MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7023.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dinesh Mohan , Dr. Nabil N. Bitar , Philippe Niger , Ray Qiu , Simon DeLord , Ali Sajassi | ||
| Last updated | 2012-08-31 (Latest revision 2012-07-16) | ||
| Replaces | draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
by David Black
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Matthew Bocci | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2012-07-26 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7023 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Stewart Bryant | ||
| IESG note | |||
| Send notices to | pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk@tools.ietf.org |
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06
PWE3 Working Group Dinesh Mohan (Ed.)
INTERNET-DRAFT Nortel Networks
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 2013 Nabil Bitar (Ed.)
Verizon
Ali Sajassi (Ed.)
Cisco
July 16, 2012
MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06.txt
Abstract
This document specifies the mapping of defect states between
Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
Pseudowires (PWs) connected in accordance to the PWE3 architecture
to realize an end-to-end emulated Ethernet service. It standardizes
the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with respect to Ethernet PW
and AC defects.
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/.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013
[Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
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 January 15,2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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. Specification of Requirements ...................... 3
2. Introduction ....................................... 3
2.1. Reference Model and Defect Location............... 5
2.2. Abstract Defect States............................ 5
3. Terminology ........................................ 8
4. PW Status and Defects .............................. 9
4.1. Use of Native Service (NS) Notification........... 9
4.2. Use of PW Status Notification for MPLS PSNs...... 10
4.3. Use of BFD Diagnostic Codes ..................... 11
5. Ethernet AC Defect States Entry or Exit Criteria... 11
5.1. AC Receive Defect State Entry or Exit............ 11
5.2. AC Transmit Defect State Entry or Exit........... 13
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
6. Ethernet AC and PW Defect States Interworking...... 13
6.1. PW Receive Defect Entry Procedures............... 13
6.2. PW Receive Defect Exit Procedures................ 15
6.3. PW Transmit Defect Entry Procedures.............. 16
6.4. PW Transmit Defect Exit Procedures .............. 17
6.5. AC Receive Defect Entry Procedures............... 17
6.6. AC Receive Defect Exit Procedures................ 18
6.7. AC Transmit Defect Entry Procedures.............. 19
6.8. AC Transmit Defect Exit Procedures............... 19
7. Security Considerations............................ 20
8. IANA Considerations................................ 20
9. Acknowledgments.................................... 20
10. References........................................ 21
10.1. Normative References............................ 21
10.2. Informative References.......................... 22
11. Appendix A: Ethernet Native Service Management.... 22
1. Specification of Requirements
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].
2. Introduction
This document specifies the mapping of defect states between
Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
Pseudowires (PWs) connected in accordance to the PWE3 architecture
[RFC3985] to realize an end-to-end emulated Ethernet service. This
document augments the mapping of defect states between a PW and
associated AC of the end-to-end emulated service in [RFC6310]. It
covers the following Ethernet OAM (Opertaions, Administration and
Maintenance) mechanisms and their interworking with PW OAM
mechanisms:
- Ethernet Continuity Check (CC) [802.1ag][Y.1731]
- Ethernet Alarm Indication Signaling (AIS) and Remote Defect
Indication (RDI) [Y.1731]
- Ethernet Link OAM [802.3]
- Ethernet Local Management Interface {E-LMI} [MEF16]
Ethernet Link OAM [802.3] allows some Link defect states to be
detected and communicated across an Ethernet Link. When an Ethernet
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
AC is an Ethernet physical port, there may be some application of
Ethernet Link OAM [802.3]. Further, E-LMI [MEF16] also allows for
some Ethernet Virtual Circuit (EVC) defect states to be
communicated across an Ethernet UNI where Ethernet UNI constitutes
a single hop Ethernet Link (i.e. without any 802.1Q/.1ad compliant
bridges in between). There may be some application of E-LMI [MEF16]
for failure notification across single hop Ethernet AC in certain
deployments that specifically do not support [802.1ag] and/or
[Y.1731]. [Y.1731] and [802.1ag] based mechanisms are applicable in
all types of Ethernet ACs. Ethernet Link OAM [802.3] and E-LMI
[MEF16] are optional and their applicability is called out, where
applicable.
Native Service (NS) OAM may be transported transparently over the
corresponding PW as user data. This is referred to as "the single
emulated OAM loop" mode per [RFC6310]. For Ethernet, as an example,
802.1ag continuity check messages (CCMs) between two Maintenance
End Points (MEPs) can be transported transparently as user data
over the corresponding PW. At MEP locations, service failure is
detected when CCMs are not received over an interval that is 3.5
times the local CCM transmission interval. This is one of the
failure conditions detected via CC. MEP peers can exist between
Customer Equipment (CE) pairs (MEPs of a given Maintenance Entity
Group (MEG) reside on the CEs), PE pairs (the MEPs of a given MEG
reside on the PEs), or between the CE and PE (the MEPs of a given
MEG reside on the PE and CE), as long as the MEG domain nesting
rules are maintained. It should be noted that Ethernet allows the
definition of up to 8 MEG domains, each compromising of MEPs (down
MEPs and UP MEPs) and Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs). These
domains can be nested or touching. MEPs and MIPs generate and
process messages in the same domain level. Thus, whenever in this
document we refer to messages sent by a MEP or a MIP to a peer MEP
or MIP, these MEPs and MIPs are in the same MEG domain level.
When interworking two networking domains, such as native Ethernet
and PWs to provide an end-to-end emulated service, there is need to
identify the failure domain and location even when a PE supports
both the NS OAM mechanisms and the PW OAM mechanisms. In addition,
scalability constraints may not allow running proactive monitoring,
such as CCMs with transmission enabled, at a PE to detect the
failure of an EVC across the PW domain. Thus, network-driven alarms
generated upon failure detection in the NS or PW domain and their
mappings to the other domain are needed. There are also cases where
a PE may not be able to process NS OAM messages received on the PW
even when such messages are defined, as in Ethernet case,
necessitating the need for fault notification message mapping
between the PW domain and the NS domain.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
For Multi-Segment PWs (MS-PWs) [RFC5659], Switching PEs (S-PEs) are
not aware of the NS. Thus, failure detection and notification at S-
PEs will be based on PW OAM mechanisms. Mapping between PW OAM and
NS OAM will be required at the Terminating PEs (T-PEs) to propagate
the failure notification to the EVC endpoints.
Similar to [RFC6310], the intent of this document is to standardize
the behavior of PEs with respect to failures on Ethernet ACs and
PWs, so that there is no ambiguity about the alarms generated and
consequent actions undertaken by PEs in response to specific
failure conditions.
2.1. Reference Model and Defect Locations
Figure 1 is the same as used in [RFC6310] and is reproduced in this
document as a reference to highlight defect locations.
ACs PSN tunnel ACs
+----+ +----+
+----+ | PE1|==================| PE2| +----+
| |---(a)---(b)..(c)......PW1..(d)..(e)..(f)---(g)---| |
| CE1| (N1) | | | | (N2) |CE2 |
| |----------|............PW2.............|----------| |
+----+ | |==================| | +----+
^ +----+ +----+ ^
| Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 |
| |
|<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
Customer Customer
Edge 1 Edge 2
Figure 1: PWE3 Network Defect Locations
2.2. Abstract Defect States
Abstract Defect States are also introduced in [RFC6310]. This
document uses the same conventions, as shown in Figure 2, from
[RFC6310]. It may be noted however that CE devices, shown in Figure
2, do not necessarily have to be end customer devices. These are
essentially devices in client network segments that are connecting
to the Packet Switched Network (PSN) for the emulated services.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
+-----+
----AC receive ----->| |-----PW transmit---->
CE1 | PE1 | PE2/CE2
<---AC transmit------| |<----PW receive-----
+-----+
(arrows indicate direction of user traffic impacted by a defect)
Figure 2: Transmit and Receive Defect States and Notifications
PE1 may detect a receive defect in a local Ethernet AC via one of
the following mechanisms:
- An AIS alarm generated at an upstream node in the client
domain (CE1 in Figure 2) and received by a local MEP.
- Failure of the local link on which the AC is configured. Link
failure may be detected via physical failures (e.g., loss of signal
(LoS)), via Ethernet Link OAM [802.3] critical link event
notifications generated at an upstream node CE1 with "Dying Gasp"
or "Critical Event" indication, or via a client Signal Fail message
[Y.1731].
- Failure to receive CCMs on the AC if a local MEP is configured
for the AC with CCM transmission enabled.
- A CCM from CE1 with interface status TLV indicating interface
down. Other CCM interface status TLVs will not be used to indicate
failure or recovery from failure.
It should be noted when a MEP at a PE or a CE receives a CCM with
the wrong MEG ID, MEP ID, or MEP level, the receiving PE or CE
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
SHOULD treat such an event as an AC receive defect. In any case, if
such events persist for 3.5 times the MEP local CCM transmission
time, loss of continuity will be declared at the receiving end.
An AC receive defect at PE1 impacts the ability of PE1 to receive
user traffic from the Client domain attached to PE1 via that AC.
PE1 may detect a receive defect in the PW via one of the following
mechanisms:
- A Forward Defect notification received from PE2. This defect
notification could point to problems associated with PE2's
inability to transmit traffic on the PW or PE2's inability to
receive traffic on its local AC from CE2.
- Unavailability of a PSN path in the PW domain to PE2.
A PW forward defect indication received on PE1 impacts the ability
of PE1 to receive traffic on the PW.
PE1 may be notified of an AC transmit defect via one of the
following mechanisms:
- CCMs with RDI (Remote Defect Indication) bit set.
- In case when the AC is associated with a physical port,
failure of the local link on which the AC is configured (e.g., LOS
or via Ethernet Link OAM [802.3] critical link event notifications
generated at an upstream node CE1 with "Link Fault" indication).
An AC transmit defect impacts the ability of PE1 to send user
traffic on the local AC.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
Similarly, PE1 may be notified of a PW transmit defect via Reverse
Defect indication from PE2, which could point to problems
associated with PE2's inability to receive traffic on the PW or
PE2's inability to transmit traffic on its local AC.
PW transmit defect impacts PE1 ability to send user traffic toward
CE2. The procedures outlined in this document define the entry and
exit criteria for each of the four defect states with respect to
Ethernet ACs and corresponding PWs, and the consequent actions that
PE1 must support to properly interwork these defect states and
corresponding notification messages between the PW domain and the
Native Service (NS) domain. Receive Defect state SHOULD have
precedence over Transmit Defect state in terms of handling, when
both transmit and receive defect states are identified
simultaneously.
3. Terminology
This document uses the following terms:
- AIS: Alarm Indication Signal
- MD Level: Maintenance Domain (MD) Level which identifies a
value in the range of 0-7 associated with Ethernet OAM frame.
MD Level identifies the span of the Ethernet OAM frame.
- MEP: Maintenance End Point is responsible for
origination and termination of OAM frames for a given MEG.
- MIP: Maintenance Intermediate Point is located between
peer MEPs and can process OAM frames but does not initiate or
terminate them.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
- RDI: Remote Defect Indication.
Further, this document also uses the terminology and conventions
used in [RFC6310].
4. PW Status and Defects
[RFC6310] introduces a range of defects that impact PW status. All
these defect conditions are applicable for Ethernet PWs.
Similarly, there are different mechanisms described in [RFC6310] to
detect PW defects, depending on the PSN type (e.g. MPLS PSN, MPLS-
IP PSN). Any of these mechanisms can be used when monitoring the
state of Ethernet PWs. [RFC6310] also discusses the applicability
of these failure detection mechanisms.
4.1. Use of Native Service (NS) Notification
When a MEP is defined on the PE and associated with an Ethernet
PW, the PE can use native service OAM capabilities for failure
notifications. Options include:
- Sending of AIS frames from the local MEP to the MEP on the
remote PE when the MEP needs to convey PE receive defects, and when
CCM transmission is disabled.
- Suspension of CCM frames transmission from the local MEP to
the peer MEP on the remote PE to convey PE receive defects, when
CCM transmission is enabled.
- Setting the RDI bit in transmitted CCM frames, when loss of
CCMs from the peer MEP is detected or the PE needs to convey PW
reverse defects.
These NS OAM notifications are inserted into the corresponding PW.
Similarly, when the defect conditions are cleared, a PE can take
one of the following actions, depending on the mechanism that was
used for failure notification, to clear the defect sate on the peer
PE:
- Stopping AIS frame transmission from the local MEP to the
MEP on the remote PE to clear PW receive defects.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
- Resuming CCM frames transmission from the local MEP to the
peer MEP on the remote PE to clear PW forward defects notification,
when CCM transmission is enabled.
- Clearing the RDI bit in transmitted CCM frames, to clear PW
transmit defects notification, when CCM transmission is enabled.
4.2. Use of PW Status notification for MPLS PSNs
When PWs are established using LDP, LDP status notification
signaling MUST be used as the default mechanism to signal AC and PW
status and defects [RFC4447]. That is known as the "coupled loop
mode". For PWs established over an MPLS or MPLS-IP PSN using other
mechanisms (e.g. static configuration), inband signaling using
VCCV-BFD [RFC5885] SHOULD be used to convey AC and PW status and
defects.
[RFC6310] identifies the following PW defect status codepoints:
- Forward defect: corresponds to a logical OR of local AC
(ingress) Receive fault, local PSN-facing PW (egress) transmit
fault, and PW not forwarding fault.
- Reverse defect: corresponds to a logical OR of local AC
(egress) transmit fault and local PW PSN-facing (ingress)
receive fault.
There are also scenarios where a PE carries out PW label withdrawal
instead of PW status notification. These include administrative
disablement of the PW or loss of Target LDP session with the peer
PE.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
4.3. Use of BFD Diagnostic Codes
When using VCCV, the control channel (CC) type and Connectivity
Verification (CV) Type are agreed on between the peer PEs using the
OAM capability sub-TLV signaled as part of the interface parameter
TLV when using FEC 129 and the interface parameter sub-TLV when
using FEC 128.
As defined in [RFC6310], when CV type of 0x04 0r 0x10 is used to
indicate that BFD is used for PW fault detection only, PW defect is
detected via the BFD session while other defects, such as AC defect
or PE internal defects preventing it from forwarding traffic, are
communicated via LDP Status notification message in MPLS and MPLS-
IP PSNs or other mechanisms in L2TP-IP PSN.
Similarly, when CV type of 0x08 or 0x20 is used to indicate that
BFD is used for both PW fault detection and AC/PW Fault
Notification, all defects are signaled via BFD.
5. Ethernet AC Defect States Entry or Exit Criteria
5.1. AC Receive Defect State Entry or Exit
PE1 enters the AC Receive Defect state if any of the following
conditions is met:
- It detects or is notified of a physical layer fault on the
Ethernet interface. Ethernet link failure can be detected based on
loss of signal (LoS) or via Ethernet Link OAM [802.3] critical link
event notifications generated at an upstream node CE1 with "Dying
Gasp" or "Critical Event" indication.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
- A MEP associated with the local AC receives an Ethernet AIS
frame.
- A MEP associated with the local AC does not receive CCM frames
from the peer MEP in the client domain (e.g. CE1) within an
interval equal to 3.5 times the CCM transmission period configured
for the MEP. This is the case when CCM transmission is enabled.
- A CCM with interface status TLV indicating interface down. Other
CCM interface status TLVs will not be used to indicate failure or
recovery from failure.
PE1 exits the AC Receive Defect state if all of the conditions that
resulted in entering the defect state are cleared. This includes
all of the following conditions:
- Any physical layer fault on the Ethernet interface, if detected
or notified previously is removed (e.g., loss of signal(LoS)
cleared, or Ethernet Link OAM [802.3] critical link event
notifications with "Dying Gasp" or "Critical Event" indication
cleared at an upstream node CE1).
- A MEP associated with the local AC does not receive any Ethernet
AIS frame within a period indicated by previously received AIS, if
AIS resulted in entering the defect state.
- A MEP associated with the local AC and configured with CCM
enabled receives a configured number (e.g., 3 or more) of
consecutive CCM frames from the peer MEP on CE1 within an interval
equal to a multiple (3.5) of the CCM transmission period configured
for the MEP.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
- CCM indicates interface status up.
5.2. AC Transmit Defect State Entry or Exit
PE1 enters the AC Transmit Defect state if any of the following
conditions is met:
- It detects or is notified of a physical layer fault on the
Ethernet interface (e.g., via loss of signal (LoS) or Ethernet Link
OAM [802.3] critical link event notifications generated at an
upstream node CE1 with "Link Fault" indication).
- A MEP configured with CCM transmission enabled and associated
with the local AC receives a CCM frame, with its RDI bit set, from
the peer MEP in the client domain (e.g., CE1).
PE1 exits the AC Transmit Defect state if all of the conditions
that resulted in entering the defect state are cleared. This
includes all of the following conditions:
- Any physical layer fault on the Ethernet interface, if detected
or notified previously is removed (e.g., LOS cleared, Ethernet Link
OAM [802.3] critical link event notifications with "Link Fault"
indication cleared at an upstream node CE1).
- A MEP configured with CCM transmission enabled and associated
with the local AC does not receive a CCM frame with RDI bit set,
having received a previous CCM frame with RDI bit set from the peer
MEP in the client domain (e.g. CE1).
6. Ethernet AC and PW Defect States Interworking
6.1. PW Receive Defect Entry Procedures
When the PW status on PE1 transitions from working to PW Receive
Defect state, PE1's ability to receive user traffic from CE2 is
impacted. As a result, PE1 needs to notify CE1 about this problem.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
Upon entry to the PW Receive Defect state, the following must be
done:
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is not enabled, the MEP associated with the AC
must transmit AIS frames periodically to the peer MEP in the client
domain (e.g., on CE1) based on configured AIS transmission period.
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, and the MEP associated with the AC
is configured to support Interface Status TLV in CCM messages, the
MEP associated with the AC must transmit CCM frames with Interface
Status TLV as being down to the peer MEP in the client domain
(e.g., on CE1).
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, and the MEP associated with the AC
is configured to not support Interface Status TLV in CCM messages,
the MEP associated with the AC must stop transmitting CCM frames to
the peer MEP in the client domain (e.g., on CE1).
- If PE1 is configured to run E-LMI [MEF16] with CE1 and if E-LMI
is used for failure notification, PE1 must transmit E-LMI
asynchronous STATUS message with report type Single EVC
Asynchronous Status indicating that PW is Not Active.
Further, when PE1 enters the Receive Defect state, it must assume
that PE2 has no knowledge of the defect and must send reverse
defect failure notification to PE2. For MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN,
this is done via either a PW Status notification message indicating
a reverse defect; or via VCCV-BFD diagnostic code of reverse defect
if VCCV CV type of 0x08 had been negotiated. When Native Service
OAM mechanism is supported on PE1, it can also use the NS OAM
notification as specified in Section 4.1.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
If PW receive defect is entered as a result of a forward defect
notification from PE2 or via loss of control adjacency, no
additional action is needed since PE2 is expected to be aware of
the defect.
6.2. PW Receive Defect Exit Procedures
When the PW status transitions from PW Receive Defect state to
working, PE1's ability to receive user traffic from CE2 is
restored. As a result, PE1 needs to cease defect notification to
CE1 by performing the following:
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is not enabled, the MEP associated with the AC
must stop transmitting AIS frames towards the peer MEP in the
client domain (e.g., on CE1).
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, and the MEP associated with the AC
is configured to support Interface Status TLV in CCM messages, the
MEP associated with the AC must transmit CCM frames with Interface
Status TLV as being Up to the peer MEP in the client domain (e.g.,
on CE1).
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, and the MEP associated with the AC
is configured to not support Interface Status TLV in CCM messages,
the MEP associated with the AC must resume transmitting CCM frames
to the peer MEP in the client domain (e.g., on CE1).
- If PE1 is configured to run E-LMI [MEF16] with CE1 and E-LMI is
used for fault notification, PE1 must transmit E-LMI asynchronous
STATUS message with report type Single EVC Asynchronous Status
indicating that PW is Active.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
Further, if the PW receive defect was explicitly detected by PE1,
it must now notify PE2 about clearing of Receive Defect state by
clearing reverse defect notification. For PWs over MPLS PSN or
MPLS-IP PSN, this is either done via PW Status message indicating
working; or via VCCV-BFD diagnostic code if VCCV CV type of
0x08/0x20 had been negotiated. When Native Service OAM mechanism is
supported on PE, it can also clear the NS OAM notification
specified in Section 4.1.
If PW receive defect was established via notification from PE2 or
via loss of control adjacency, no additional action is needed,
since PE2 is expected to be aware of the defect clearing.
6.3. PW Transmit Defect Entry Procedures
When the PW status transitions from working to PW Transmit Defect
state, PE1's ability to transmit user traffic to CE2 is impacted.
As a result, PE1 needs to notify CE1 about this problem which has
been detected by PE1.
Upon entry to the PW Transmit Defect state, the following must be
done:
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, the MEP associated with the AC
MUST set the RDI bit in transmitted CCM frames or send status TLV
with interface down to the peer MEP in the client domain (e.g., on
CE1).
- If PE1 is configured to run E-LMI [MEF16] with CE1 and E-LMI is
used for fault notification, PE1 must transmit E-LMI asynchronous
STATUS message with report type Single EVC Asynchronous Status
indicating that PW is Not Active.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
6.4. PW Transmit Defect Exit Procedures
When the PW status transitions from PW Transmit Defect state to
working, PE1's ability to transmit user traffic to CE2 is restored.
As a result, PE1 needs to cease defect notifications to CE1 and
perform the following:
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, the MEP associated with the AC
must clear the RDI bit in the transmitted CCM frames to the peer
MEP (e.g., on CE1).
- If PE1 is configured to run E-LMI [MEF16] with CE1, PE1 must
transmit E-LMI asynchronous STATUS message with report type Single
EVC Asynchronous Status indicating that PW is Active.
6.5. AC Receive Defect Entry Procedures
When AC status transitions from working to AC Receive Defect state,
PE1's ability to receive user traffic from CE1 is impacted. As a
result, PE1 needs to notify PE2 and CE1 about this problem.
If the AC receive defect is detected by PE1, it must notify PE2 in
the form of a forward defect notification.
When NS OAM is not supported on PE1, and for PW over MPLS PSN or
MPLS-IP PSN, forward defect notification is done via either PW
Status message indicating a forward defect or via VCCV-BFD
diagnostic code of forward defect if VCCV CV type of 0x08/0x20 had
been negotiated.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
When Native Service OAM mechanism is supported on PE1, it can also
use the NS OAM notification as specified in Section 4.1.
In addition to the above actions, PE1 must perform the following:
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, the MEP associated with the AC
must set the RDI bit in transmitted CCM frames.
6.6. AC Receive Defect Exit Procedures
When AC status transitions from AC Receive Defect to working, PE1's
ability to receive user traffic from CE1 is restored. As a result,
PE1 needs to cease defect notifications to PE2 and CE1 and perform
the following:
- When NS OAM is not supported on PE1 and for PW over MPLS PSN or
MPLS-IP PSN, forward defect notification is cleared via PW Status
message indicating a working state; or via VCCV-BFD diagnostic code
if VCCV CV type of 0x08 or 0x20 had been negotiated.
- When Native Service OAM mechanism is supported on PE1, PE1 clears
the NS OAM notification as specified in Section 4.1.
- If PE1 is configured with a down MEP associated with the local AC
and CCM transmission is enabled, the MEP associated with the AC
must clear the RDI bit in transmitted CCM frames to the peer MEP in
the client domain (e.g., on CE1).
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
6.7. AC Transmit Defect Entry Procedures
When AC status transitions from working to AC Transmit Defect,
PE1's ability to transmit user traffic to CE1 is impacted. As a
result, PE1 needs to notify PE2 about this problem.
If the AC transmit defect is detected by PE1, it must notify PE2 in
the form of a reverse defect notification.
When NS OAM is not supported on PE1, in PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP
PSN, reverse defect notification is either done via PW Status
message indicating a reverse defect; or via VCCV-BFD diagnostic
code of reverse defect if VCCV CV type of 0x08 or 0x20 had been
negotiated.
When Native Service OAM mechanism is supported on PE1, it can also
use the NS OAM notification as specified in Section 4.1.
6.8. AC Transmit Defect Exit Procedures
When AC status transitions from AC Transmit defect to working,
PE1's ability to transmit user traffic to CE1 is restored. As a
result, PE1 must clear reverse defect notification to PE2.
When NS OAM is not supported on PE1 and for PW over MPLS PSN or
MPLS-IP PSN, reverse defect notification is cleared via either a PW
Status message indicating a working state or via VCCV-BFD
diagnostic code if VCCV CV type of 0x08 had been negotiated.
When Native Service OAM mechanism is supported on PE1, PE1 can
clear NS OAM notification as specified in Section 4.1.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
7. Security Considerations
The OAM interworking mechanisms described in this document do not
change the security functions inherent in the actual messages. All
generic security considerations applicable to PW traffic specified
in Section 10 of [RFC3985] are applicable to NS OAM messages
transferred inside the PW.
Security considerations in Section 10 of [RFC5085] for VCCV apply
to the OAM messages thus transferred. Security considerations
applicable to the PWE3 control protocol of [RFC4447] Section 8.2
apply to OAM indications transferred using the LDP status message.
Since the mechanisms of this document enable propagation of OAM
messages and fault conditions between native service networks and
PSNs, continuity of the end-to-end service depends on a trust
relationship between the operators of these networks. Security
considerations for such scenarios are discussed in Section 7 of
[RFC5254].
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Samer Salam, Matthew Bocci and Yaakov
Stein for their valuable comments.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC6310] "Pseudowire (PW) Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping", RFC 6310, July 2011.
[Y.1731] "OAM Functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
networks", ITU-T Y.1731, May 2006.
[802.1ag] "Connectivity Fault Management", IEEE 802.1ag, December
2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4447] "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using LDP", RFC4447,
April 2006.
[RFC5885] "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the
Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)",
RFC5885, June 2010.
[802.3] "CDMA/CD access method and physical layer specifications",
Clause 57 for Operations, Administration and Maintenance, 2005.
[MEF16] "Ethernet Local Management Interface", MEF16, January 2006.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3985] "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge(PWE3) Architecture",
RFC 3985, April 2005.
[RFC5659] "An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge", RFC5659, October 2009.
[RFC5254] Bitar, N., Bocci, M., and L. Martini, "Requirements for
Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 5254,
October 2008.
11. Appendix A: Ethernet Native Service Management
Ethernet OAM mechanisms are broadly classified into two categories:
Fault Management (FM) and Performance Monitoring (PM). ITU-T Y.1731
provides coverage for both FM and PM while IEEE 802.1ag provides
coverage for a sub-set of FM functions.
Ethernet OAM also introduces the concept of Maintenance Entity (ME)
which is used to identify the entity that needs to be managed. An
ME is inherently a point-to-point association. However, in case of
a multipoint association, Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) consisting
of different MEs is used. IEEE 802.1 uses the concept of
Maintenance Association (MA) which is used to identify both point-
to-point and multipoint associations. Each MA consists of
Maintenance End Points (MEPs) which are responsible for originating
OAM frames. In between the MEPs, there can also be Maintenance
Intermediate Points (MIPs) which do not originate OAM frames
however do respond to OAM frames from MEPs.
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
Ethernet OAM allows for hierarchical maintenance entities to allow
for simultaneous end-to-end and segment monitoring. This is
achieved by having a provision of up to 8 Maintenance Domain Levels
(MD Levels) where each MEP or MIP is associated with a specific MD
Level.
It is important to note that the common set of FM mechanisms
between IEEE 802.1ag and ITU-T Y.1731 are completely compatible.
The common FM mechanisms include:
1) Continuity Check Messages (CCM)
2) Loopback Message (LBM) and Loopback Reply (LBR)
3) Linktrace Message (LTM) and Linktrace Reply (LTR)
CCM messages are used for fault detection including misconnections
and mis-configurations. Typically CCM messages are sent as
multicast frames or Unicast frames and also allow RDI
notifications. LBM/LBR are used to perform fault verification,
while also allow for MTU verification and CIR/EIR measurements.
LTM/LTR can be used for discovering the path traversed between a
MEP and another target MIP/MEP in the same MA. LTM/LTR also allow
for fault localization.
In addition, ITU-T Y.1731 also specifies the following FM
functions:
4) Alarm Indication Signal (AIS)
AIS allows for fault notification to downstream and upstream nodes.
Further, ITU-T Y.1731 also specifies the following PM functions:
5) Loss Measurement Message (LMM) and Reply (LMR)
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
6) Delay Measurement Message (DMR) and Reply (DMR)
7) 1-way Delay Message (1DM)
While LMM/LMR is used to measure Frame Loss Ratio (FLR), DMM/DMR is
used to measure single-ended (aka two-way) Frame Delay (FD) and
Frame Delay Variation (FDV, also known as Jitter). 1DM can be used
for dual-ended (aka one-way) FD and FDV measurements.
Authors' Addresses
Dinesh Mohan
Nortel
3500 Carling Ave
Ottawa, ON K2H8E9
Email: dinmohan@hotmail.com
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02145
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134, US
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Simon Delord
Alcatel-Lucent
215 Spring Street
Melbourne, Australia
E-mail: simon.delord@gmail.com
Philippe Niger
France Telecom
2 av. Pierre Marzin
22300 LANNION, France
E-mail: philippe.niger@francetelecom.com
Ray Qiu
Huawei
330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050, US
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06 July 2012
Email: ray@huawei.com
Mohan, et al. Expires January 15, 2013 [Page 25]