See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228998947

Layer 2 VPN Architectures and Operation

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 2,494

4 authors:

José Manuel Arco Antonio Garcia

University of Alcalá University of Alcalá
24 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Juan A. Carral Alvaro Paricio

University of Alcalá University of Alcalá
36 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MEDIANET View project

TRASGO. Detección precoz de TRAStornos de desarrollo mediante el uso de juGuetes y Objetos cotidianos Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (RTI2018-101962-B-I00)
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alvaro Paricio on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LAYER 2 VPN ARCHITECTURES AND OPERATION
J. M. Arco, A. García, J. A. Carral, A. Paricio
Departamento de Automática Universidad de Alcalá
Escuela Politécnica 28871 Alcalá de Henares
{jmarco, antonio, jac, aparicio@aut.uah.es}
Abstract
Users need high speed and low latency transmission for
new applications. Since Ethernet is the dominant LAN
technology, service providers wish to offer new Ethernet
services as Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN), to
meet the requirements of these applications.
MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) is one of the most
suitable technologies to deploy L3VPN and can also be
used to realize L2VPN. Ethernet technology has reached
the ability to meet MAN and WAN requirements.
This article presents a review of both Ethernet and MPLS
technologies to deploy L2VPN and compares both
approaches.
Key Words
L2VPN, IEEE bridges, VPLS, MPLS, H-VPLS, Ethernet.
1. Introduction
Enterprises are using new applications that require high
speed and low latency transmission to increase
productivity and reduce costs. Ethernet is the dominant
LAN technology because of its simplicity, low equipment
cost and high speed. Ethernet technology has greatly
evolved in terms of bandwidth (up to 10 Gbps), and it
spanning across metropolitan area networks MAN and
wide area networks WAN. Service providers wish to offer
new Ethernet services such as LAN transparent services,
to meet the requirements of the new applications. Service
providers have also recognizing the benefits of the
Ethernet technology. As Ethernet is an available
technology to deploy MAN and WAN networks, it is a
logical option to use it to interconnect LANs, figure 1.
SP Core
SP Access
Enterprise Network
Network
Site 1
Tradicional ATM, IP
Ethernet Frame Relay
WAN MPLS
Ethernet Ethernet ATM, IP, MPLS,
Ethernet
WAN MPLS Ethernet
Figure 1. LAN and WAN technologies.
We consider the service providers network can be
deployed as Ethernet bridges network or MultiProtocol
Teléfono: +34 91 8856627
Label Switching (MPLS) routers. The IEEE 802.1ad
group is defining the necessary extensions to Ethernet
bridges [1] while the IETF is working with MPLS [2].
There are two basic Ethernet services: point to point and
multipoint services [3][4]. These are the basic services of
a Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) and also
know as a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS).
A Virtual LAN (VLAN) is a logical representation of an
Ethernet network, where only members of the VLAN can
interchange traffic. A VLAN can also be considered as a
broadcast domain where the broadcast1 traffic is limited to
the ports member of the VLAN. From the point of view of
a service provider a service instance is a Customer’s
VLAN (C-VLAN). The VLAN is based on the IEEE
802.1Q standard [5]. A Q-tag is added/dropped in the
Ethernet frames exchanged between Ethernet switches,
there is no change at the final systems, figure 2.
MAC DA
EtherType (2bytes)
MAC SA
User Priority (3bit)
VLAN Tag
CFI=0 (1 bit)
EtherType
VLAN ID (2 bits)
Payload
Figure 2. VLAN frame format
To effectively deploy the provider network with Ethernet
switches some issues must be addressed:
• MAC addresses table explosion.
• The limited number of C-VLANs, 4096 (12 bits).
• QoS support.
Within MPLS technology the open issues are:
• Loops avoidance.
• QoS support.
SP Access
Network Enterprise • Security.
Site 2 The article is divided in two parts. In the first part, we
study three Ethernet technologies to deploy provider’s
Frame Relay Ethernet
network. In the second part, we study MPLS technology
to deploy LAN services, based on VPLS. There are two
Ethernet types of VPLS, the flat VPLS and the hierarchical VPLS
Ethernet
MPLS
(H-VPLS), and we introduce both of them. The H-VPLS
can be realized with two architectures, Ethernet Edge
1
Consider broadcast, as broadcast, multicast or destination
unknown
Hierarchical VPLS (EE-H-VPLS) and MPLS Edge user’s network provider’s network user’s network
Hierarchical VPLS (ME-H-VPLS) and we study their PE2’s table
PE1’s table
forwarding and their loop avoidance mechanisms. Finally,
we present the conclusions of the paper. :E2 :B1, :B2, :B3
:E1 :A1, :A2, :A3
:E1 :E2
PE1 PE2
2. IEEE solutions
We considerer three technologies for provider’s Ethernet
switches. All the solutions insert additional tags or fields :A1 :A3 :B1
in the customer Ethernet frames at the ingress node (the :A2 :B2
first node of provider’s network) and are stripped off at :B3
the egress node (the last node of provider’s network).
:B2 :A2 Type Payload :B2 :A2 Type Payload
2.1. QiQ encapsulation
In a Q-tag in Q-tag (QiQ) network, the service provider :E2 :E1 :B2 :A2 Type Payload
assigns a Provider-VLAN Tag (P-VLAN Tag) for each
service instance [1], figure 3. The subscriber’s C-VLAN Figure 4. MAS operation.
Tags are preserved. The P-VLAN is used by the provider
The provider network switches the users frames based on
Ethernet switches to identify the C-LAN across the core
the provider edge nodes’ MAC addresses. The MAC
network. This has a limitation, there are only 4096
address table of a provider ingress node, associate all the
different services instances or clients. To overtaking this
end users’ MAC addresses of a site, with the MAC
limit there are two approaches, one is to combine both the
address of its provider ingress node, figure 4. This
C-LAN and P-LAN fields in one field. Other solution can
reduces the MAC address table size. The MAS is
be to extend the VLAN ID field [6]. Both of the two
independent of the Q-tag schemes used and can be
approaches are not standard [7].
supported by existing switches with only a few
C-MAC DA
extensions.
P-EtherType
C-MAC SA
P-VLAN CoS 2.3. MiM encapsulation
P-VLAN Tag
P-CFI QiQ and MAS can be combined and is equivalent to
C-VLAN Tag
P-VLAN ID MAC in MAC (MiM) scheme. MiM provides capabilities
C-EtherType that address the QiQ technology limitations, including
C-Payload subscriber/provider MAC address separation and
scalability. MiM also enables QoS capabilities. MiM
Figure 3. QiQ frame format prepends a Provider source and destination MAC address,
a Provider P-VLAN Tag (with 3 priority bits for QoS) and
One problem of QiQ is that provider’s and subscriber’s a Provider Service Label to the user’s Ethernet frame,
MAC addresses are visible to all networks. figure 5.
The Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) provides loop-free
connectivity across Ethernet bridges network [8]. Other P-MAC DA
problem is the of Bridge Protocol Data Units (BPDUs) P-MAC SA P-EtherType
used with STP. These frames have no VLAN tag and the P-VLAN CoS
P-EtherType
multicast destination MAC address 01:80:C2:00:00:00. P-CFI
QiQ cannot provide differentiation between subscriber P-VLAN Tag
P-VLAN ID
and provider BPDUs because each entity’s BPDUs have P-Serv.Label
the same MAC address. QiQ is aeffective option if the C-MAC DA P-EtherType
service is point to point, and there are no BPDUs [9][6].
C-MAC SA Service ID
2.2. MAS encapsulation C-VLAN Tag

The MAC Address Stacking (MAS) prevent the table C-EtherType

MAC address explosion. The ingress node insert two C-Payload
additional fields source and destination MAC addresses of
the provider edge nodes figure 4. Figure 5. MiM encapsulation
P-VLAN Tag identifies the Provider VLAN over which
the subscribers’ service frames are transported. The
Service ID identifies the service instance in the provider’s
network. MiM provides up to 16 million service
instances. The provider switches traffic based on the
provider’s MAC addresses. The subscribers’ frames are
tunneled by MiM and are not used by the provider’s
network switches, so the subscriber and provider
networks are separate and isolated.
The users’ BPDUs are tunnelled through the provider’s
network. There is not interaction between the STP of
provider’s and users’ networks.
Most of the above Ethernet technologies are currently
being investigated by the standardization bodies and are
applicable to a bridged provider network [1][6]. These
technologies can be also combined into an hierarchical
network to improved the providers networks performance
[10][11].
3. VPLS solutions
Two MPLS labels are added onto the customer Ethernet
frames based on destination MAC address/port/VLAN
information at the ingress node, figure 6.
VC label
VC label
Encapsulation fields
Tunnel label
Tunnel label
MAC
MACDADA
MAC SA
MAC SA
VLAN Tag
VLAN Tag
Original Customer frame
Original
EtherType
EtherType
DATA
DATA
CRC
CRC
Figure 6. MPLS layer 2 encapsulation
The tunnel label is inserted at the top of the stack, which
is then used by the MPLS network to reach the egress
node. The VC label is introduced at the bottom of the
stack is used by the egress node to deliver the frame to the
destination network.
The VPLS network has similar elements as layer 3 VPN
network [12][10]. One of the elements of the VPLS is the
Provider Edge router (PE) that is responsible for MAC
learning, interaction with customer STP and associating
the MAC address and VLAN customer with forwarding
Label Switch Path (LSP).
In a rough comparison between VPLS and Ethernet
technologies, the VC label can be seen as the Q-tag and
the tunnel label as MAS.
The layer 2 VPN networks must resolve some questions:
• How the Ethernet frames are encapsulated in
MPLS tunnels.
• How new customer sites are added/dropped, using
(discovery mechanisms).
• How tunnels (LSPs) are set up, using (signaling
mechanisms).
Several VPLS drafts have been proposed, but, because
they use different discovery and signaling mechanisms,
they are mutually exclusive. One of the most important
draft is the draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-00.txt that we
reference as Lasserre, the first author of the draft [13].
This draft proposes two architectures flat VPLS and
hierarchical VPLS.
3.1. Flat VPLS
Lasserre propose a VPLS architecture using Pseudo-
Wires (PW) as virtual Ethernet wires to connect virtual
Ethernet switches or Virtual Switch Instances (VSI). The
key of VPLS technology was the definition of Ethernet
over MPLS using draft-martini encapsulation [14] that
describes a mechanism whereby Ethernet can be
encapsulated within a MPLS LSP for transport.
Conceptually, VPLS can be thought of as an emulated
Ethernet switch where a VSI is analogous to a Virtual
LAN.
To reduce the complexity of VPLS architecture, Lasserre
propose a flat architecture whereby all VSIs within a
service instance is interconnected using a full mesh of
MPLS LSPs figure 7. To avoid loops among VSIs is
needed to implement a mechanism that could be STP.
Lasserre propose an easer technique known as split
horizon forwarding. With split horizon, a packet received
on an interface should never be forwarded back out of the
same interface. The client’s BPDU are tunnelled although
this is not desirable due to the scalability of the STP.
The forwarding operation follows the same rules than
Ethernet bridges, self learns source MAC address to port
and use this association to forward frames efficiently. If a
destination MAC address is unknown, broadcast or
multicast, floods that frame. The address learning is
considerate to be a date plane function.
Discovery and signaling mechanisms
Autodiscovery allows PE devices to automatically
discover other PE devices that belong to the same VPLS
service instance. Lasserre does not propose any specific
discovery mechanisms. The service provider is free to
choose one mechanism for its particular requirements.
There are different discovery methods with their own
attributes. Some of the mechanisms that can be used are:
static configuration, DNS, Radius, LDP and BGP [15]. In
order to choose the most convenient discovery
mechanism, it should be take into account scalability,
security and the ability to signal other attributes, e.g. QoS
profiles.
After a PE knows the other PE with the same VPLS
service instance, each PE needs to set up a PW between
them and bind the PWs to the particular VSI. Within the
IETF there are two signaling solutions, BGP [16] and
LDP. BGP broadcast set up information to all PE
members of the VLPS, even though the information can
be specific to a single PW. Not all the PWs will have the
same characteristics between each PE associated with a
VPLS. To signal point to point PW attributes is better to
use a peer to peer signaling protocol such as LDP [17].
Furthermore, Martini [18] is one of the most used method
to set up PW and encapsulate packets, and propose LDP
as signaling protocol.
Security is also an important issue. There are some attacks
that layer 2 switched are vulnerable (DoS, MAC flooding,
ARP and DNS spoofing, etc)[19]. Lasserre does not give
any recommendation about security.
There must be a full mesh of PWs and targeted LDP
sessions for VPLS discovery and signalling. This is a
scale issue. If there are m MAC addresses by service
instance; s, service instances; n, PE routers; the following
scaling figures can be calculated:
Total number of MAC addresses = m*s
Number of LDP session per PE= n-1
Total number of LDP session= (n-1)*n
Total number of LSP tunnel= n*(n-1)/2
The total number of LDP sessions, LSP tunnels and the
size of the MAC address table can be also an issue. The
PE ingress device must replicate each frame n times for
broadcast traffic and if n is large, there is an inefficient
user of network bandwidth and system resources, this is a
drawback of flat VPLS.
3.2. Hierarchical VPLS
Hierarchical VPLS has been proposed to resolve the
scaling limitation of the flat VPLS. H-VPLS employs a
distributed switching architecture made up of edge
domains formed by User PE (U-PE) connected to
Network PE (N-PE)[13]. The PE functions are distributed
between the U-PE, that is responsible for Ethernet
bridging (MAC learning and interaction with customer
STP) and the N-PE, that is responsible for associating the
MAC address and VLAN customer with forwarding LSP.
The edge domains are inter-connected using a MPLS
core, figure 7 (there is only one service instance). The
edge network topology can be a star or a ring while the
core network is a full mesh.
U-PE 1 N-PE 1 N-PE 2 U-PE 3
F B
B F
Full mesh
MPLS network
F B
B F
U-PE 2 N-PE 3 N-PE 4 U-PE 4
User Access Core Access
Figure 7. ME-H-VPLS loop avoidance.
Lets calculate the number of LSP tunnel if there are U U-
PE routes, N N-PE routes, and if U=N*K, where K is the
ratio between them and if there is only one LSP between a
U-PE and a N-PE, then:
U2
Total numbers of LSP tunnel = N * ( N − 1) + U ≈ N = 2 2 domain, the topology of the spanning tree can be
K simplified and will be faster to recover from failures. This
The number of the needed LSP tunnels is reduced by a K2
factor.
Lasserre proposed two different architectures, Ethernet
Edge Hierarchical VPLS (EE-H-VPLS) and MPLS Edge
Hierarchical VPLS (ME-H-VPLS). They differ in the
edge network, the first one is an IEEE bridged network
while the last one is a MPLS network.
3.2.1 Redundancy and loop avoidance in ME-
H-VPLS
These problems in the ME-H-VPLS architecture can be
studied in two different networks, the edge network and
the core network. The split horizon could be used within
the edge domain to prevent loops, but would increase the
cost and functionality of the U-PE devices. We consider a
full mesh network (figure 7) with of PWs between the U-
PE and N-PE devices. An U-PE simply forms PW
adjacencies with its associated N-PEs. Once the PWs
have been established between the U-PE and N-PEs and
bound to the particular VSI, the U-PE must block the
transmission and reception of packets on all of the PWs
but one (the higher IP address, for instance).
A frame is flooded to all PWs associated within the VSI,
except the PW the frame was received on. This is slightly
different to flat VPLS in that in flat VPLS, does not
forward frames received on a PW to other PWs associated
with a VSI (it is due to all VSI are connected by a full
mesh and only one forwarding is done). This rule is
broken within ME-H-VPLS networks, where several
forwarding steps are needed.
3.2.2 Redundancy and loop avoidance in EE-
H-VPLS
The EE-H-VPLS topology can be formed of point to point
Ethernet connections, or Ethernet rings using a STP to
provide loop avoidance, figure 8 (there is only one service
instance).
U-PE A N-PE 1 N-PE 2
F F
F
B F F F F U-PE C
F F F F B
B
F
F
User
U-PE B N-PE 3 N-PE 4
Local STP MPLS Clouds Local STP
Domain No BPDUs Passed Domain
Figure 8. Loops in a EE-H-VPLS architecture.
By limiting the extent of a STP to a particular edge
model uses Ethernet mechanisms such as STP to provide
loop avoidance at the edge and retains split horizon
forwarding for the core network.
It can be seen in figure 8 that a loop exists between N-
PE1 and N-PE3. There are two active PWs between them, In the third solution, the pseudo-N-PE is achieved by
one is on the direct Ethernet link (for redundant configuring each redundant pair of N-PEs with the same
connectivity) and the other one is on MPLS core. If a IP address that is used for LDP peering purposes [20].
broadcast frame is forwarded from U-PE A, N-PE1 will There is only one PW between the pseudo-N-PE in the
forward the frame to all ports associated with the VSI. MPLS network, figure 11. The rest of N-PES do not
Two copies of the broadcast frame will then be received receive o transmit any traffic to the MPLS network. We
by N-PE3, one on the direct link and another on the PW change the MPLS network topology from full mesh to
across the MPLS network. The frame received by the PW point to point.
is then forwarded on the Ethernet ports and the frame The BPDUs cannot be forwarded across MPLS network
received by direct trunk is forwarded to the rest of the and the STP is autonomous in each access network. If a
ports and PW associated with the VSI. Although this MPLS interface fails the LDP sessions will be re-
sounds like a violation of the split horizon, it conforms to established with the standby N-PE, figure 12. The
the rule as the broadcast is received on two different drawback is that the standby N-PE cannot be active at the
interfaces. This operation causes two loops. There are also same time.
two similar loops between N-PE2 and N-PE4, figure 8.
The loop avoidance characteristics of EE-H-VPLS are
complicated by the different mechanism used at edge and N-PE 1 N-PE 2
core networks and their interactions. In order to break the U-PE A (root) (root)
loops within the network there are three solutions that F F
may be considered: F
F U-PE C
1. Disable the STP at the N-PEs and forward BPDUs F F F F
frames transparently.
2. Use the STP and packet filtering to constrain data F F F F F
traffic. F
B F
3. Use IP addressing and routing protocol policies to
constrain the forwarding topology. U-PE B N-PE 3 N-PE 4
The first option has the disadvantage of extending the
spanning tree topologies and reducing the scalability of Local STP MPLS Clouds Local STP
the VPLS network, so is not considered. Domain No BPDUs Passed Domain

The second solution filter frames on direct Ethernet link, Figure 10. Loops with direct link in a EE-H-VPLS
figure 9. However, as spanning tree will still be required
to block U-PE interfaces (and so as not to introduce Directed LDP
another loop), BPDUs must be allowed across the direct Session
Pseudo
link. Pseudo
n-PE 1 N-PE 1 N-PE 2 n-PE 2
Filter everything U-PE A root root
N-PE 1 N-PE 2 but BPDUs
U-PE A (root) (root) F F F F
F
F F F U-PE C
B F F F
F
B F F F F U-PE C
F F F F B
F F F F B F
B F
B
F
F
U-PE B N-PE 3 N-PE 4
U-PE B N-PE 3 N-PE 4
Local STP MPLS core Local STP
Local STP MPLS Clouds Local STP Domain No BPDUs Passed Domain
Domain No BPDUs Passed Domain
Figure 11. EE-H-VPLS Pseudo-N-PE redundacy.
Figure 9. Filtering solution in a EE-H-VPLS architecture.

If a U-PE loses its primary link to N-PE1, the U-PE will

unblock it’s previously blocked port and normal
forwarding will follow. The drawback of this solution is
that the direct link must always be active and forwarding
or a loop will occur via one of the U-PE edge devices,
figure 10.
 Directed LDP
Session
Pseudo
N-PE 1 N-PE 2
n-PE 1
U-PE A root root
F F
B F F F
F http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l2vpn-charter.html
F B
F F F F
B
F
U-PE B N-PE 3 N-PE 4
Local STP MPLS core
Domain No BPDUs Passed
Figure 12. Fail at the core network in EE-H-VPLS Pseudo-
N-PE.
EE-H-VPLS described within [13] is compatible with the
proposed architecture and operation of IEEE 802.1ad
bridges.
H-VPLS comparation
In a ME-H-VPLS, the U-PE must support, label
operations, LSP setup, IP routing protocol, autodiscovery.
In the EE-H-VPLS, the edge device can be a standard
Ethernet switch (VLAN, STP, 802.1x security
authentication, traffic policing and buffer management)
that allow the Ethernet handle transport characteristics,
such as redundancy, QoS and security. The Ethernet
switch option is cheaper than U-PE due to productions
cost and the cost to support MPLS and associated MPLS
signalling.
Conclusions
In this article we have discussed several provider network
architectures to offer L2VPN services. Initially, two kind
of network architectures can be distinguished. One based
on Ethernet bridges technology and other based on MPLS
technology.
Most of the Ethernet technologies are currently being
investigated by the standardization bodies and are
applicable to a bridged provider network. These
technologies can also be combined in a hierarchical
network to improve its performance.
We have studied MPLS technology to deploy LAN
services, based on VPLS. Several drafts have been
proposed to the IETF that deliver VPLS capabilities,
although some of them are not compatible. We have
presented the Lasserre draft that has most vendor support.
Lassarre describe a flat VPLS architecture, and two
hierarchical VPLS architectures, one uses an access
network based on IEEE bridges network while the other
one is based on a MPLS network. We have also studied
their forwarding and loop avoidance mechanisms.
In the near future most of these technologies may coexist,
so interworking issues must also be studied.
View publication stats
References
[1] IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee “Virtual
Pseudo
n-PE 2
Bridged Local Area Networks: Provider Bridges”,
IEEE 802.1ad.
[2] Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn), IETF
F working group,
F U-PE C
[3] Metro Ethernet Services- A Technical Overview,
http://www.metroethernetforum.org.
F [4] L. Zier, W. Fischer, F. Brockners “Ethernet-Based
Public Communication Services: Challenge and
Opportunity”, IEEE Communication Magazine,
March 2004.
Local STP
Domain [5] IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee “Virtual
bridged local area networks” IEEE 802.1Q
[6] M. Holness, “Bridging Solution for the MAN:
Service Separation,
www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2002
[7] G. Chiruvolu et al., “Issues and Approaches on
Extending Ethernet Beyond LANs”. IEEE
Communication Magazine, March 2004.
[8] IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee “Media
Access Control (MAC) bridges” IEEE 802.1D.
[9] Nortel Networks “Service delivery technologies for
Metro Ethernet” White Paper.
[10] A. Sodder “Hierarchical LAN services”,
www.802.org, January 2003.
[11] Cisco System “Metro Ethernet WAN Services and
Arquitectures”. White paper 2002.
[12] V. Alwayn, “Advanced MPLS Design and
Implementation”. Cisco Press, September 2001.
[13] M. Lasserre et al., “Virtual Private LAN Services
over MPLS”http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l2vpn-
charter.html June, 2003.
[14] L. Martini et al., “Encapsulation Methods for
Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over IP and MPLS
Networks” www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft-
martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-05.txt, April 2003.
[15] Cisco System “Virtual Private LAN Service
Architectures and Operation”. White paper 2004.
[16] H. Ould-Brahim, et al., “Using BGP as an Auto-
Discovery Mechanism for Layer-3 and Layer-2
VPNs” draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-04.txt March
2004.
[17] Andersson et al. "Label Distribution Protocol
Specification", RFC 3036. January 2001
[18] L. Martini et al., “Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over
MPLS” www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martini-
l2circuit-trans-mpls-11.txt, April 2003.
[19] dsniff, http://naughty.monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/
[20] F. Brockners, N. Finn, S. Philips, “Metro Ethernet-
Deploying the extended Campus using Ethernet
Technology”, (LCN’03) 2003.