ONU attachment detection and mitigation via
 device authentication.  Thus, many of the security considerations as
 described in [RFC7275] apply here as well.
 Again, similar to ICCP, activity on the attachment circuits may cause
 security threats or be exploited to create denial-of-service attacks.
 In many passive optical networks, the optical paths between OLT and
 ONUs traverse publicly accessible facilities including public
 attachments (e.g., telephone poles), which opens up the risk of
 excessive link bouncing by optical layer impairment.  While ICCP for
 MC-PON interconnects in the MPLS domain and does not traverse the PON
 network, risks do include introduction of a malicious ONU that could
 cause, for example, excessive link bouncing.  This link bouncing
 could result in increased ICCP exchanges similar to the malicious CE
 case described in [RFC7275].  Operators of such networks should take
 additional care to restrict unauthorized ONUs and to limit the impact
 of link bouncing at the OLT, as these could result in service
 impairment.

6. IANA Considerations

 IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name Spaces
 (PWE3)".  It has a subregistry called "ICC RG Parameter Types".  The
 following values have been allocated from this subregistry:
    0x200D         PON Connect TLV
    0x200E         PON Disconnect TLV
    0x200F         PON Configuration TLV
    0x2010         PON State TLV

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC6870]  Muley, P., Ed. and M. Aissaoui, Ed., "Pseudowire
            Preferential Forwarding Status Bit", RFC 6870,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6870, February 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6870>.
 [RFC7275]  Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M.,
            Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis
            Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
            (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>.

7.2. Informative References

 [G.8031]   International Telecommunications Union, "Ethernet Linear
            Protection Switching", ITU-T Recommendation G.8031,
            January 2015.
 [G.8261]   International Telecommunications Union, "Timing and
            synchronization aspects in packet networks", ITU-T
            Recommendation G.8261, August 2013.
 [G.983.1]  International Telecommunications Union, "Broadband optical
            access systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON)",
            ITU-T Recommendation G.983.1, January 2005.
 [IEEE-1588]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
            Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
            IEEE Std 1588-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760, July
            2008.
 [IEEE-1904.1]
            IEEE, "Standard for Service Interoperability in Ethernet
            Passive Optical Networks (SIEPON)", IEEE Std 1904.1-2013,
            DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6605490, June 2013.

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

 [remote-phy]
            CableLabs, "Remote PHY Specification", DCN: CM-SP-R-PHY-
            I05-160923, September 2016.
 [RFC6456]  Li, H., Zheng, R., and A. Farrel, "Multi-Segment
            Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks", RFC 6456,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6456, November 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6456>.
 [TR-221]   The Broadband Forum, "Technical Specifications for MPLS in
            Mobile Backhaul Networks", BBF TR-221, October 2011.

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank Min Ye, Hongyu Li, Wei Lin, Xifeng
 Wan, Yannick Legoff, Shrinivas Joshi, Alexey Melnikov, and Stephen
 Farrell for their valuable discussions and comments.

Contributors

 The following people made significant contributions to this document:
    Chengbin Shen
    China Telecom
    1835 South Pudong Road
    Shanghai 200122, China
    Email: shencb@sttri.com.cn
    Guangtao Zhou
    China Unicom
    No.9 Shouti South Road
    Beijing 100048, China
    Email: zhouguangtao@chinaunicom.cn

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 8024 MC-PON Protection November 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Yuanlong Jiang (editor)
 Huawei
 Bantian, Longgang district
 Shenzhen  518129
 China
 Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
 Yong Luo
 Huawei
 Bantian, Longgang district
 Shenzhen  518129
 China
 Email: dennis.luoyong@huawei.com
 Edwin Mallette (editor)
 Charter Communications
 4145 S. Falkenburg Road
 Tampa, FL  33578
 United States of America
 Email: edwin.mallette@gmail.com
 Yimin Shen
 Juniper Networks
 10 Technology Park Drive
 Westford, MA  01886
 United States of America
 Email: yshen@juniper.net
 Weiqiang Cheng
 China Mobile
 No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
 Beijing   100053
 China
 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com

Jiang, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8024.txt · Last modified: 2016/11/30 23:43 (external edit)