Internet Engineering Task Force S. Mansfield, Ed.
Internet-Draft E. Gray, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: May 20, 2010 H. Lam, Ed.
Alcatel-Lucent
November 16, 2009
MPLS-TP Network Management Framework
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-02
Abstract
This document provides the network management framework for the
Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to
describe the management architecture that could be used for an
MPLS-TP management network.
The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on multi-tiered
distributed management systems. This document provides a description
of the network and element management architectures that could be
applied and also describes heuristics associated with fault,
configuration, and performance aspects of the management system.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.
This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF
Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF
Last Call.
[RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and
insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published
RFC has IETF Consensus.]
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 BSD License.
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Network Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Element Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Standard Management Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Management and Control specific terminology . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Management Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Alarm Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. LSP ownership handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
1. Introduction
This document provides a framework for using the MPLS-TP NM
requirements [1] for managing the elements and networks that support
a Transport Profile for MPLS.
This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to
describe the management architecture that could be used for an
MPLS-TP management network.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.
1.1. Terminology
Communication Channel (CCh): A logical channel between network
elements (NEs) that can be used in (for example) management plane
applications or control plane applications. For MPLS-TP, the
physical channel supporting the CCh is the MPLS-TP Management
Communication Channel (MCC).
Data Communication Network (DCN): A network that supports Layer 1
(physical), Layer 2 (data-link), and Layer 3 (network) functionality
for distributed management communications related to the management
plane, for distributed signaling communications related to the
control plane, and other operations communications (e.g., order-wire/
voice communications, software downloads, etc.).
Equipment Management Function (EMF): The management functions within
an NE. See ITU-T G.7710 [2].
Local Craft Terminal (LCT): An out-of-band device that connects to an
NE for management purposes.
Label Switched Path (LSP): An MPLS-TP LSP is an LSP that uses a
subset of the capabilities of an MPLS LSP in order to meet the
requirements of an MPLS transport network as described in the MPLS-TP
framework [3].
Management Application Function (MAF): An application process that
participates in system management. See ITU-T G.7710 [2].
Management Communication Channel (MCC): A CCh dedicated for
management plane communications.
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
Message Communication Function (MCF): The communications process that
performs functions such as information interchange and relay. See
ITU-T M.3013 [7].
Management Communication Network (MCN): A DCN supporting management
plane communication is referred to as a Management Communication
Network (MCN).
MPLS-TP NE: A network element (NE) that supports MPLS-TP functions.
Another term that is used for a network element is node. In terms of
this document, the term node is equivalent to NE.
MPLS-TP network: A network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed.
Network Element Function (NEF): The set of functions necessary to
manage a network element.
Operations System (OS): A system that performs the functions that
support processing of information related to operations,
administration, maintenance, and provisioning (OAM&P) for the
networks, including surveillance and testing functions to support
customer access maintenance.
Signaling Communication Network (SCN): A DCN supporting control plane
communication is referred to as a Signaling Communication Network
(SCN).
Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): A CCh dedicated for control
plane communications. The SCC may be used for GMPLS/ASON signaling
and/or other control plane messages (e.g., routing messages).
2. Management Architecture
The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on a multi-
tiered distributed management systems, for example as described in
ITU-T M.3010 [8] and ITU-T M.3060/Y.2401 [9]. Each tier provides a
predefined level of network management capabilities. The lowest tier
of this organization model includes the MPLS-TP Network Element that
provides the transport service and the Operations System (OS) at the
Element Management Level. The Management Application Function (MAF)
within the NEs and OSs provides the management support. The MAF at
each entity can include agents only, managers only, or both agents
and managers. The MAF that include managers are capable of managing
an agent included in other MAF.
The management communication to peer NEs and/or Operations Systems
(OSs) is provided via the Message Communication Function (MCF) within
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
each entity (e.g. NE and OS). The user can access the management of
the MPLS-TP transport network via a Local Craft Terminal (LCT)
attached to the NE or via a Work Station (WS) attached to the OS.
2.1. Network Management Architecture
A transport Management Network (MN) may consist of several transport
technology specific Management Networks. Management network
partitioning (Figure 1) below based on ITU-T G.7710 [2] shows the
management network partitioning. Notation used in G.7710 for a
transport technology specific MN is x.MN, where x is the transport
specific technology. An MPLS-TP specific MN is abbreviated as MT.MN.
Where there is no ambiguity, we will use "MN" for an MPLS-TP specific
MN. In the figure below O.MSN is equivalent to an OTN management
Subnetwork.
______________________________ _________________________________
|.-------.-------.----.-------.||.--------.--------.----.--------.|
|: : : : :||: : : : :|
|:O.MSN-1:O.MSN-2: .. :O.MSN-n:||:MT.MSN-1:MT.MSN-2: .. :MT.MSN-n:|
|: : : : :||: : : : :|
'-============================-''-===============================-'
_______________________________
|.-------.-------.-----.-------.|
|: : : : :|
|:x.MSN-1:x.MSN-2: ... :x.MSN-n:|
|: : : : :|
'-=============================-'
Management Network Partitioning
Figure 1
The management of the MPLS-TP network is separable from the
management of the other technology-specific networks, and operates
independently of any particular client or server layer management
plane.
An MPLS-TP Management Network (MT.MN) could be partitioned into
MPLS-TP Management SubNetworks ("MT.MSN" or "MPLS-TP MSN", or just
"MSN" where usage is unambiguous) for consideration of scalability
(e.g. geographic or load balancing) or administrative (e.g.
administrative or ownership).
The MPLS-TP MSN could be connected to other parts of the MN through
one or more LCTs and/or OSs. The Message Communication Function
(MCF) of an MPLS-TP NE initiates/terminates, routes, or otherwise
processes management messages over CChs or via an external interface.
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
Multiple addressable MPLS-TP NEs could be present at a single
physical location (i.e. site or office). The inter-site
communications link between the MPLS-TP NEs will normally be provided
by the CChs. Within a particular site, the NEs could communicate via
an intra-site CCh or via a LAN.
2.2. Element Management Architecture
The Equipment Management Function (EMF) of a MPLS-TP NE provides the
means through which a management system manages the NE.
The EMF interacts with the NE's transport functions by exchanging
Management Information (MI) across the Management Point (MP)
Reference Points. The EMF may contain a number of functions that
provide a data reduction mechanism on the information received across
the MP Reference Points.
The EMF includes functions such as Date & Time, FCAPS (Fault,
Configuration, Accounting, Performance and Security) management, and
Control Plane functions. The EMF provides event message processing,
data storage and logging. The management Agent, a component of the
EMF, converts internal management information (MI signals) into
Management Application messages and vice versa. The Agent responds
to Management Application messages from the Message Communication
Function (MCF) by performing the appropriate operations on (for
example) the Managed Objects in a Management Information Base (MIB),
as necessary. The MCF contains communications functions related to
the outside world of the NE (i.e. Date & Time source, Management
Plane, Control Plane, Local Craft Terminal and Local Alarms).
The Date & Time functions keep track of the NE's date/time which is
used by the FCAPS management functions to e.g. time stamp event
reports.
Below are diagrams that illustrate the components of the Element
Management Function (EMF) of a Network Element (NE). The high-level
decomposition of the Network Element Function (NEF) picture
(Figure 2) provides the breakdown of the NEF, then the EMF picture
(Figure 3) provides the details of Equipment Management Function, and
finally the Message Communication Function (MCF) picture (Figure 4)
details the MCF.
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
____________________________________________________
| Network Element Function (NEF) |
| _________________________________________ |
|| | |
|| Transport Plane Atomic Functions | |
||_________________________________________| |
| | |
| | Management |
| | Information |
| ___________________|_________________ |
| | (from date/time)<-----------+ |
| | Equipment | | |
| | Management (to/from management)<--------+ | |
| | Function | | | |
| | (EMF) (to/from control)<-----+ | | |
| | | | | | |
| | (to local alarm)---+ | | | |
| |_____________________________________| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| +--------------------------------------+ | | | |
| | +---------------------------------------+ | | |
| | | +----------------------------------------+ | |
| | | | +-----------------------------------------+ |external
| | | | | Date & Time _________________ |time
| | | | | Interface | Message | |source
| | | | +-------------- Communication <-----------------------
| | | | | Function (MCF) | |
| | | | Management | | |management
| | | +----------------> | |plane
| | | Plane Interface <---------------------->
| | | | | |local
| | | | | |craft
| | | Control Plane | | |terminal
| | +------------------> <---------------------->
| | Interface | | |control
| | | | |plane
| | Local Alarm | <---------------------->
| +--------------------> | |
| Interface | | |to local
| | | |alarms
| |_________________--------------------->
|____________________________________________________|
High-level decomposition of NEF
Figure 2
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
______________________________________________________
| _______________________________________ |
| Equipment | Management Application ||
| Management | Function (MAF) ||
| Function | _________________ ||
| (EMF) || | __________________||
| ___________||_______________ | | ||
| | | | | Date & Time ||
| | Date & Time Functions | | | Interface ||<-- 1
| |____________________________| | |__________________||
| ___________||_______________ | __________________||
| | | | | ||
| | Fault Management | | | Management ||
| |____________________________| | | Plane Interface ||<-> 2
| ___________||_______________ | |__________________||
| | | | ||
| | Configuration Management | | __________________||
| |____________________________| | | ||
| ___________||_______________ | | Control ||
| | | | | Plane Interface ||<-> 3
| | Account Management | | |__________________||
| |____________________________| | ||
| ___________||_______________ | ||
| | | | ||
| | Performance Management | | ||
| |____________________________| | ||
| ___________||_______________ | ||
| | | | ||
| | Security Management | | ||
| |____________________________| | ||
| ___________||_______________ | ||
| | | | ||
| | Control Plane Function | | ||
| |____________________________| | ||
| || | __________________||
| || | | ||
| || | | Local Alarm ||
| +----->| Agent | | Interface ||--> 4
| v ||_________________| |__________________||
| .-===-. |_______________________________________||
| | MIB | |
| `-._.-' |
|______________________________________________________|
Equipment Management Function
Figure 3
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
_________________
| |
| Message |
| Communication |
| Function (MCF) |
| _______________ |
Date & Time || || external
1 <--------------|| Date & Time ||<--------------
Information || Communication || time source
||_______________||
| |
| _______________ |
Management || || management
Plane || Management || plane
2 <------------->|| Plane ||<------------->
Information || Communication || (e.g. - EMS,
||_______________|| peer NE)
| |
| _______________ | control
Control Plane || || plane
3 <------------->|| Control Plane ||<------------->
Information || Communication || (e.g. - EMS,
||_______________|| peer NE)
| : |
| : | local craft
| : | terminal
| : |<------------->
| _______________ |
Local Alarm || || to local
4 -------------->|| Local Alarm ||-------------->
Information || Communication || alarms...
||_______________||
|_________________|
Message Communication Function
Figure 4
2.3. Standard Management Interfaces
The MPLS-TP NM requirements [1] document places no restriction on
which management interface is to be used for managing an MPLS-TP
network. It is possible to provision and manage an end-to-end
connection across a network where some segments are created/managed/
deleted, for example by netconf or snmp and other segments by CORBA
interfaces. Use of any network management interface for one
management related purpose does not preclude use of another network
management interface for other management related purposes, or the
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
same purpose at another time. The protocol(s) to be supported are at
the discretion of the operator.
2.4. Management and Control specific terminology
Data Communication Network (DCN) is the common term for the network
used to transport Management and Signaling information between:
management systems and network elements, management systems to other
management systems, and networks elements to other network elements.
The Management Communications Network (MCN) is the part of the DCN
which supports the transport of Management information for the
Management Plane. The Signaling Communications Network (SCN) is the
part of the DCN which supports transport for signaling information
for the Control Plane. As shown in the communication channel
terminology picture (Figure 5) each technology has its own
terminology that is used for the channels that support management and
control plane information transfer. For MPLS-TP, the management
plane uses the Management Communication Channel (MCC) and the control
plane uses the Signaling Communication Channel (SCC).
2.5. Management Channel
The Communication Channel (CCh) provides a logical channel between
NEs for transferring Management and/or Signaling information. Note
that some technologies provide separate communication channels for
Management (MCC) and Signaling (SCC).
MPLS-TP NEs communicate via the DCN. The DCN connects NEs with
management systems, NEs with NEs, and management systems with
management systems.
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
Common Terminology ____
__________ __________ | |
| | | | /->| NE | \ ____
|Management| |Operations| / |____| \ | |
|Station | <---> |System | |(CCh) | NE |
|__________| |__________| \ _|__ / |____|
\->| | /
| NE |
|____|
Network Elements use a Communication
Channel (CCh) for Transport of Information
Management Terminology ____
__________ __________ | |
| | | | /->| NE | \ ____
|Management| |Operations| / |____| \ | |
|Station | <---> |System | |(MCC) | NE |
|__________| |__________| \ _|__ / |____|
\->| | /
| NE |
|____|
Network Elements use a Management
Communication Channel (MCC) for Transport
of Management Information
Control Terminology ____
__________ __________ | |
| | | | /->| NE | \ ____
|Management| |Operations| / |____| \ | |
|Station | <---> |System | |(SCC) | NE |
|__________| |__________| \ _|__ / |____|
\->| | /
| NE |
|____|
Network Elements use a Control/Signaling
Communication Channel (SCC) for Transport
of Signaling Information
Communication Channel Terminology
Figure 5
3. Fault Management
A fault is the inability of a function to perform a required action.
This does not include an inability due to preventive maintenance,
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
lack of external resources, or planned actions. Fault management
provides the mechanisms to detect, verify, isolate, notify, and
recover from the fault.
3.1. Supervision
ITU-T G.7710 [2] lists five basic categories of supervision that
provide the functionality necessary to detect, verify, and notify a
fault. The categories are: Transmission Supervision, Quality of
Service Supervision, Processing Supervision, Hardware Supervision,
and Environment Supervision. Each of the categories provides a set
of recommendations to ensure the fault management process is
fulfilled.
3.2. Validation
ITU-T G.7710 [2] describes a fault cause as a limited interruption of
the required function. It is not reasonable for every fault cause to
be reported to maintenance personnel. The validation process is used
to turn fault causes (events) into failures (alarms).
3.3. Alarm Handling
Within an element management system, it is important to consider
mechanisms to support severity assignment, alarm reporting control,
and logging.
4. Configuration Management
Configuration management provides the mechanisms to provision the
MPLS-TP services, setup security for the MPLS-TP services and MPLS-TP
network elements, and provides the destination for fault
notifications and performance parameters. Inventory reporting is
also considered part of configuration management.
Associated with configuration management are hardware and software
provisioning and inventory reporting.
4.1. LSP ownership handover
MPLS-TP networks can be managed not only by Network Management
Systems (i.e. Management Plane (MP)), but also by Control Plane (CP)
protocols. The utilization of the control plane is not a mandatory
requirement (see MPLS-TP Requirements [4]) but it is often used by
network operators in order to make network configuration and Label
Switched Path (LSP) recovery both faster and simpler.
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
In networks where both CP and MP are provided, an LSP could be
created by either (CP or MP). The entity creating an LSP owns the
data plane resources comprising that LSP. Only the owner of an LSP
is typically able to modify/delete it. This results in a need for
interaction between the MP and CP to allow either to manage all the
resources of a network.
Network operators might prefer to have full control of the network
resources during the set-up phase and then allow the network to be
automatically maintained by the Control Plane. This can be achieved
by creating LSPs via the Management Plane and subsequently
transferring LSP ownership to the Control Plane. This is referred to
as "ownership handover" RFC 5493 [10]. MP to CP ownership handover
is then considered a requirement where a Control Plane is in use that
supports it. The converse (CP to MP ownership handover) is a feature
that is recommended - but not required - for (G)MPLS networks because
it has only minor applications (for example moving LSPs from one path
to another as a maintenance operation).
The LSP handover procedure has already been standardized for GMPLS
networks, where the signaling protocol used is RSVP-TE RFC 3209 [5].
The utilization of RSVP-TE enhancements are defined in [6].
MP and CP interworking includes also the exchange of information that
is either requested by the MP, or a notification by the CP as a
consequence of a request from the MP or an automatic action (for
example a failure occurs or an operation is performed). The CP is
asked to notify the MP in a reliable manner about the status of the
operations it performs and to provide a mechanism to monitor the
status of Control Plane objects (e.g. TE Link status, available
resources), and to log Control Plane LSP related operations. Logging
is one of the most critical aspects because the MP always needs to
have an accurate history and status of each LSP and all Data Plane
resources involved in it.
5. Performance Management
Performance statistics could overwhelm a Management Network, so it is
important to provide flexible instrumentation that provides control
over the amount of performance data to be collected.
A distinction is made between performance data that is collected on-
demand and data that is collected proactively.
On-demand measurement provides the operator with the ability to do
performance measurement for maintenance purpose such as diagnosis or
to provide detailed verification of proactive measurement. It is
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
used typically on specific LSP service instances for a limited time,
thus limiting its impact on network performance under normal
operations. Therefore on demand measurement does not result in
scaling issues.
Proactive measurement is used continuously over time after being
configured with periodicity and storage information. Data collected
from proactive measurement are usually used for verifying the
performance of the service. Proactive performance monitoring has the
potential to overwhelm both the process of collecting performance
data at a Network Element (for some arbitrary number of service
instances traversing the NE), and the process of reporting this
information to the OS. As a consequence of these considerations,
operators would typically limit the services to which proactive
performance measurement would be applied to a very selective subset
of the services being provided and would limit the reporting of this
information to statistical summaries (as opposed to raw or detailed
performance statistics).
6. Acknowledgements
The authors/editors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful review,
comments and explanations provided by Diego Caviglia and Bernd
Zeuner.
7. Contributors
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
Provisions to any of the network mechanisms designed to satisfy the
requirements described herein need to prevent their unauthorized use
and provide a means for an operator to prevent denial of service
attacks if those network mechanisms are used in such an attack.
Solutions need to provide mechanisms to prevent private information
from being accessed by unauthorized eavesdropping, or being directly
obtained by an unauthenticated network element, system or user.
Performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization
involves extracting a significant amount of information about network
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
construction that the network operator considers private.
Section 4.3 of the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks
[11] document provides a description of the attacks on OAM, and also
discusses the background necessary to understand security practices
in Internet Service Provider environments. The security practices
described are applicable to MPLS-TP environments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[1] Mansfield, S. and K. Lam, "MPLS TP Network Management
Requirements", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-06 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[2] International Telecommunication Union, "Common equipment
management function requirements", ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/
Y.1701, July 2007.
[3] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "A Framework
for MPLS in Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[4] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and
S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-10 (work in progress),
August 2009.
[5] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and
G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001.
[6] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and S.
Bardalai, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension For Management Plane To
Control Plane LSP Handover In A GMPLS Enabled Transport
Network.", draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-04 (work in
progress), September 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[7] International Telecommunication Union, "Considerations for a
telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3013, February 2000.
[8] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for a
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3010, April 2005.
[9] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for the
Management of Next Generation Networks", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3060/Y.2401, March 2006.
[10] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan,
"Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections
and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493, April 2009.
[11] Fang, L. and M. Behringer, "Security Framework for MPLS and
GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07 (work in
progress), October 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Scott Mansfield (editor)
Ericsson
250 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone: +1 724 931 9316
Email: scott.mansfield@ericsson.com
Eric Gray (editor)
Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
US
Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP NM Framework November 2009
Hing-Kam Lam (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
600-700 Mountain Ave
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
US
Phone: +1 908 582 0672
Email: Kam.Lam@alcatel-lucent.com
Mansfield, et al. Expires May 20, 2010 [Page 18]