Hitless path segment monitoring
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-10

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2016-07-21 (latest revision 2016-05-31)
Replaces draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
Document shepherd Dave Sinicrope
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2015-12-20)
IESG IESG state AD is watching
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm@ietf.org, "David Sinicrope" <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>
Network Working Group                                    A. D'Alessandro
Internet-Draft                                            Telecom Italia
Intended status: Informational                              L. Andersson
Expires: December 2, 2016                            Huawei Technologies
                                                                 S. Ueno
                                                      NTT Communications
                                                                 K. Arai
                                                                Y. Koike
                                                                     NTT
                                                            May 31, 2016

                    Hitless path segment monitoring
             draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-10.txt

Abstract

   One of the most important OAM capabilities for transport network
   operation is fault localisation.  An in-service, on-demand segment
   monitoring function of a transport path is indispensable,
   particularly when the service monitoring function is activated only
   between end points.  However, the current segment monitoring approach
   defined for MPLS RFC 6371 [RFC6371] has drawbacks.  This document
   provides an analysis of the existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms for the
   path segment monitoring and provides requirements to guide the
   development of new OAM tools to support a Hitless Path Segment
   Monitoring (HPSM).

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 http://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 December 2, 2016.

D'Alessandro, et al.    Expires December 2, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Hitless path segment monitoring            May 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Requirements for hitless segment monitoring . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Backward compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Non-intrusive segment monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Multiple segments monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Single and multiple level monitoring  . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  HPSM and end-to-end proactive monitoring independence . .   9
     4.6.  Arbitrary segment monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.7.  Fault while HPSM is operational . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.8.  HPSM Manageability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.9.  Supported OAM functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   According to the MPLS-TP OAM requirements RFC 5860 [RFC5860],
   mechanisms MUST be available for alerting service providers of faults
   or defects that affects their services.  In addition, to ensure that
Show full document text