path: root/doc/rfc/rfc8185.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          W. Cheng
Request for Comments: 8185                                       L. Wang
Category: Standards Track                                          H. Li
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             China Mobile
                                                                 J. Dong
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                         A. D'Alessandro
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                               June 2017


                        Dual-Homing Coordination
      for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Pseudowires Protection

Abstract

   In some scenarios, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) pseudowires (PWs)
   (RFC 5921) may be statically configured when a dynamic control plane
   is not available.  A fast protection mechanism for MPLS-TP PWs is
   needed to protect against the failure of an Attachment Circuit (AC),
   the failure of a Provider Edge (PE), or a failure in the Packet
   Switched Network (PSN).  The framework and typical scenarios of dual-
   homing PW local protection are described in RFC 8184.  This document
   proposes a dual-homing coordination mechanism for MPLS-TP PWs that is
   used for state exchange and switchover coordination between the dual-
   homing PEs for dual-homing PW local protection.

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/rfc8185.











Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview of the Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Protocol Extensions for Dual-Homing MPLS-TP PW Protection . .   5
     4.1.  Information Exchange Between Dual-Homing PEs  . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Protection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17




















Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


1.  Introduction

   [RFC6372], [RFC6378], and [RFC7771] describe the framework and
   mechanism of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) linear protection,
   which can provide protection for the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP)
   and pseudowires (PWs) between the edge nodes.  These mechanisms
   cannot protect against the failure of the Attachment Circuit (AC) or
   the edge nodes.  [RFC6718] and [RFC6870] specify the PW redundancy
   framework and mechanism for protecting the AC or edge node against
   failure by adding one or more edge nodes, but it requires PW
   switchover in case of an AC failure; also, PW redundancy relies on
   Packet Switched Network (PSN) protection mechanisms to protect
   against the failure of PW.

   In some scenarios such as mobile backhauling, the MPLS PWs are
   provisioned with dual-homing topology in which at least the Customer
   Edge (CE) node on one side is dual-homed to two Provider Edge (PE)
   nodes.  If a failure occurs in the primary AC, operators usually
   prefer to perform local switchover in the dual-homing PE side and
   keep the working pseudowire unchanged, if possible.  This is to avoid
   massive PW switchover in the mobile backhaul network due to AC
   failure in the mobile core site; such massive PW switchover may in
   turn lead to congestion caused by migrating traffic away from the
   preferred paths of network planners.  Similarly, as multiple PWs
   share the physical AC in the mobile core site, it is preferable to
   keep using the working AC when one working PW fails in the PSN to
   potentially avoid unnecessary switchover for other PWs.  To meet the
   above requirements, a fast dual-homing PW protection mechanism is
   needed to protect against failure in the AC, the PE node, and the
   PSN.

   [RFC8184] describes a framework and several scenarios of dual-homing
   PW local protection.  This document proposes a dual-homing
   coordination mechanism for static MPLS-TP PWs; the mechanism is used
   for information exchange and switchover coordination between the
   dual-homing PEs for the dual-homing PW local protection.  The
   proposed mechanism has been implemented and deployed in several
   mobile backhaul networks that use static MPLS-TP PWs for the
   backhauling of mobile traffic from the radio access sites to the core
   site.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.



Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


3.  Overview of the Proposed Solution

   Linear protection mechanisms for the MPLS-TP network are defined in
   [RFC6378], [RFC7271], and [RFC7324].  When such mechanisms are
   applied to PW linear protection [RFC7771], both the working PW and
   the protection PW are terminated on the same PE node.  In order to
   provide dual-homing protection for MPLS-TP PWs, some additional
   mechanisms are needed.

   In MPLS-TP PW dual-homing protection, the linear protection mechanism
   (as defined in [RFC6378], [RFC7271], and [RFC7324]) on the single-
   homing PE (e.g., PE3 in Figure 1) is not changed, while on the dual-
   homing side, the working PW and protection PW are terminated on two
   dual-homing PEs (e.g., PE1 and PE2 in Figure 1), respectively, to
   protect against a failure occurring in a PE or a connected AC.  As
   described in [RFC8184], a dedicated Dual-Node Interconnection (DNI)
   PW is used between the two dual-homing PE nodes to forward the
   traffic.  In order to utilize the linear protection mechanism
   [RFC7771] in the dual-homing PEs scenario, coordination between the
   dual-homing PE nodes is needed so that the dual-homing PEs can switch
   the connection between the AC, the service PW, and the DNI-PW
   properly in a coordinated fashion by the forwarder.

         +----------------------------------+
         |                PE1               |
         +----------------------------------+             +----+
         |                 |                |   Working   |    |
         X    Forwarder    +     Service    X-------------X    |
        /|                 |       PW       | Service PW1 |    |
   AC1 / +--------+--------+                |             |    |
      /  |     DNI-PW      |                |             |    |
 +---*   +--------X--------+----------------+             |    |   +---+
 |   |            ^                                       |    |   |   |
 |CE1|            |  DNI-PW                               |PE3 +---|CE2|
 |   |            |                                       |    |   |   |
 |   |            V                                       |    |   |   |
 +---*   +--------X--------+----------------+             |    |   +---+
      \  |     DNI-PW      |                |             |    |
   AC2 \ +--------+--------+                | Protection  |    |
        \|                 |     Service    X-------------X    |
         X    Forwarder    +       PW       | Service PW2 |    |
         |                 |                |             +----+
         +----------------------------------+
         |                PE2               |
         +----------------------------------+

               Figure 1: Dual-Homing Protection with DNI-PW




Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


4.  Protocol Extensions for Dual-Homing MPLS-TP PW Protection

   In dual-homing MPLS-TP PW local protection, the forwarding states of
   the dual-homing PEs are determined by the forwarding state machine in
   Table 1.

          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |Service PW |   AC    | DNI-PW | Forwarding Behavior |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Active   | Active  |   Up   |Service PW <-> AC    |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Active   | Standby |   Up   |Service PW <-> DNI-PW|
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Standby  | Active  |   Up   |    DNI-PW <-> AC    |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Standby  | Standby |   Up   |  Drop all packets   |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Active   | Active  |  Down  |Service PW <-> AC    |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Active   | Standby |  Down  |  Drop all packets   |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Standby  | Active  |  Down  |  Drop all packets   |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+
          |  Standby  | Standby |  Down  |  Drop all packets   |
          +-----------+---------+--------+---------------------+

   Table 1: Dual-Homing PE Forwarding State Machine

   In order to achieve dual-homing MPLS-TP PW protection, coordination
   between the dual-homing PE nodes is needed to exchange the PW status
   and protection coordination requests.

4.1.  Information Exchange Between Dual-Homing PEs

   The coordination information will be sent on the DNI-PW over the
   Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) as described in [RFC5586].  A new
   G-ACh channel type is defined for the dual-homing coordination
   between the dual-homing PEs of MPLS-TP PWs.  This channel type can be
   used for the exchange of different types of information between the
   dual-homing PEs.  This document uses this channel type for the
   exchange of PW status and switchover coordination between the dual-
   homing PEs.  Other potential usages of this channel type are for
   further study and are out of the scope of this document.








Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   The MPLS-TP Dual-Homing Coordination (DHC) message is sent on the
   DNI-PW between the dual-homing PEs.  The format of the MPLS-TP DHC
   message is shown below:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    |         DHC Channel Type      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Dual-Homing PEs Group ID                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         TLV  Length           |           Reserved            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                              TLVs                             ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 2: MPLS-TP Dual-Homing Coordination Message

   The first 4 octets is the common G-ACh header as specified in
   [RFC5586].  The DHC Channel Type is the G-ACh channel type code point
   assigned by IANA (0x0009).

   The Dual-Homing Group ID is a 4-octet unsigned integer to identify
   the dual-homing group to which the dual-homing PEs belong.  It MUST
   be the same at both PEs in the same group.

   The TLV Length field specifies the total length in octets of the
   subsequent TLVs.

   In this document, two TLVs are defined in the MPLS-TP Dual-Homing
   Coordination message for dual-homing MPLS-TP PW protection:

   Type        Description                Length
    1          PW Status                  20 bytes
    2          Dual-Node Switching        16 bytes

   The PW Status TLV is used by a dual-homing PE to report its service
   PW status to the other dual-homing PE in the same dual-homing group.













Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type=1 (PW Status)         |          Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Destination Dual-Homing PE Node_ID               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                Source Dual-Homing PE Node_ID                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         DNI-PW ID                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Flags                               |P|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Service PW Status                    |D|F|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 3: PW Status TLV

   The Length field specifies the length in octets of the value field of
   the TLV.

   The Destination Dual-Homing PE Node_ID is the 32-bit identifier of
   the receiver PE [RFC6370], which supports both IPv4 and IPv6
   environments.  Usually it is the same as the Label Switching Router
   ID (LSR ID) of the receiver PE.

   The Source Dual-Homing PE Node_ID is the 32-bit identifier of the
   sending PE [RFC6370], which supports both IPv4 and IPv6 environments.
   Usually it is the same as the LSR ID of the sending PE.

   The DNI-PW ID field contains the 32-bit PW ID [RFC8077] of the DNI-
   PW.

   The Flags field contains 32-bit flags, in which:

   o  The P (Protection) bit indicates whether the Source Dual-Homing PE
      is the working PE (P=0) or the protection PE (P=1).

   o  Other bits are reserved for future use, which MUST be set to 0 on
      transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

   The Service PW Status field indicates the status of the service PW
   between the sending PE and the remote PE.  Currently, two bits are
   defined in the Service PW Status field:

   o  F bit: If set, it indicates Signal Fail (SF) [RFC6378] on the
      service PW.  It can be either a local request generated by the PE
      itself or a remote request received from the remote PE.



Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   o  D bit: If set, it indicates Signal Degrade (SD) [RFC6378] on the
      service PW.  It can be either a local request or a remote request
      received from the remote PE.

   o  Other bits are reserved for future use, which MUST be set to 0 on
      transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

   The Dual-Node Switching TLV is used by one dual-homing PE to send
   protection state coordination to the other PE in the same dual-homing
   group.

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Type=2 (Dual-Node Switching) |          Length               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Destination Dual-Homing PE Node_ID               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                Source Dual-Homing PE Node_ID                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         DNI-PW ID                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Flags                            |S|P|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 4: Dual-Node Switching TLV

   The Length field specifies the length in octets of the value field of
   the TLV.

   The Destination Dual-Homing PE Node_ID is the 32-bit identifier of
   the receiver PE [RFC6370].  Usually it is the same as the LSR ID of
   the receiver PE.

   The Source Dual-Homing PE Node_ID is the 32-bit identifier of the
   sending PE [RFC6370].  Usually it is the same as the LSR ID of the
   sending PE.

   The DNI-PW ID field contains the 32-bit PW-ID [RFC8077] of the DNI-
   PW.

   The Flags field contains 32-bit flags, in which:

   o  The P (Protection) bit indicates whether the Source Dual-Homing PE
      is the working PE (P=0) or the protection PE (P=1).






Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   o  The S (PW Switching) bit indicates which service PW is used for
      forwarding traffic.  It is set to 0 when traffic will be
      transported on the working PW, and it is set to 1 if traffic will
      be transported on the protection PW.  The value of the S bit is
      determined by the protection coordination mechanism between the
      dual-homing PEs and the remote PE.

   o  Other bits are reserved for future use, which MUST be set to 0 on
      transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

   When a change of service PW status is detected by one of the dual-
   homing PEs, it MUST be reflected in the PW Status TLV and sent to the
   other dual-homing PE as quickly as possible to allow for fast
   protection switching using three consecutive DHC messages.  This set
   of three messages allows for fast protection switching even if one or
   two of these packets are lost or corrupted.  After the transmission
   of the three rapid messages, the dual-homing PE MUST send the most
   recently transmitted service PW status periodically to the other
   dual-homing PE on a continual basis using the DHC message.

   When one dual-homing PE determines that the active service PW needs
   to be switched from the working PW to the protection PW, it MUST send
   the Dual-Node Switching TLV to the other dual-homing PE as quickly as
   possible to allow for fast protection switching using three
   consecutive DHC messages.  After the transmission of the three
   messages, the protection PW would become the active service PW, and
   the dual-homing PE MUST send the most recently transmitted Dual-Node
   Switching TLV periodically to the other dual-homing PE on a continual
   basis using the DHC message.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the default interval of the first three rapid
   DHC messages be 3.3 ms, similar to [RFC6378], and the default
   interval of the subsequent messages is 1 second.  Both the default
   interval of the three consecutive messages as well as the default
   interval of the periodic messages SHALL be configurable by the
   operator.

4.2.  Protection Procedures

   The dual-homing MPLS-TP PW protection mechanism can be deployed with
   the existing AC redundancy mechanisms.  On the PSN side, a PSN tunnel
   protection mechanism is not required, as the dual-homing PW
   protection can also protect if a failure occurs in the PSN.

   This section uses the one-side dual-homing scenario as an example to
   describe the dual-homing PW protection procedures; the procedures for
   a two-side dual-homing scenario would be similar.




Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   On the dual-homing PE side, the role of working and protection PE are
   set by the management system or local configuration.  The service PW
   connecting to the working PE is the working PW, and the service PW
   connecting to the protection PE is called the protection PW.

   On the single-homing PE side, it treats the working PW and protection
   PW as if they terminate on the same remote PE node, thus normal MPLS-
   TP protection coordination procedures still apply on the single-
   homing PE.

   The forwarding behavior of the dual-homing PEs is determined by the
   components shown in the figure below:

             +---------------------------------+          +-----+
             |        PE1 (Working PE)         |          |     |
             +---------------------------------+    PW1   |     |
             |                 |               |  Working |     |
             +    Forwarder    +    Service    X<-------->X     |
            /|                 |      PW       |          |     |
           / +--------+--------+               |          |     |
     AC1  /  |     DNI-PW      |               |          |     |
         /   +--------X--------+---------------+          |     |
 +-----+/   AC        ^    DNI-PW                         |     |  +---+
 | CE1 |redundancy    |                                   | PE3 +--|CE2|
 +-----+ mechanism    |  DHC message                      |     |  +---+
        \             V   exchange                        |     |
     AC2 \   +--------X--------+---------------+          |     |
          \  |     DNI-PW      |               |          |     |
           \ +--------+--------+               |    PW2   |     |
            \|                 |     Service   |Protection|     |
             +    Forwarder    +       PW      X<-------->X     |
             |                 |               |   PSC    |     |
             +---------------------------------+  message |     |
             |        PE2 (Protection PE)      | exchange |     |
             +---------------------------------+          +-----+

        Figure 5: Components of One-Side Dual-Homing PW Protection

   In Figure 5, for each dual-homing PE, the service PW is the PW used
   to carry service between the dual-homing PE and the remote PE.  The
   state of the service PW is determined by the Operation,
   Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms between the dual-
   homing PEs and the remote PE.

   The DNI-PW is provisioned between the two dual-homing PE nodes.  It
   is used to bridge traffic when a failure occurs in the PSN or in the
   ACs.  The state of the DNI-PW is determined by the OAM mechanism
   between the dual-homing PEs.  Since the DNI-PW is used to carry both



Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   the DHC messages and the service traffic during protection switching,
   it is important to ensure the robustness of the DNI-PW.  In order to
   avoid the DNI-PW failure due to the failure of a particular link, it
   is RECOMMENDED that multiple diverse links be deployed between the
   dual-homing PEs and the underlying Label Switched Path (LSP)
   protection mechanism SHOULD be enabled.

   The AC is the link that connects a dual-homing PE to the dual-homed
   CE.  The status of AC is determined by the existing AC redundancy
   mechanisms; this is out of the scope of this document.

   In order to perform dual-homing PW local protection, the service PW
   status and Dual-Node Switching coordination requests are exchanged
   between the dual-homing PEs using the DHC message defined in
   Section 4.1.

   Whenever a change of service PW status is detected by a dual-homing
   PE, it MUST be reflected in the PW Status TLV and sent to the other
   dual-homing PE immediately using the three consecutive DHC messages.
   After the transmission of the three rapid messages, the dual-homing
   PE MUST send the most recently transmitted service PW status
   periodically to the other dual-homing PE on a continual basis using
   the DHC message.  This way, both dual-homing PEs have the status of
   the working and protection PW consistently.

   When there is a switchover request either generated locally or
   received on the protection PW from the remote PE, based on the status
   of the working and protection service PW along with the local and
   remote request of the protection coordination between the dual-homing
   PEs and the remote PE, the active/standby state of the service PW can
   be determined by the dual-homing PEs.  As the remote protection
   coordination request is transmitted over the protection path, in this
   case the active/standby status of the service PW is determined by the
   protection PE in the dual-homing group.

   If it is determined on one dual-homing PE that switchover of the
   service PW is needed, this dual-homing PE MUST set the S bit in the
   Dual-Node Switching TLV and send it to the other dual-homing PE
   immediately using the three consecutive DHC messages.  With the
   exchange of service PW status and the switching request, both dual-
   homing PEs are consistent on the active/standby forwarding status of
   the working and protection service PWs.  The status of the DNI-PW is
   determined by PW OAM mechanism as defined in [RFC5085], and the
   status of ACs is determined by existing AC redundancy mechanisms:
   both are out of the scope of this document.  The forwarding behavior
   on the dual-homing PE nodes is determined by the forwarding state
   machine as shown in Table 1.




Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   Using the topology in Figure 5 as an example, in normal state, the
   working PW (PW1) is in active state, the protection PW (PW2) is in
   standby state, the DNI-PW is up, and AC1 is in active state according
   to the AC redundancy mechanism.  According to the forwarding state
   machine in Table 1, traffic will be forwarded through the working PW
   (PW1) and the primary AC (AC1).  No traffic will go through the
   protection PE (PE2) or the DNI-PW, as both the protection PW (PW2)
   and the AC connecting to PE2 are in standby state.

   If a failure occurs in AC1, the state of AC2 changes to active
   according to the AC redundancy mechanism, while there is no change in
   the state of the working and protection PWs.  According to the
   forwarding state machine in Table 1, PE1 starts to forward traffic
   between the working PW and the DNI-PW, and PE2 starts to forward
   traffic between AC2 and the DNI-PW.  It should be noted that in this
   case only AC switchover takes place; in the PSN, traffic is still
   forwarded using the working PW.

   If a failure in the PSN brings PW1 down, the failure can be detected
   by PE1 or PE3 using existing OAM mechanisms.  If PE1 detects the
   failure of PW1, it MUST inform PE2 of the state of the working PW
   using the PW Status TLV in the DHC messages and change the forwarding
   status of PW1 to standby.  On receipt of the DHC message, PE2 SHOULD
   change the forwarding status of PW2 to active.  Then, according to
   the forwarding state machine in Table 1, PE1 SHOULD set up the
   connection between the DNI-PW and AC1, and PE2 SHOULD set up the
   connection between PW2 and the DNI-PW.  According to the linear
   protection mechanism [RFC6378], PE2 also sends an appropriate
   protection coordination message [RFC6378] over the protection PW
   (PW2) to PE3 for the remote side to switchover from PW1 to PW2.  If
   PE3 detects the failure of PW1, according to the linear protection
   mechanism [RFC6378], it sends a protection coordination message on
   the protection PW (PW2) to inform PE2 of the failure on the working
   PW.  Upon receipt of the message, PE2 SHOULD change the forwarding
   status of PW2 to active and set up the connection according to the
   forwarding state machine in Table 1.  PE2 SHOULD send a DHC message
   to PE1 with the S bit set in the Dual-Node Switching TLV to
   coordinate the switchover on PE1 and PE2.  This is useful for a
   unidirectional failure that cannot be detected by PE1.

   If a failure brings the working PE (PE1) down, the failure can be
   detected by both PE2 and PE3 using existing OAM mechanisms.  Both PE2
   and PE3 SHOULD change the forwarding status of PW2 to active and send
   a protection coordination message [RFC6378] on the protection PW
   (PW2) to inform the remote side to switchover.  According to the
   existing AC redundancy mechanisms, the status of AC1 changes to





Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   standby and the state of AC2 changes to active.  According to the
   forwarding state machine in Table 1, PE2 starts to forward traffic
   between the PW2 and AC2.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned a new channel type for the "MPLS-TP Dual-Homing
   Coordination Message" from the "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel
   (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)"
   subregistry within the "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)
   Parameters" registry.

   Value     Description                                Reference
   0x0009    MPLS-TP Dual-Homing Coordination message   RFC 8185

   IANA has created a new subregistry called "MPLS-TP DHC TLVs" within
   the "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry.  The
   registry has the following fields and initial allocations:

   Type        Description                 Length       Reference
   0x0000      Reserved
   0x0001      PW Status                   20 Bytes     RFC 8185
   0x0002      Dual-Node Switching         16 Bytes     RFC 8185

   The allocation policy for this registry is IETF Review, as specified
   in [RFC8126].

6.  Security Considerations

   MPLS-TP is a subset of MPLS and so builds upon many of the aspects of
   the MPLS security model.  Please refer to [RFC5920] for generic MPLS
   security issues and methods for securing traffic privacy and
   integrity.

   The DHC message defined in this document contains control
   information.  If it is injected or modified by an attacker, the dual-
   homing PEs might not agree on which PE should be used to deliver the
   CE traffic, and this could be used as a denial-of-service attack
   against the CE.  It is important that the DHC message be used within
   a trusted MPLS-TP network domain as described in [RFC6941].

   The DHC message is carried in the G-ACh [RFC5586], so it is dependent
   on the security of the G-ACh itself.  The G-ACh is a generalization
   of the Associated Channel defined in [RFC4385].  Thus, this document
   relies on the security mechanisms provided for the Associated Channel
   as described in those two documents.





Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   As described in the Security Considerations section of [RFC6378], the
   G-ACh is essentially connection oriented, so injection or
   modification of control messages requires the subversion of a transit
   node.  Such subversion is generally considered hard in connection-
   oriented MPLS networks and impossible to protect against at the
   protocol level.  Management-level techniques are more appropriate.
   The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do
   not affect the security model of MPLS-TP linear protection as defined
   in [RFC6378].

   Uniqueness of the identifiers defined in this document is guaranteed
   by the assigner (e.g., the operator).  Failure by an assigner to use
   unique values within the specified scoping for any of the identifiers
   defined herein could result in operational problems.  Please refer to
   [RFC6370] for more details about the uniqueness of the identifiers.

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>.

   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
              Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
              December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
              "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.

   [RFC6370]  Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6370, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6370>.

   [RFC6378]  Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
              N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
              TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
              October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.







Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   [RFC7271]  Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H.,
              D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS
              Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
              Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
              Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
              Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271>.

   [RFC7324]  Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
              Protection", RFC 7324, DOI 10.17487/RFC7324, July 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7324>.

   [RFC8077]  Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and
              Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)",
              STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
              February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6372]  Sprecher, N., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6372, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6372>.

   [RFC6718]  Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire
              Redundancy", RFC 6718, DOI 10.17487/RFC6718, August 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6718>.

   [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>.






Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


   [RFC6941]  Fang, L., Ed., Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Mansfield, S., Ed.,
              and R. Graveman, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
              Security Framework", RFC 6941, DOI 10.17487/RFC6941, April
              2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6941>.

   [RFC7771]  Malis, A., Ed., Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Shin, J.,
              Wang, L., and A. D'Alessandro, "Switching Provider Edge
              (S-PE) Protection for MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile
              (MPLS-TP) Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires", RFC 7771,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7771, January 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7771>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8184]  Cheng, W., Wang, L., Li, H., Davari, S., and J. Dong,
              "Dual-Homing Protection for MPLS and the MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Pseudowires", RFC 8184,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8184, June 2017.

Contributors

   The following individuals substantially contributed to the content of
   this document:

   Kai Liu
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: alex.liukai@huawei.com

   Shahram Davari
   Broadcom Corporation
   Email: davari@broadcom.com

















Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 8185        Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS-TP PWs       June 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Weiqiang Cheng
   China Mobile
   No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com


   Lei Wang
   China Mobile
   No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: Wangleiyj@chinamobile.com


   Han Li
   China Mobile
   No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: Lihan@chinamobile.com


   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com


   Alessandro D'Alessandro
   Telecom Italia
   via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino  10148
   Italy

   Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it






Cheng, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L