SPVC Service Spanning ATM & PWE3/PSN George Swallow swallow@cisco
STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.
-
Upload
valerie-pope -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.
![Page 1: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
STPP Slide 1
UDP IssuesUDP Issues
PWE3 – 61th IETF
11 - 11 - 2004
Yaakov (J) Stein
![Page 2: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
STPP Slide 2
Service Provider ModelService Provider Model
in the standard PWE3 model emulation is PE to PE IWF located at PE AC is native service
PEnativeservice
PSN
PW nativeservice CEPE IWFIWFCE
attachmentcircuit
attachmentcircuit
![Page 3: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
STPP Slide 3
Enterprise ModelEnterprise Model
PEPSN
PW CEPE IWFIWFCEattachmentcircuit
attachmentcircuit
there is an alternative model (CE2E) emulation is CE to CE (see draft-stein-pwce2e-00)
IWF located at CE what runs over the AC ?
![Page 4: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
STPP Slide 4
AC possibilitiesAC possibilities
MPLS AC extend MPLS towards the customer set up PWs from CEs to PEs splice (stitch/switch) the access PWs and core PW
UDP/IP AC leave MPLS in the core network use UDP/IP from CEs to Pes terminate UDP/IP at the PE and send over MPLS PW
other AC possibilities L2TP MPLS over IP native service over IP using GRE (when defined) MPLS over IP using GRE
![Page 5: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
STPP Slide 5
List discussionList discussion
there was a lively discussion of this issue on the list
over 50 emails from 16 participants
the following 3 slides summarize what was said
![Page 6: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
STPP Slide 6
UDP PW advantagesUDP PW advantages
UDP/IP is familiar to enterprise customer base (Stewart)
PW label as UDP Port number reduces overhead (Yaakov)
already extensively deployed for TDM PWs (Yaakov,Stewart)
reuse of AVT protocols (Sasha, Ron, Amnon, Andy)
simplify NAT traversal (Yaakov, Mark)
![Page 7: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
STPP Slide 7
UDP PW disadvantagesUDP PW disadvantages
hard to provide QoS assurances w/o co p2p trail (Neil)– there should be no layer networks above UDP– no operator has spoken out
large number of UDP ports - doesn’t scale (Mark)– less than 64K port numbers altogether– increases state maintained in NAT/Firewall
need protocol for UDP port signaling (Yaakov)
UDP checksum introduces processing overhead (Mark)
why introduce new PW type at such a late stagewhen we already have MPLS and L2TP? (Eric, Richard)
potential security problems (Stewart)
potential congestion control problems (Stewart)
![Page 8: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
STPP Slide 8
Misc commentsMisc comments
need to reply to ITU liaison (Stewart)
PWE charter aimed at operators/SPs not customers (Ben, Mark)
wrong, but hard to stop customers from using it (Neil)
no consensus here (Eric)
discussion should be diverted to AVT (Ron, Andy)– but CE-CE PWs not in AVT charter (Sasha)
UDP OK for VoIP since adapts an applicationbut for adapting a layer network (Ben)
some comments seem to rule out MPLS PWs too (Yaakov)
![Page 9: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
STPP Slide 9
Disadvantage rebuttalDisadvantage rebuttal hard to provide QoS assurances w/o co p2p trail
– QoS similar to LDP based MPLS or L2TP large number of UDP ports - doesn’t scale
– enterprises do not need many PW labels– scales better than VoIP presently being deployed
need protocol for UDP port signaling– can limit to manual provisioning– several simple alternatives (draft-stein-pwe3-udp-00.txt)
UDP checksum introduces processing overhead (Mark)– checksum also useful / may be set to zero
why introduce a new PW type at such a late stage– has been in charter from the beginning
potential security problems– LDP and L2TP protocols are similarly unsafe
potential congestion control problems – similar to L2TP
![Page 10: STPP Slide 1 UDP Issues PWE3 – 61 th IETF 11 - 11 - 2004 Yaakov (J) Stein.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072010/56649db05503460f94a9f0fe/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
STPP Slide 10
ProposalProposal
explicitly limit UDP/IP to enterprise (CE-CE) PWs
– if present charter is only for SPs then need to update
only allow manual provisioning
enterprise responsible for
– security (firewall)
– congestion avoidance (admission control)
if the enterprise requires a large number of PWs then MPLS access PWs should be used