





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]

