<- RFC Index (4001..4100)
RFC 4026
Network Working Group L. Andersson
Request for Comments: 4026 T. Madsen
Category: Informational Acreo AB
March 2005
Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The widespread interest in provider-provisioned Virtual Private
Network (VPN) solutions lead to memos proposing different and
overlapping solutions. The IETF working groups (first Provider
Provisioned VPNs and later Layer 2 VPNs and Layer 3 VPNs) have
discussed these proposals and documented specifications. This has
lead to the development of a partially new set of concepts used to
describe the set of VPN services.
To a certain extent, more than one term covers the same concept, and
sometimes the same term covers more than one concept. This document
seeks to make the terminology in the area clearer and more intuitive.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. PPVPN Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network Services . . . . 4
3.1. Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. IP-Only LAN-Like Service (IPLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Pseudo Wire (PW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7. Transparent LAN Service (TLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8. Virtual LAN (VLAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.9. Virtual Leased Line Service (VLLS) . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.10. Virtual Private Network (VPN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.11. Virtual Private Switched Network (VPSN) . . . . . . . . 6
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
4. Classification of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Customer Edge Device (CE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Device Based CE Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2. Service Based CE Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Provider Edge (PE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Device Based PE Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Service Based PE Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.3. Distribution Based PE Naming . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.1 Provider Router (P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Naming in Specific Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.1. Layer 2 PE (L2PE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.2. Logical PE (LPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.3. PE-CLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.4. PE-Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.5. PE-Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.6. PE-POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.7. VPLS Edge (VE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Attachment Circuit (AC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Backdoor Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Endpoint Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5. MAC Address Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5.1. Qualified Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5.2. Unqualified Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.6. Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. 'Boxes' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Aggregation Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Multi-Tenant Unit (MTU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Packet Switched Network (PSN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Route Distinguisher (RD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Route Reflector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3. Route Target (RT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.4. Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.5. Tunnel Multiplexor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.6. Virtual Channel (VC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.7. VC Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.8. Inner Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.9. VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.10. VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.11. Virtual Switch Instance (VSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.12. Virtual Router (VR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
A comparatively large number of memos have been submitted to the
former PPVPN working group, and to the L2VPN, L3VPN, and PWE3 working
groups, which all address the same problem space; provider
provisioned virtual private networking for end customers. The memos
address a wide range of services, but there is also a great deal of
commonality among the proposed solutions.
This has led to the development of a partial set of new concepts used
to describe this set of VPN services. To a certain extent, more than
one term covers the same concept, and sometimes the same term covers
more than one concept.
This document proposes a foundation for a unified terminology for the
L2VPN and L3VPN working groups. In some cases, the parallel concepts
within the PWE3 working group are used as references.
2. PPVPN Terminology
The concepts and terms in this list are gathered from Internet Drafts
sent to the L2VPN and L3VPN mailing lists (earlier the PPVPN mailing
list) and RFCs relevant to the L2VPN and L3VPN working groups. The
focus is on terminology and concepts that are specific to the PPVPN
area, but this is not strictly enforced; e.g., some concepts and
terms within the PWE3 and (Generalized) MPLS areas are closely
related. We've tried to find the earliest uses of terms and
concepts.
This document is intended to fully cover the concepts within the core
documents from the L2VPN and L3VPN working groups; i.e., [L3VPN-REQ],
[L2VPN-REQ], [L3VPN-FRAME], [L2VPN], and [RFC3809]. The intention is
to create a comprehensive and unified set of concepts for these
documents and, by extension, for the entire PPVPN area. To do so, it
is also necessary to give some of the development the concepts of the
area have been through.
The document is structured in four major sections. Section 4 lists
the different services that have been or will be specified Section 5
lists the building blocks that are used to specify those services
Section 6 lists the functions needed in those services. Section 7
lists some typical devices used in customer and provider networks.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
3. Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network Services
In this section, we define the terminology that relates the set of
services to solutions specified by the L2VPN and L3VPN working
groups. The "pseudo wire" concept, which belongs to the PWE3 working
group, is included for reference purposes. For requirements in
provider provisioned VPNs, see [L3VPN-REQ].
All terms and abbreviations are listed together with a brief
description of the service. The list is structured to give the more
general information first and the more specific later. The names of
services for which the IETF is working on solutions have been moved
to the top of the list. Older and more dated terminology has been
pushed toward the end of the list.
3.1. Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN)
An L3VPN interconnects sets of hosts and routers based on Layer 3
addresses; see [L3VPN-FRAME].
3.2. Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
Three types of L2VPNs are described in this document: Virtual Private
Wire Service (VPWS) (Section 3.4); Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS)(Section 3.3); and IP-only LAN-like Service
(IPLS)(Section 3.5).
3.3. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
A VPLS is a provider service that emulates the full functionality of
a traditional Local Area Network (LAN). A VPLS makes it possible to
interconnect several LAN segments over a packet switched network
(PSN) and makes the remote LAN segments behave as one single LAN.
For an early work on defining a solution and protocol for a VPLS, see
[L2VPN-REQ], [VPLS-LDP], and [VPLS].
In a VPLS, the provider network emulates a learning bridge, and
forwarding decisions are taken based on MAC addresses or MAC
addresses and VLAN tag.
3.4. Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS)
A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) is a point-to-point circuit
(link) connecting two Customer Edge devices. The link is established
as a logical through a packet switched network. The CE in the
customer network is connected to a PE in the provider network via an
Attachment Circuit (see Section 6.1); the Attachment Circuit is
either a physical or a logical circuit.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
The PEs in the core network are connected via a PW.
The CE devices can be routers, bridges, switches, or hosts. In some
implementations, a set of VPWSs is used to create a multi-site L2VPN
network. An example of a VPWS solution is described in
[PPVPN-L2VPN].
A VPWS differs from a VPLS (Section 3.3) in that the VPLS is point to
multipoint, while the VPWS is point to point. See [L2VPN].
3.5. IP-Only LAN-Like Service (IPLS)
An IPLS is very like a VPLS (see Section 3.3), except that
o it is assumed that the CE devices (see Section 5.1) are hosts or
routers, not switches,
o it is assumed that the service will only have to carry IP packets,
and supporting packets such as ICMP and ARP (otherwise layer 2
packets that do not contain IP are not supported); and
o the assumption that only IP packets are carried by the service
applies equally to IPv4 and IPv6 packets.
While this service is a functional subset of the VPLS service, it is
considered separately because it may be possible to provide it by
using different mechanisms, which may allow it to run on certain
hardware platforms that cannot support the full VPLS functionality
[L2VPN].
3.6. Pseudo Wire (PW)
The PWE3 working group within the IETF specifies the pseudo wire
technology. A pseudo wire is an emulated point-to-point connection
over a packet switched network that allows the interconnection of two
nodes with any L2 technology. The PW shares some of the building
blocks and architecture constructs with the point-to-multipoint
solutions; e.g., PE (see Section 5.2) and CE (see Section 5.1). An
early solution for PWs is described in [TRANS-MPLS]. Encapsulation
formats readily used in VPWS, VPLS, and PWs are described in
[ENCAP-MPLS]. Requirements for PWs are found in [RFC3916], and
[PWE3-ARCH] presents an architectural framework for PWs.
3.7. Transparent LAN Service (TLS)
TLS was an early name used to describe the VPLS service. TLS has
been replaced by VPLS, which is the current term.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
3.8. Virtual LAN (VLAN)
The term VLAN was specified by IEEE 802.1Q; it defines a method of
differentiating traffic on a LAN by tagging the Ethernet frames. By
extension, VLAN is used to mean the traffic separated by Ethernet
frame tagging or similar mechanisms.
3.9. Virtual Leased Line Service (VLLS)
The term VLLS has been replaced by term VPWS. VLLS was used in a now
dated document intended to create metrics by which it should have
been possible to compare different L2VPN solutions. This document
has now expired, and the work has been terminated.
3.10. Virtual Private Network (VPN)
VPN is a generic term that covers the use of public or private
networks to create groups of users that are separated from other
network users and that may communicate among them as if they were on
a private network. It is possible to enhance the level of separation
(e.g., by end-to-end encryption), but this is outside the scope of
IETF VPN working group charters. This VPN definition is from
[RFC2764].
In the [L3VPN-FRAME], the term VPN is used to refer to a specific set
of sites as either an intranet or an extranet that have been
configured to allow communication. Note that a site is a member of
at least one VPN and may be a member of many.
In this document, "VPN" is also used as a generic name for all
services listed in Section 3.
3.11. Virtual Private Switched Network (VPSN)
The term VPSN has been replaced by the term VPLS. The requirements
have been merged into the L3VPN [L3VPN-REQ] and L2VPN [L2VPN-REQ]
requirements.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
4. Classification of VPNs
The terminology used in [RFC3809] is defined based on the figure
below.
PPVPN
________________|__________________
| |
Layer 2 Layer 3
______|_____ ______|______
| | | |
P2P P2M PE-based CE-based
(VPWS) _____|____ ______|____ |
| | | | |
VPLS IPLS BGP/MPLS Virtual IPsec
IP VPNs Router
Figure 1
The figure above presents a taxonomy of PPVPN technologies. Some of
the definitions are given below:
CE-based VPN: A VPN approach in which the shared service provider
network does not have any knowledge of the customer VPN. This
information is limited to CE equipment. All the VPN-specific
procedures are performed in the CE devices, and the PE devices are
not aware in any way that some of the traffic they are processing is
VPN traffic (see also [L3VPN-FRAME]).
PE-Based VPNs: A Layer 3 VPN approach in which a service provider
network is used to interconnect customer sites using shared
resources. Specifically, the PE device maintains VPN state,
isolating users of one VPN from users of another. Because the PE
device maintains all required VPN states, the CE device may behave as
if it were connected to a private network. Specifically, the CE in a
PE-based VPN must not require any changes or additional functionality
to be connected to a PPVPN instead of a private network.
The PE devices know that certain traffic is VPN traffic. They
forward the traffic (through tunnels) based on the destination IP
address of the packet, and optionally based on other information in
the IP header of the packet. The PE devices are themselves the
tunnel endpoints. The tunnels may make use of various encapsulations
to send traffic over the SP network (such as, but not restricted to,
GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, or MPLS tunnels) [L3VPN-FRAME].
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
Virtual Router (VR) style: A PE-based VPN approach in which the PE
router maintains a complete logical router for each VPN that it
supports. Each logical router maintains a unique forwarding table
and executes a unique instance of the routing protocols. These VPNs
are described in [L3VPN-VR].
BGP/MPLS IP VPNs: A PE-based VPN approach in which the PE router
maintains a separate forwarding environment and a separate forwarding
table for each VPN. In order to maintain multiple forwarding table
instances while running only a single BGP instance, BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
mark route advertisements with attributes that identify their VPN
context. These VPNs are based on the approach described in
[RFC2547bis].
RFC 2547 Style: The term has been used by the L3VPN to describe the
extensions of the VPNs defined in the informational RFC 2547
[RFC2547]. This term has now been replaced by the term BGP/MPLS IP
VPNs.
5. Building Blocks
Starting with specifications of L3VPNs (e.g., the 2547 specification
[RFC2547] and [RFC2547bis] and Virtual Routers [L3VPN-VR]), a way of
describing the building blocks and allocation of functions in VPN
solutions was developed. The building blocks are often used in
day-to-day talk as if they were physical boxes, common for all
services.
However, for different reasons, this is an oversimplification. Any
of the building blocks could be implemented across more than one
physical box. How common the use of such implementations will be is
beyond the scope of this document.
5.1. Customer Edge Device (CE)
A CE is the name of the device with the functionality needed on the
customer premises to access the services specified by the former
PPVPN working group in relation to the work done on L3VPNs
[L3VPN-FRAME]. The concept has been modified; e.g., when L2VPNs and
CE-based VPNs were defined. This is addressed further in the
sub-sections of this section.
There are two different aspects that have to be considered in naming
CE devices. One could start with the type of device that is used to
implement the CE (see Section 5.1.1). It is also possible to use the
service the CE provides whereby the result will be a set of "prefixed
CEs", (see Section 5.1.2).
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
It is common practice to use "CE" to indicate any of these boxes, as
it is very often unambiguous in the specific context.
5.1.1. Device Based CE Naming
5.1.1.1. Customer Edge Router (CE-R)
A CE-R is a router in the customer network interfacing the provider
network. There are many reasons to use a router in the customer
network; e.g., in an L3VPN using private IP addressing, this is the
router that is able to do forwarding based on the private addresses.
Another reason to require the use of a CE-R on the customer side is
that one wants to limit the number of MAC-addresses that need to be
learned in the provider network.
A CE-R could be used to access both L2 and L3 services.
5.1.1.2. Customer Edge Switch (CE-S)
A CE-S is a service aware L2 switch in the customer network
interfacing the provider network. In a VPWS or a VPLS, it is not
strictly necessary to use a router in the customer network; a layer 2
switch might very well do the job.
5.1.2. Service Based CE Naming
The list below contains examples of how different functionality has
been used to name CEs. There are many examples of this type of
naming, and we only cover the most frequently used functional names.
As these are functional names, it is quite possible that on a single
piece of equipment there are platforms for more than one type of
function. For example, a router might at the same time be both a
L2VPN-CE and a L3VPN-CE. It might also be that the functions needed
for a L2VPN-CE or L3VPN-CE are distributed over more than one
platform.
5.1.2.1. L3VPN-CE
An L3VPN-CE is the device or set of devices on the customer premises
that attaches to a provider provisioned L3VPN; e.g., a 2547bis
implementation.
5.1.2.2. VPLS-CE
A VPLS-CE is the device or set of devices on the customer premises
that attaches to a provider provisioned VPLS.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 9]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
5.1.2.3. VPWS-CE
A VPWS-CE is the device or set of devices on the customer premises
that attaches to a provider provisioned VPWS.
5.2. Provider Edge (PE)
A PE is the name of the device or set of devices at the edge of the
provider network with the functionality that is needed to interface
with the customer. Without further qualifications, PE is very often
used for naming the devices since it is made unambiguous by the
context.
In naming PEs there are three aspects that we need to consider, the
service they support, whether the functionality needed for service is
distributed across more than one device and the type of device they
are build on.
5.2.1. Device Based PE Naming
Both routers and switches may be used to implement PEs; however, the
scaling properties will be radically different depending on which
type of equipment is chosen.
5.2.1.1. Provider Edge Router (PE-R)
A PE-R is a L3 device that participates in the PSN (see Section 8)
routing and forwards packets based on the routing information.
5.2.1.2. Provider Edge Switch (PE-S)
A PE-S is a L2 device that participates in for example a switched
Ethernet taking forwarding decision packets based on L2 address
information.
5.2.2. Service Based PE Naming
5.2.2.1. L3VPN-PE
An L3VPN-PE is a device or set of devices at the edge of the provider
network interfacing the customer network, with the functionality
needed for an L3VPN.
5.2.2.2. VPWS-PE
A VPWS-PE is a device or set of devices at the edge of the provider
network interfacing the customer network, with the functionality
needed for a VPWS.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 10]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
5.2.2.3. VPLS-PE
A VPLS-PE is a device or set of devices at the edge of the provider
network interfacing the customer network, with the functionality
needed for a VPLS.
5.2.3. Distribution Based PE Naming
For scaling reasons, in the VPLS/VPWS cases sometimes it is desired
to distribute the functions in the VPLS/VPWS-PE across more than one
device. For example, is it feasible to allocate MAC address learning
on a comparatively small and inexpensive device close to the customer
site, while participation in the PSN signalling and setup of PE to PE
tunnels are done by routers closer to the network core.
When distributing functionality across devices, a protocol is needed
to exchange information between the Network facing PE (N-PE) (see
Section 5.2.3.1) and the User facing PE (U-PE) (see Section 5.2.3.2).
5.2.3.1. Network Facing PE (N-PE)
The N-PE is the device to which the signalling and control functions
are allocated when a VPLS-PE is distributed across more than one box.
5.2.3.2. User Facing PE (U-PE)
The U-PE is the device to which the functions needed to take
forwarding or switching decisions at the ingress of the provider
network.
5.3. Core
5.3.1. Provider Router (P)
The P is defined as a router in the core network that does not have
interfaces directly toward a customer. Therefore, a P router does
not need to keep VPN state and is VPN unaware.
5.4. Naming in Specific Internet Drafts
5.4.1. Layer 2 PE (L2PE)
L2PE is the joint name of the devices in the provider network that
implement L2 functions needed for a VPLS or a VPWS.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 11]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
5.4.2. Logical PE (LPE)
The term Logical PE (LPE) originates from a dated Internet Draft,
"VPLS/LPE L2VPNs: Virtual Private LAN Services using Logical PE
Architecture", and was used to describe a set of devices used in a
provider network to implement a VPLS. In a LPE, VPLS functions are
distributed across small devices (PE-Edges/U-PE) and devices attached
to a network core (PE-Core/N-PE). In an LPE solution, the PE-edge
and PE-Core can be interconnected by a switched Ethernet transport
network or uplinks. The LPE will appear to the core network as a
single PE. In this document, the devices that constitutes, the LPE
are called N-PE and U-PE.
5.4.3. PE-CLE
An alternative name for the U-PE suggested in the expired Internet
Draft, "VPLS architectures".
5.4.4. PE-Core
See the origins and use of this concept in Section 5.4.2.
5.4.5. PE-Edge
See the origins and use of this concept in Section 5.4.2.
5.4.6. PE-POP
An alternative name for the U-PE suggested in the expired Internet
Draft, "VPLS architectures".
5.4.7. VPLS Edge (VE)
The term VE originates from a dated Internet Draft on a distributed
transparent LAN service and was used to describe the device used by a
provider network to hand off a VPLS to a customer. In this document,
the VE is called a VPLS-PE. This name is dated.
6. Functions
In this section, we have grouped a number of concepts and terms that
have to be performed to make the VPN services work.
6.1. Attachment Circuit (AC)
In a Layer 2 VPN the CE is attached to PE via an Attachment Circuit
(AC). The AC may be a physical or logical link.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 12]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
6.2. Backdoor Links
Backdoor Links are links between CE devices that are provided by the
end customer rather than by the SP; they may be used to interconnect
CE devices in multiple-homing arrangements [L3VPN-FRAME].
6.3. Endpoint Discovery
Endpoint discovery is the process by which the devices that are aware
of a specific VPN service will find all customer facing ports that
belong to the same service.
The requirements on endpoint discovery and signalling are discussed
in [L3VPN-REQ]. It was also the topic in a now dated Internet Draft
reporting from a design team activity on VPN discovery.
6.4. Flooding
Flooding is a function related to L2 services; when a PE receives a
frame with an unknown destination MAC address, that frame is send out
over (flooded) every other interface.
6.5. MAC Address Learning
MAC address learning is a function related to L2 services; when PE
receives a frame with an unknown source MAC address, the relationship
between that MAC-address and interface is learned for future
forwarding purposes. In a layer 2 VPN solution from the L2VPN WG,
this function is allocated to the VPLS-PE.
6.5.1. Qualified Learning
In qualified learning, the learning decisions at the U-PE are based
on the customer Ethernet frame's MAC address and VLAN tag, if a VLAN
tag exists. If no VLAN tag exists, the default VLAN is assumed.
6.5.2. Unqualified Learning
In unqualified learning, learning is based on a customer Ethernet
frame's MAC address only.
6.6. Signalling
Signalling is the process by which the PEs that have VPNs behind them
exchange information to set up PWs, PSN tunnels, and tunnel
multiplexers. This process might be automated through a protocol or
done by manual configuration. Different protocols may be used to
establish the PSN tunnels and exchange the tunnel multiplexers.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 13]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
7. 'Boxes'
We list a set of boxes that will typically be used in an environment
that supports different kinds of VPN services. We have chosen to
include some names of boxes that originate outside the protocol
specifying organisations.
7.1. Aggregation Box
The aggregation box is typically an L2 switch that is service unaware
and is used only to aggregate traffic to more function rich points in
the network.
7.2. Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)
The CPE equipment is the box that a provider places with the
customer. It serves two purposes: giving the customer ports to plug
in to and making it possible for a provider to monitor the
connectivity to the customer site. The CPE is typically a low cost
box with limited functionality and, in most cases, is not aware of
the VPN services offered by the provider network. The CPE equipment
is not necessarily the equipment to which the CE functions are
allocated, but it is part of the provider network and is used for
monitoring purposes.
The CPE name is used primarily in network operation and deployment
contexts and should not be used in protocol specifications.
7.3. Multi-Tenant Unit (MTU)
An MTU is typically an L2 switch placed by a service provider in a
building where several customers of that service provider are
located. The term was introduced in an Internet Draft specifying a
VPLS solution with function distributed between the MTU and the PE in
the context of a [VPLS].
The MTU device name is used primarily in network operation and
deployment contexts and should not be used in protocol
specifications, as it is also an abbreviation used for Maximum
Transmit Units.
8. Packet Switched Network (PSN)
A PSN is the network through which the tunnels supporting the VPN
services are set up.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 14]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
8.1. Route Distinguisher (RD)
A Route Distinguisher [RFC2547bis] is an 8-byte value that, together
with a 4 byte IPv4 address, identifies a VPN-IPv4 address family. If
two VPNs use the same IPv4 address prefix, the PEs translate these
into unique VPN-IPv4 address prefixes. This ensures that if the same
address is used in two different VPNs, it is possible to install two
completely different routes to that address, one for each VPN.
8.2. Route Reflector
A route reflector is a network element owned by a Service Provider
(SP) that is used to distribute BGP routes to the SP's BGP-enabled
routers [L3VPN-FRAME].
8.3. Route Target (RT)
A Route Target attribute [RFC2547bis] can be thought of as
identifying a set of sites or, more precisely, a set of VRFs (see
Section 8.9).
Associating a particular Route Target with a route allows that route
to be placed in all VRFs used for routing traffic received from the
corresponding sites.
A Route Target attribute is also a BGP extended community used in
[RFC2547] and [BGP-VPN]. A Route Target community is used to
constrain VPN information distribution to the set of VRFs. A route
target can be perceived as identifying a set of sites or, more
precisely, a set of VRFs.
8.4. Tunnel
A tunnel is connectivity through a PSN that is used to send traffic
across the network from one PE to another. The tunnel provides a
means to transport packets from one PE to another. Separation of one
customer's traffic from another customer's traffic is done based on
tunnel multiplexers (see Section 8.5). How the tunnel is established
depends on the tunnelling mechanisms provided by the PSN; e.g., the
tunnel could be based on the IP-header, an MPLS label, the L2TP
Session ID, or the GRE Key field.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 15]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
8.5. Tunnel Multiplexor
A tunnel multiplexor is an entity that is sent with the packets
traversing the tunnel to make it possible to decide which instance of
a service a packet belongs to and from which sender it was received.
In [PPVPN-L2VPN], the tunnel multiplexor is formatted as an MPLS
label.
8.6. Virtual Channel (VC)
A VC is transported within a tunnel and identified by its tunnel
multiplexer. A virtual channel is identified by a VCI (Virtual
Channel Identifier). In the PPVPN context, a VCI is a VC label or
tunnel multiplexer, and in the Martini case, it is equal to the VCID.
8.7. VC Label
In an MPLS-enabled IP network, a VC label is an MPLS label used to
identify traffic within a tunnel that belongs to a particular VPN;
i.e., the VC label is the tunnel multiplexer in networks that use
MPLS labels.
8.8. Inner Label
"Inner label" is another name for VC label (see Section 8.6).
8.9. VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF)
In networks running 2547 VPN's [RFC2547], PE routers maintain VRFs.
A VRF is a per-site forwarding table. Every site to which the PE
router is attached is associated with one of these tables. A
particular packet's IP destination address is looked up in a
particular VRF only if that packet has arrived directly from a site
that is associated with that table.
8.10. VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI)
VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI) is a logical entity that resides in a
PE that includes the router information base and forwarding
information base for a VPN instance [L3VPN-FRAME].
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 16]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
8.11. Virtual Switch Instance (VSI)
In a layer 2 context, a VSI is a virtual switching instance that
serves one single VPLS [L2VPN]. A VSI performs standard LAN (i.e.,
Ethernet) bridging functions. Forwarding done by a VSI is based on
MAC addresses and VLAN tags, and possibly on other relevant
information on a per VPLS basis. The VSI is allocated to VPLS-PE or,
in the distributed case, to the U-PE.
8.12. Virtual Router (VR)
A Virtual Router (VR) is software and hardware based emulation of a
physical router. Virtual routers have independent IP routing and
forwarding tables, and they are isolated from each other; see
[L3VPN-VR].
9. Security Considerations
This is a terminology document and as such doesn't have direct
security implications. Security considerations will be specific to
solutions, frameworks, and specification documents whose terminology
is collected and discussed in this document.
10. Acknowledgements
Much of the content in this document is based on discussion in the
PPVPN design teams for "auto discovery" and "l2vpn".
Dave McDysan, Adrian Farrel, and Thomas Narten have carefully
reviewed the document and given many useful suggestions.
Thomas Narten converted an almost final version of this document into
XML, after extracting an acceptable version from Word became too
painful. Avri Doria has been very helpful in guiding us in the use
of XML.
11. Informative References
[L2VPN] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Work in Progress,
June 2004.
[L2VPN-REQ] Augustyn, W. and Y. Serbest, "Service Requirements for
Layer 2 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private
Networks", Work in Progress, October 2004.
[VPLS] Kompella, K., "Virtual Private LAN Service", Work in
Progress, January 2005.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 17]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
[VPLS-LDP] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN
Services over MPLS", Work in Progress, September 2004.
[BGP-VPN] Ould-Brahim, H., Rosen, E., and Y. Rekhter, "Using BGP
as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for Layer-3 and Layer-2
VPNs", Work in Progress, May 2004.
[L3VPN-FRAME] Callon, R. and M. Suzuki, "A Framework for Layer 3
Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks", Work in
Progress, July 2003.
[RFC3809] Nagarajan, A., "Generic Requirements for Provider
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC
3809, June 2004.
[L3VPN-REQ] Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service requirements for
Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks", Work in Progress,
July 2004.
[RFC2547bis] Rosen, E., "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", Work in Progress,
October 2004.
[L3VPN-VR] Knight, P., Ould-Brahim, H. and B. Gleeson, "Network
based IP VPN Architecture using Virtual Routers", Work
in Progress, April 2004.
[PWE3-ARCH] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "PWE3 Architecture", Work in
Progress, March 2004.
[RFC3916] Xiao, X., McPherson, D., and P. Pate, "Requirements for
Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 3916,
September 2004.
[PPVPN-L2VPN] Kompella, K., "Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels", Work in
Progress, June 2002.
[ENCAP-MPLS] Martini, L., "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of
Layer 2 Frames Over IP and MPLS Networks", Work in
Progress, September 2004.
[TRANS-MPLS] Martini, L. and N. El-Aawar, "Transport of Layer 2
Frames Over MPLS", Work in Progress, June 2004.
[RFC2547] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547,
March 1999.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 18]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
[RFC2764] Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G., and
A. Malis, "A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private
Networks", RFC 2764, February 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Loa Anderson
Acreo AB
EMail: loa@pi.se
Tove Madsen
Acreo AB
EMail: tove.madsen@acreo.se
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 19]
RFC 4026 Provider Provisioned VPN Terminology March 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Andersson & Madsen Informational [Page 20]