Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14

DetNet Working Group                                           G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track                                 M. Chen
Expires: 21 June 2024                                             Huawei
                                                                B. Varga
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        19 December 2023

   Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
                 Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
                     draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14

Abstract

   This document defines format and usage principles of the
   Deterministic Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel over a
   DetNet network with the MPLS data plane.  The DetNet service
   Associated Channel can be used to carry test packets of active
   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance protocols that are used
   to detect DetNet failures and measure performance metrics.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 June 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Terminology and Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Keywords  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . .   4
     3.1.  DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering
           Functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . .   8
     4.2.  OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Registry . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet)
   architecture and how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and
   Ordering functions (PREOF) can be used to ensure a low packet drop
   ratio in a DetNet domain.

   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
   to detect and localize network defects, and to monitor network
   performance.  Some OAM functions (e.g., failure detection) are
   usually performed proactively in the network, while others (e.g.,
   defect localization) are typically performed on demand.  These tasks
   can be achieved through a combination of active and hybrid OAM
   methods, as classified in [RFC7799].

   Also, this document defines format and usage principles of the DetNet
   service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data
   plane [RFC8964].

2.  Conventions used in this document

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

2.1.  Terminology and Acronyms

   The term "DetNet OAM" is used in this document interchangeably with
   longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for
   Deterministic Networks".

   DetNet Deterministic Network

   d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header

   OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions

   PW Pseudowire

   E2E End-to-end

   BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   TSN IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking

   CFM Connectivity Fault Management

   F-Label - a Detnet "forwarding" label.  The F-Label identifies the
   LSP used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-
   hop label used between label switching routers.

   S-Label - a DetNet "service" label.  An S-Label is used between
   DetNet nodes that implement the DetNet service sub-layer functions.
   An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service
   sub-layer.

   Underlay Network or Underlay Layer - the network that provides
   connectivity between the DetNet nodes.  One example of an underlay
   layer is an MPLS network that provides Lqabel Switched Path (LSP)
   connectivity between DetNet nodes.

   DetNet Node - a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain.  Examples
   of DetNet nodes include DetNet domain Edge nodes, and DetNet nodes
   that perform PREOF within the DetNet domain.

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

2.2.  Keywords

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

3.  Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane

   OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the
   particular networking layer, thus it is critical that the data plane
   encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms that comply with the OAM
   requirements listed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework].

   Operation of a DetNet data plane with an MPLS underlay network is
   specified in [RFC8964].  Within the MPLS underlay network, DetNet
   flows are to be encapsulated analogous to pseudowires as specified in
   [RFC3985], [RFC4385].  For reference, the Generic Pseudowire (PW)
   MPLS Control Word (as defined in [RFC4385] and used with DetNet) is
   reproduced in Figure 1.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |0 0 0 0|                Sequence Number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format

   PREOF in the DetNet domain is composed of a combination of nodes that
   perform replication and elimination functions.  The Elimination sub-
   function always uses the S-Label in conjunction with the packet
   sequencing information (i.e., the Sequence Number encoded in the
   DetNet Control Word).  The Replication sub-function uses the S-Label
   information only.

3.1.  DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation

   DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses the PW Associated Channel Header
   defined in [RFC4385].  At the same time, a DetNet PW can be viewed as
   a Multi-Segment PW, where DetNet service sub-layer functions are at
   the segment endpoints.  However, DetNet service sub-layer functions
   operate per packet level (not per segment).  These per-packet level
   characteristics of PREOF require additional fields for proper OAM
   packet processing.  Encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS [RFC8964] active

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   OAM packet is shown in Figure 2.

         +---------------------------------+
         |                                 |
         |        DetNet OAM Packet        |
         |                                 |
         +---------------------------------+ <--\
         | DetNet Associated Channel Header|    |
         +---------------------------------+    +--> DetNet active OAM
         |           S-Label               |    |    MPLS encapsulation
         +---------------------------------+    |
         |         [ F-Label(s) ]          |    |
         +---------------------------------+ <--/
         |           Data-Link             |
         +---------------------------------+
         |           Physical              |
         +---------------------------------+

    Figure 2: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane

   Figure 3 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet
   OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP [RFC9025].

         +---------------------------------+
         |                                 |
         |        DetNet OAM Packet        |
         |                                 |
         +---------------------------------+ <--\
         | DetNet Associated Channel Header|    |
         +---------------------------------+    +--> DetNet active OAM
         |             S-Label             |    |    MPLS encapsulation
         +---------------------------------+    |
         |          [ F-label(s) ]         |    |
         +---------------------------------+ <--+
         |           UDP Header            |    |
         +---------------------------------+    +--> DetNet data plane
         |           IP Header             |    |    IP encapsulation
         +---------------------------------+ <--/
         |           Data-Link             |
         +---------------------------------+
         |           Physical              |
         +---------------------------------+

    Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   Figure 4 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header
   (d-ACH).

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number|         Channel Type          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Node ID               |Level|  Flags  |Session|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Figure 4: d-ACH Format

   The d-ACH encodes the following fields:

      Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001.  This allows the packet to be
      distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and from a DetNet data
      packet [RFC8964].

      Version - a 4-bit field.  This document specifies version 0.

      Sequence Number - is an unsigned circular 8-bit field.  The
      sequence number space is circular with no restriction on the
      initial value.  The originator DetNet node MUST set the value of
      the Sequence Number field before the transmission of a packet.
      the initial value SHOULD be random (unpredictable).  The
      originator node MUST increase the value of the Sequence Number
      field by 1 for each active OAM packet.

      Channel Type - is a 16-bit field, and the value of DetNet
      Associated Channel Type.  It MAY be one of the values defined in
      the IANA MPLS Generalized Associated Channel Types (including
      Pseudowire Associated Channel Types) registry [IANA-G-ACh-Types].

      Node ID - is an unsigned 20-bit field.  The value of the Node ID
      field identifies the DetNet node that originated the packet.  A
      DetNet node MUST be provisioned with a Node ID that is unique in
      the DetNet domain.  Methods of distributing Node ID are outside
      the scope of this specification.

      Level - is a 3-bit field.  The Level field is used to cope with
      the "all active path forwarding" characteristics of the PREOF
      concept.  A hierarchical relationship between OAM domains can be
      created using the Level field value.

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

      Flags - is a 5-bit field.  The Flags field contains five 1-bit
      flags.  Section 5.1 creates the IANA d-ACH Flags registry for new
      flags to be defined.  The flags defined in this specification are
      presented in Figure 5.

             0 1 2 3 4
            +-+-+-+-+-+
            |U|U|U|U|U|
            +-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Field Format

   U: Unused and for future use.  MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored
   on receipt.

      Session ID is a 4-bit field.  The Session field is used to
      distinguish OAM sessions originated from the same node (a given
      Maintenance End Point may have multiple simultaneously active OAM
      sessions).

   A DetNet flow, according to [RFC8964], is identified by the S-Label
   that MUST be at the bottom of the stack.  An Active OAM packet MUST
   include d-ACH immediately following the S-Label.

3.2.  DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
      Interaction with Active OAM

   At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions (notably PREOF)
   MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow to potentially reduce
   packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery, and
   ensure in-order packet delivery.  PREOF relies on sequencing
   information in the DetNet service sub-layer.  For a DetNet active OAM
   packet, PREOF MUST use the bit string from bit 4 through bit 31
   inclusive of the first 32-bit word of the d-ACH, i.e., the
   concatenation of Version, Sequence Number, and Channel Type fields,
   as the source of this sequencing information.  In that, DetNet OAM
   uses a 28-bit field for sequencing and is conforming to Section 4.1
   of [RFC8964].

4.  OAM Interworking Models

   Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
   technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model.
   In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network
   domain.  When using the peering model, state changes that are
   detected by a Fault Management OAM protocol can be mapped from one
   OAM domain into another or a notification, e.g., an alarm, can be

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   sent to a central controller.  In the tunneling model of OAM
   interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used.  Its
   test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
   flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.

4.1.  OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN

   Active DetNet OAM can provide the end-to-end (E2E) fault management
   and performance monitoring for a DetNet flow.  In the case of DetNet
   with an MPLS data plane and an IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking
   (TSN) sub-network, this implies the interworking of DetNet active OAM
   with TSN OAM, which data plane aspects are specified in [RFC9037].

   When the peering model (Section 4) is used in Connectivity Fault
   Management (CFM) OAM protocol [IEEE.CFM], then the node that borders
   both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST support [RFC7023].  [RFC7023]
   specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment
   Circuits and associated Ethernet PWs that are part of an E2E emulated
   Ethernet service, and are also applicable to E2E OAM across DetNet
   MPLS and TSN domains.  The CFM [IEEE.CFM] or in [ITU.Y1731] can
   provide fast detection of a failure in the TSN segment of the DetNet
   service.  In the DetNet MPLS domain BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection), specified in [RFC5880] and [RFC5885], can be used.  To
   provide E2E failure detection, the TSN and DetNet MPLS segments could
   be treated as concatenated such that the diagnostic codes (see
   Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880]) MAY be used to inform the upstream
   DetNet MPLS node of a failure of the TSN segment.  Performance
   monitoring can be supported by [RFC6374] in the DetNet MPLS and
   [ITU.Y1731] in the TSN domains, respectively.  Performance objectives
   for each domain should refer to metrics that is composable [RFC6049]
   or be defined for each domain separately.

   The following considerations apply when using the tunneling model of
   OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN domains based on general
   principles described in Section 4 of [RFC9037]:

   *  Active OAM test packets MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID
      as the monitored DetNet flow.

   *  Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
      its S-Label and Class of Service marking (the Traffic Class field
      value).

   Mapping between a DetNet flow and TSN Stream in the TSN sub-network
   is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC9037].  The mapping has to be done
   only on the edge node of the TSN sub-network, and intermediate TSN
   nodes do not need to recognize the S-Label.  An edge node has two
   components:

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   1.  A passive Stream identification function.

   2.  An active Stream identification function.

   The first component identifies the DetNet flow (using Clause 6.8 of
   [IEEE.802.1CBdb]), and the second component creates the TSN Stream by
   manipulating the Ethernet header.  That manipulation simplifies the
   identification of the TSN Stream in the intermediate TSN nodes by
   avoiding the need for them to look outside of the Ethernet header.
   DetNet MPLS OAM packets use the same S-Label as the DetNet flow data
   packets.  The above-described mapping function treats these OAM
   packets as data packets of the DetNet flow.  As a result, DetNet MPLS
   OAM packets are fate-sharing within the TSN sub-network.  As an
   example of the mapping between DetNet MPLS and TSN, see Annex C.1 of
   [IEEE.802.1CBdb] that, in support of [RFC9037], describes how to
   match MPLS DetNet flows and TSN Streams can be achieved.

   Note that the tunneling model of the OAM interworking requires that
   the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM
   protocol selected on the ingress endpoint.  For example, if BFD is
   used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS
   domain, BFD support (as defined in [RFC5885]) is necessary at any TSN
   endpoint of the DetNet service.

4.2.  OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP

   Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
   domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
   tunneling model, as discussed in Section 4.1.  Using the same
   protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
   errors in the peering model.  To provide performance monitoring over
   a DetNet IP domain, STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions [RFC8972] can
   be used.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Registry

   This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify d-ACH
   Flags bits.  The registration procedure is "IETF Review" [RFC8126].
   The registry name is "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH)
   Flags".  IANA should treat "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH)
   Flags" as the name of the registry group.  There are five flags in
   the five-bit Flags field, defined as in Table 1.

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

                   +=====+=============+===============+
                   | Bit | Description | Reference     |
                   +=====+=============+===============+
                   | 0-4 |  Unassigned | This document |
                   +-----+-------------+---------------+

                         Table 1: DetNet Associated
                        Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags

6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in DetNet specifications [RFC8655],
   [RFC9055], [RFC8964] are applicable to this document.  Security
   concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping
   [RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification.

7.  Acknowledgment

   Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
   insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
   the document.  The authors are enormously grateful to Janos Farkas
   for his detailed comments and the inspiring discussion that made this
   document clearer and stronger.  The authors recognize helpful reviews
   and suggestions from Andrew Malis, David Black, Tianran Zhou, and
   Kiran Makhijani.  And special thanks are addressed to Ethan Grossman
   for his fantastic help in improving the document.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]
              Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
              C. J., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
              Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
              Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09, 5 October 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
              oam-framework-09>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   [RFC7023]  Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
              S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
              RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7023>.

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

   [RFC8655]  Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.

   [RFC8964]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
              S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
              Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.

   [RFC9025]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
              Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
              MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.

8.2.  Informational References

   [IANA-G-ACh-Types]
              IANA, "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
              (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
              parameters.xhtml#mpls-g-ach-types>.

   [IEEE.802.1CBdb]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks--Frame Replication and Elimination for
              Reliability Amendment 2: Extended Stream Identification
              Functions", IEEE 802.1CBdb, 2021.

   [IEEE.CFM] IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE
              802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013.

   [ITU.Y1731]
              ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
              Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
              2013.

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
              Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.

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

   [RFC4928]  Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
              Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
              RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC5885]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
              Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.

   [RFC6049]  Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
              Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

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

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          OAM for DetNet over MPLS           December 2023

   [RFC8762]  Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.

   [RFC8972]  Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
              and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.

   [RFC9037]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
              IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.

   [RFC9055]  Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
              Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei
   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Balazs Varga
   Ericsson
   Budapest
   Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
   1117
   Hungary
   Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com

Mirsky, et al.            Expires 21 June 2024                 [Page 13]