Network Working Group N. Sprecher, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational H. van Helvoort, Ed.
Expires: May 13, 2010 Huawei
E. Bellagamba
Ericsson
Y. Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
Nov 09, 2009
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00.txt
Abstract
This document analyzes the set of requirements for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for the Transport Profile of
MPLS(MPLS-TP) as defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs], to evaluate whether
existing OAM tools (either from the current MPLS toolset or from the
ITU-T documents) can be applied to these requirements. Eventually,
the purpose of the document is to recommend which of the existing
tools should be extended and what new tools should be defined to
support the set of OAM requirements for MPLS-TP. This document
reports the conclusions of the MPLS-TP design team discussions
concerning the MPLS-TP OAM tools at IETF75.
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-
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.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Organization of the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. MPLS BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5. PW VCCV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6. ITU Recommendation Y.1731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Architectural requirements and general principles of
operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Architectural and Principles of Operation -
Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. MPLS-TP OAM Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification . . . . . . 13
3.1.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.2. Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.3. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Alarm Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. Diagnostic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4. Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6. Lock Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7. Remote Defect Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.8. Client Failure Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.8.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.8.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.9. Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.9.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.9.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.10. Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.10.1. Existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.10.2. Recommendations and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. MPLS-TP OAM Documents Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
5.1. Document 1: "Encapsulation of BFD and LspPing in ACH" . . 22
5.2. Document 2: "Extended BFD" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3. Document 3: "Extended LSP Ping" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4. Document 4: "Extensions for Lock Instruct" . . . . . . . . 24
5.5. Document 5: "AIS and Lock Reporting" . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.6. Document 6: "Client Fault Indication" . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7. Document 7: "Packet Loss" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.8. Document 8: "Packet Delay" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.9. Document 9: "Diagnostic Tests" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope
OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) plays a significant
role in carrier networks, providing methods for fault management and
performance monitoring in both the transport and the service layers
in order to improve their ability to support services with guaranteed
and strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) while reducing their
operational costs.
[MPLS-TP Reqs] in general, and [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] in particular
define a set of requirements for OAM functionality in MPLS-Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) for MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs) (network
infrastructure) and Pseudowires (PWs) (services).
The purpose of this document is to analyze the OAM requirements and
evaluate whether existing OAM tools defined for MPLS can be used to
meet the requirements, identify which tools need to be extended to
comply with the requirements, and which new tools need to be defined.
We also take the ITU-T OAM toolset, as defined in [Y.1731], as a
candidate to base these new tools upon. The existing tools that are
evaluated include LSP Ping (defined in [LSP Ping]), MPLS Bi-
directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) (defined in [BASE BFD]) and
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) (defined in [PW
VCCV] and [VCCV BFD]), and the ITU-T OAM toolset defined in [Y.1731].
This document reports the conclusions of the MPLS-TP design team
discussions on the MPLS-TP OAM tools at IETF75 and the guidelines
that were agreed. The guidelines refer to a set of existing OAM
tools that need to be enhanced to fully support the MPLS-TP OAM
requirements and identify new tools that need to be defined. The
organizational structure of the documents on MPLS-TP OAM tools was
also discussed and agreed at IETF75 and is described later in this
document.
1.2. Organization of the document
Sections 1.3 - 1.6 provide an overview of the existing MPLS tools.
Section 2 of the document analyzes the requirements that are
documented in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] and provides basic principles of
operation for the OAM functionality that is required.
Section 3 evaluates which existing tools can provide coverage for the
different OAM functions that are required to support MPLS-TP.
The recommendations are summarized in section 4, and reflect the
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
guidelines which were agreed by the MPLS-TP design team during the
meetings at IETF 75. These guidelines relate to the functionality
could be covered by the existing toolset and what extensions or new
tools would be needed in order to provide full coverage of the OAM
functionality for MPLS-TP.
The OAM tools for MPLS-TP OAM will be defined in a set of documents.
Section 5 describes the organization of this set of documents as
agreed by the MPLS-TP design team at IETF75.
1.3. LSP Ping
LSP Ping is a variation of ICMP Ping and traceroute [ICMP] adapted to
the needs of MPLS LSP. Forwarding, of the LSP Ping packets, is based
upon the LSP Label and label stack, in order to guarantee that the
echo messages are switched in-band (i.e. over the same data route) of
the LSP. However, it should be noted that the messages are
transmitted using IP/UDP encapsulation and IP addresses in the 127/8
(loopback) range. The use of the loopback range guarantees that the
LSP Ping messages will be terminated, by a loss of connectivity or
inability to continue on the path, without being transmitted beyond
the LSP. For a bi-directional LSP (either associated or co-routed)
the return message of the LSP Ping could be sent on the return LSP.
For unidirectional LSPs and in some case for bi-directional LSPs, the
return message may be sent using IP forwarding to the IP address of
the LSP ingress node.
LSP Ping extends the basic ICMP Ping operation (of data-plane
connectivity and continuity check) with functionality to verify data-
plane vs. control-plane consistency for a Forwarding Equivalence
Class (FEC) and also Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) problems. The
traceroute functionality may be used to isolate and localize the MPLS
faults, using the Time-to-live (TTL) indicator to incrementally
identify the sub-path of the LSP that is successfully traversed
before the faulty link or node.
As mentioned above, LSP Ping requires the presenece of the MPLS
control plane when verifying the consistency of the data-plane
against the control-plane. However, LSP Ping is not dependent on the
MPLS control-plane for its operation, i.e. even though the
propagation of the LSP label may be performed over the control-plane
via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP).
It should be noted that LSP Ping does support unique identification
of the LSP within an addressing domain. The identification is
checked using the full FEC identification. LSP Ping is easily
extensible to include additional information needed to support new
functionality, by use of Type-Length-Value (TLV) constructs.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
LSP Ping can be activated both in on-demand and pro-active
(asynchronous) modes, as defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
[P2MP LSP Ping] clarifies the applicability of LSP Ping to MPLS P2MP
LSPs, and extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP Ping to the
MPLS P2MP environment.
[MPLS LSP Ping] extends LSP Ping to operate over MPLS tunnels or for
a stitched LSP.
As pointed out above, TTL exhaust is the method used to terminate
flows at intermediate LSRs. This is used as part of the traceroute
of a path and to locate a problem that was discovered previously.
Some of the drawbacks identified with LSP Ping include - LSP Ping is
considered to be computational intensive as pointed out in [MPLS
BFD]. The applicability for a pro-active mode of operation is
analyzed in the sections below. Use of the loopback address range
(to protect against leakage outside the LSP) assumes that all of the
intermediate nodes support some IP functionality. Note that ECMP is
not supported in MPLS-TP, therefore its implication on OAM
capabilities is not analyzed in this document.
1.4. MPLS BFD
BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) [BASE BFD] is a mechanism
that is defined for fast fault detection for point-to-point
connections. BFD defines a simple packet that may be transmitted
over any protocol, dependent on the application that is employing the
mechanism. BFD is dependent upon creation of a session that is
agreed upon by both ends of the link (which may be a single link,
LSP, etc.) that is being checked. The session is assigned a separate
identifier by each end of the path being monitored. This session
identifier is by nature only unique within the context of node that
assigned it. As part of the session creation, the end-points
negotiate an agreed transmission rate for the BFD packets. BFD
supports an echo function to check the continuity, and verify the
reachability of the desired destination. BFD does not support
neither a discovery mechanism nor a traceroute capability for fault
localization, these must be provided by use of other mechanisms. The
BFD packets support authentication between the routers being checked.
BFD can be used in pro-active (asynchronous) and on-demand modes, as
defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs], of operation.
[MPLS BFD] defines the use of BFD for P2P LSP end-points and is used
to verify data-plane continuity. It uses a simple hello protocol
which can be easily implemented in hardware. The end-points of the
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
LSP exchange hello packets at negotiated regular intervals and an
end-point is declared down when expected hello packets do not show
up. Failures in each direction can be monitored independently using
the same BFD session. The use of the BFD echo function and on-demand
activation are outside the scope of the MPLS BFD specification.
The BFD session mechanism requires an additional (external) mechanism
to bootstrap and bind the session to a particular LSP or FEC. LSP
Ping is designated by [MPLS BFD] as the bootstrap mechanism for the
BFD session in an MPLS environment. The implication is that the
session establishment BFD messages for MPLS are transmitted using a
IP/UDP encapsulation.
In order to be able to identify certain extreme cases of mis-
connectivity, it is necessary that each managed connection have its
own unique identifiers. BFD uses Discriminator values to identify
the connection being verified, at both ends of the path. These
discriminator values are set by each end-node to be unique only in
the context of that node. This limited scope of uniqueness would not
identify a misconnection of crossing paths that could assign the same
discriminators to the different sessions.
1.5. PW VCCV
[PW VCCV] provides end-to-end fault detection and diagnostics for PWs
(regardless of the underlying tunneling technology). The VCCV
switching function provides a control channel associated with each PW
(based on the PW Associated Channel Header (ACH) which is defined in
[PW ACH]), and allows sending OAM packets in-band with PW data (using
CC Type 1: In-band VCCV)
VCCV currently supports the following OAM mechanisms: ICMP Ping, LSP
Ping, and BFD. ICMP and LSP Ping are IP encapsulated before being
sent over the PW ACH. BFD for VCCV supports two modes of
encapsulation - either IP/UDP encapsulated (with IP/UDP header) or
PW-ACH encapsulated (with no IP/UDP header) and provides support to
signal the AC status. The use of the VCCV control channel provides
the context, based on the MPLS-PW label, required to bind and
bootstrap the BFD session to a particular pseudo wire (FEC),
eliminating the need to exchange Discriminator values.
VCCV consists of two components: (1) signaled component to
communicate VCCV capabilities as part of VC label, and (2) switching
component to cause the PW payload to be treated as a control packet.
VCCV is not directly dependent upon the presence of a control plane.
The VCCV capability negotiation may be performed as part of the PW
signaling when LDP is used. In case of manual configuration of the
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
PW, it is the responsibility of the operator to set consistent
options at both ends.
1.6. ITU Recommendation Y.1731
[Y.1731] specifies a set of OAM procedures and related packet data
unit (PDU) formats that meet the transport network requirements for
OAM. These PDU and procedures address similar requirements to those
outlined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
The PDU and procedures defined in [Y.1731] are described for an
Ethernet environment, with the appropriate encapsulation for that
environment. However, the actual PDU formats are technology agnostic
and could be carried over different encapsulations, e.g. VCCV
control channel. The OAM procedures, likewise, could be supported by
MPLS-TP nodes just as they are supported by Ethernet nodes.
[Y.1731] describes procedures to support the following OAM functions:
o Connectivity and Continuity Monitoring - for pro-active mode end-
to-end checking
o Loopback functionality - to verify connectivity to intermediate
nodes in an on-demand mode
o Link Trace - provides information on the intermediate nodes of the
path being monitored, may be used for fault localization. This is
activated in an on-demand mode.
o Alarm Indication Signaling - for alarm suppression in case of
faults that are detected at the server layer, activated pro-
actively.
o Remote Defect Indication - as part of the Connectivity and
Continuity Monitoring packets, performed pro-actively
o Locked Signal - for alarm suppression in case of administrative
locking at the server layer. This function is performed pro-
actively.
o Performance monitoring - including measurement of packet delays
both uni and bi-directional (on-demand), measurement of the ratio
of lost packets (pro-active), the effective bandwidth that is
supported without packet loss, and throughput measurement.
The PDU defined in [Y.1731] includes various information elements
(fields) including information on the MEG-Level, etc. Addressing of
the PDU as defined in [Y.1731] is based on the MAC Address of the
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
nodes, which would need to be adjusted to support other addressing
schemes. The addressing information is carried in <Type, Length,
Value> (TLV) fields that follow the actual PDU. In the LBM PDU the
MAC address is used to identify the MIP to which the message is
intended
1.7. Acronyms
This draft uses the following acronyms:
+---------+------------------------------------------------+
| AC | Attachment Circuit |
| ACH | Associated Channel Header |
| BFD | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection |
| CC-V | Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification |
| FEC | Forwarding Equivalence Class |
| G-ACH | Generic Associated Channel Header |
| LDP | Label Distribution Protocol |
| LSP | Label Switched Path |
| MPLS-TP | Transport Profile for MPLS |
| OAM | Operations, Administration, and Maintenance |
| PDU | Packet Data Unit |
| PW | Pseudowire |
| RDI | Remote Defect Indication |
| SLA | Service Level Agreement |
| TLV | Type, Length, Value |
| TTL | Time-to-live |
| VCCV | Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification |
+---------+------------------------------------------------+
2. Architectural requirements and general principles of operation
[MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] defines a set of requirements on OAM architecture
and general principles of operations which are evaluated below:
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that OAM mechanisms in MPLS-TP are
independent of the transmission media and of the client service
being emulated by the PW. The existing tools comply with this
requirement.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that the MPLS-TP OAM MUST be able to
support both an IP based and non-IP based environment. If the
network is IP based, i.e. IP routing and forwarding are
available, then the MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST be able to operate by
relying on the IP routing and forwarding capabilities. All of the
existing MPLS tools (i.e. LSP Ping, VCCV Ping, MPLS BFD, and VCCV
BFD) can support this functionality. The Y.1731 toolset does not
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
specifically support this functionality, but rather relies on
underlying technologies for forwarding this could also be over IP,
e.g. by using a VCCV extension. Note that some of the MPLS-TP
tools such as Alarm Report are very transport oriented and may not
support IP functionality.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that MPLS-TP OAM MUST be able to
operate without IP functionality and without relying on control
and/or management planes. It is required that OAM functionality
MUST NOT be dependent on IP routing and forwarding capabilities.
Except for the LSP Ping operation of verifying the data-plane vs.
the control-plane, the existing tools do not rely on control
and/or management plane, however the following should be observed
regarding the reliance on IP functionality:
* LSP Ping, VCCV Ping, and MPLS BFD makes use of IP header
(UDP/IP) and do not completely comply with the requirement. In
the on-demand mode, LSP Ping also may use IP forwarding to
reply back to the source router. This dependence on IP, has
further implications concerning the use of LSP Ping as the
bootstrap mechanism for BFD for MPLS. There are extensions to
LSP-Ping that are under discussion that allow LSP-Ping to
restrict replies to the backside of a bidirectional LSP.
* VCCV BFD supports the use of PW-ACH encapsulated BFD sessions
for PWs and can comply with the requirement.
* Y.1731 PDU are technology agnostic and thereby not dependent on
IP functionality. These PDU could be carried by VCCV or G-ACH
control channels.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that OAM tools for fault management do
not rely on user traffic, and the existing MPLS OAM tools and
Y.1731 already comply with this requirement.
o It is also required that OAM packets and the user traffic are
congruent (i.e. OAM packets are transmitted in-band) and there is
a need to differentiate OAM packets from user-plane ones.
* For PWs, VCCV provides a control channel that can be associated
with each PW which allows sending OAM packets in band of PWs
and allow the receiving end-point to intercept, interpret, and
process them locally as OAM messages. VCCV defines different
VCCV Connectivity Verification Types for MPLS (like ICMP Ping,
LSP Ping and IP/UDP encapsulated BFD and PW-ACH encapsulated
BFD).
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
* Currently there is no distinct OAM payload identifier in MPLS
shim. BFD and LSP Ping packets for LSPs are carried over
UDP/IP and are addressed to the loopback address range. The
router at the end-point intercepts, interprets, and processes
the packets. [MPLS G-ACH] generalizes the use of the PW ACH
and enables provision of control channels at the MPLS LSP and
sections levels. This new mechanism would support carrying the
existing MPLS OAM messages or the Y.1731 messages at the LSP
and the section levels to be transmitted over the G-ACH.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that the MPLS-TP OAM mechanism allows
the propagation of AC (Attachment Circuit) failures and their
clearance across a MPLS-TP domain
* BFD for VCCV supports a mechanism for "Fault detection and
AC/PW Fault status signaling." This can be used for both IP/
UDP encapsulated or PW-ACH encapsulated BFD sessions, i.e. by
setting the appropriate VCCV Connectivity Verification
Type.This mechanism could support this requirement. Note that
in the PWE3 WG there are two proposals regarding how to
transmit the AC failures over an ACH that may be applicable to
this requirement.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires a single OAM technology and consistent
OAM capabilities for LSPs, PWs, and Sections. The existing set of
tools defines a different way of operating the OAM functions (e.g.
LSP Ping to bootstrap MPLS BFD vs. VCCV). Currently, the Y.1731
functionality is defined for Ethernet paths, and the procedures
could readily be redefined for the various MPLS-TP path concepts.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires allowing OAM packets to be directed to
an intermediate point of a LSP/PW. Technically, this could be
supported by the proper setting of the TTL value. It is also
recommended to include the identifier of the intermediate point
within the OAM message to allow the intermediate point to validate
that the message is really intended for it. The information can
be included in an ACH-TLV according to the definitions in [MPLS-TP
ACH TLV]. The applicability of such a solution needs to be
examined per OAM function. For details, see below.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] suggests that OAM messages MAY be
authenticated. BFD defines support for optional authentication
fields using different authentication methods as defined in [BASE
BFD]. Other tools should support this capability as well. Y.1731
functionality uses the identification of the path for
authentication. Authentication information could be included in
an optional TLV field according to the definitions in [MPLS-TP ACH
TLV] when not available in the OAM PDU.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
2.1. Architectural and Principles of Operation - Recommendations and
Guidelines
Based on the requirements analysis above, the following guidelines
should be followed to create an OAM environment that could more fully
support the requirements cited:
o Define a generalized addressing scheme that can also support
unique identification of the monitored paths (or connections).
o Use G-ACH for LSP and section levels.
o Define architectural element that is based on LSP hierarchy to
apply the mechanisms to segments and concatenated segments.
o Apply BFD to these new mechanisms using the control channel
encapsulation, as defined above - allowing use of BFD for MPLS-TP
independent of IP functionality. This could be used to address
the CC-V functionality, described below.
o Similarly, LSP Ping could be extended to use only the LSP path (in
both directions) without IP Forwarding. Addressing for PW can be
included by using the VCCV mechanism. LSP Ping could be used to
address the CC-V, Route Tracing, RDI, and Lock/Alarm Reporting
functionality cited in the requirements.
o The Y.1731 PDU set could be used as a basis for defining the
information units to be transmitted over the G-ACH. The actual
procedures and addressing schemes would need to be adjusted for
the MPLS-TP environment.
o Define a mechanism that could be used to idnetify an intermediate
point of a path in a unique way, to support the maintenance
functions. This addressing should be flexible to allow support
for different addressing schemes, and would supplement the TTL
exception mechanism to allow an OAM packet to be intercepted by
intermediate nodes.
Creating these extensions/mechanisms would fulfill the following
architectural requirements, mentioned above:
o Independence of IP forwarding and routing, when needed.
o OAM packets should be transmitted in-band.
o Support a single OAM technology for LSP, PW, and Sections.
In addition, the following additional requirements can be satisfied:
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
o Provide the ability to carry other types of communications (e.g.,
APS, Management Control Channel (MCC), Signaling Control Channel
(SCC)), by defining new types of communication channels for PWs,
Sections, and LSPs.
o The design of the OAM mechanisms for MPLS-TP MUST allow the
ability to support vendor specific and experimental OAM functions.
3. MPLS-TP OAM Functions
The following sections discuss the required OAM functions that were
identified in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
3.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-V) are OAM
operations generally used in tandem, and compliment each other.
These functions may be split into separate mechanisms. Together they
are used to detect loss of traffic continuity and misconnections
between path end-points and are useful for applications like Fault
Management, Performance Monitoring and Protection Switching, etc. To
guarantee that CC-V can identify misconnections from cross-
connections it is necessary that the tool use network-wide unique
identifiers for the path that is being checked in the session.
3.1.1. Existing tools
LSP Ping provides much of the functionality required for co-routed
bidirectional LSPs. As observed above, LSP Ping may be operated in
both asynchronous and on-demand mode. Addressing is based on the
full FEC identification that provides a unique identifier, and the
basic functionality only requires support for the loopback address
range in each node on the LSP path.
BFD defines functionality that can be used to support the pro-active
OAM CC-V function when operated in the asynchronous mode. However,
the current definition of basic BFD is dependent on use of LSP Ping
to bootstrap the BFD session. Regarding the connectivity functional
aspects, basic BFD has a limitation that it uses only locally unique
(to each node) session identifiers.
VCCV can be used to carry either LSP Ping or BFD packets that are not
IP/UDP encapsulated for CC-V on a PW. Note that PW termination/
switching points use only locally unique (to each node) labels. The
PW label identifies the path uniquely only at the LSP level.
Y.1731 provides functionality for all aspects of CC-V for an Ethernet
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
environment, this could be translated for the MPLS-TP environment.
The CCM PDU defined in [Y.1731] includes the ability to set the
frequency of the messages that are transmitted, and provides for
attaching the address of the path (in the Ethernet case - the MEG
Level) and a sequencing number to verify that CCM messages were not
dropped.
3.1.2. Gap analysis
LSP Ping could be used to cover the cases of co-routed bidirectional
LSPs. However, there is a certain amount of computational overhead
involved with use of LSP Ping (as was observed in sec 1.1), the
verification of the control-plane, and the need to support the
loopback functionality at each intermediate node. LSP Ping uses a
fully qualified LSP identifier, and when used in conjunction with
VCCV would use the PW label to identify the transport path. LSP Ping
can be extended to bypass the verification of the control plane
BFD could be extended to fill the gaps indicated above. The
extension would include:
o A mechanism should be defined to carry BFD packets over LSP
without reliance on IP functionality.
o A mechanism should be defined to bootstrap BFD sessions for MPLS
that is not dependent on UDP.
o BFD needs to be used in conjunction with "globally" unique
identifiers for the path or ME being checked to allow connectivity
verfication support. There are two possibilities, to allow BFD to
support this new type of identifier -
* Change the semantics of the two Discriminator fields that exist
in BFD and have each node select the ME unique identifier.
This may have backward compatibility implications.
* Create a new optional field in the packet carrying the BFD that
would identify the path being checked, in addition to the
existing session identifiers.
o Extensions to BFD would be needed to cover P2MP connections.
Use of the Y.1731 functionality is another option that could be
considered. The basic PDU for CCM includes (in the flags field) an
indication of the frequency of the packets [eliminating the need to
"negotiate" the frequency between the end-points], and also a flag
used for RDI. The procedure itself would need adaptation to comply
with the MPLS environment.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
An additional option would be to create a new tool that would give
coverage for both aspects of CC-V according to the requirements and
the principles of operation (see section 2.1). This option is less
preferable.
3.1.3. Recommendations and Guidelines
Extend LSP Ping to fully support the on-demand Connectivity
Verification function resolving the gaps described above. Extend BFD
to support proactive Continuity Check & Connectivity Verification
(CC-V) resolving the gaps described above.
Note that [MPLS BFD] defines a method for using BFD to provide
verification of multipoint or multicast connectivity.
3.2. Alarm Reporting
Alarm Reporting is a function that is used by an intermediate point
in a path to notify the end-points of the path of a fault or defect
condition indirectly affecting that path. Such information may be
used by the endpoints, for example, to suppress alarms that may be
generated by maintenance end-points of the path. This function
should also have the capability to differentiate an administrative
lock from a failure condition at a different execution level.
3.2.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in the IETF to support this function.
Y.1731 does define a PDU and procedure for this functionality.
3.2.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Define a new tool and PDU to support Alarm Reporting. The PDU should
be transmitted over a G-ACH. The frequency of transmision after the
alarm is raised and the continued frequency until it is cleared
should be indicated in the definition.
Describe also how the Alarm Reporting functionality may be supported
in the control-plane and management-plane.
3.3. Diagnostic
A diagnostic test is a function that is used between path end-points
to verify bandwidth throughput, packet loss, bit errors, etc. This
is usually performed by sending packets of varying sizes at
increasing rates (until the limits of the service level) to measure
the actual utilization.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
3.3.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in the IETF to support this function.
[Y.1731] describes a function that is dependent on sending a series
of TST packets (this is a PDU whose size can be varied) at differing
frequencies.
3.3.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Define a new tool and PDU to support Diagnostic.
3.4. Route Tracing
Functionality of route determination is used to determine the route
of a connection across the MPLS transport network. [MPLS-TP OAM
Reqs] defines that this functionality MUST allow a path end-point to
identify the intermediate and end-points of the path. This
functionality MUST support co-routed bidirectional paths, and MAY
support associated bidirectional and unidirectional p2p paths, as
well as p2mp unidirectional paths. Unidirectional path support is
dependent on the existence of a return path to allow the original
end-point to receive the trace information.
3.4.1. Existing tools
LSP Ping supports a trace route function that could be used for
bidirectional paths. Support of unidirectional paths would be
dependent on the ability of identifying a return path.
3.4.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Extend LSP Ping to support the Route Trace functionality and to
address additional options, i.e. PW and p2mp unidirectional LSP.
3.5. Lock Instruct
The Lock instruct function allows the system to block off
transmission of data along a LSP. When a path end-point receives a
command, e.g. from the management system, that the path is blocked,
the end-point informs the far-end that the path has been locked and
that no data should be transmitted. This function is used on-demand.
3.5.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in the IETF to support this function,
but LSP Ping could be extended to support this functionality between
the path endpoints. Y.1731 does define a PDU and procedure for this
functionality.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
3.5.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Extend LSP Ping to support Lock instruct. The frequency at which
these messages are transmitted until the lock situation is cleared,
should be clearly indicated.
3.6. Lock Reporting
Lock reporting is used by an intermediate point to notify the end
points of a transport path (that the intermediate point is a member
of) that an external lock condition exits for this transport path.
This function is used proactively.
3.6.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in neither the IETF nor in Y.1731 to
support this function.
3.6.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Define a new tool and PDU to support Lock reporting. This tool could
be designed similarly to the Alarm Reporting tool (described above),
but would need to be initiated by an intermediate point of the
transport path.
3.7. Remote Defect Indication
Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is used by a path end-point to notify
its peer end-point that a defect, usually a unidirectional defect, is
detected on a bi-directional connection between them.
This function should be supported in pro-active mode.
3.7.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in the IETF to fully support this
functionality, however BFD supports a mechanism of informing the far-
end that the session has gone down, and the Diagnostic field
indicates the reason. Similarly, when LSP Ping is used for a co-
routed bidirectional LSP the far-end LER could notify that there was
a misconnectivity.
In [Y.1731] this functionality is defined as part of the CC-V
function as a flag in the PDU.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
3.7.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Extend BFD (which is recommended to be used for proactive CC-V) to
transmit the signal of Remote Defect Indication without disrupting
the CC-V functionality. Such an extension could be similar to that
suggested by the ITU recommendation.
3.8. Client Failure Indication
Client Failure Indication (CFI) function is used to propagate an
indication of a failure to the far-end sink when alarm suppression in
the client layer is not supported.
3.8.1. Existing tools
There is a possibility of using the BFD over VCCV mechanism for
"Fault detection and AC/PW Fault status signaling". However, there
is a need to differentiate between faults on the AC and the PW. In
the PWE3 WG there are some proposals regarding how to transmit the
CFI over an ACH.
3.8.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Use PWE3 tool to propagate Client Fail Indication via an ACH.
3.9. Packet Loss Measurement
Packet Loss Measurement is a function that is used to verify the
quality of the service. This function indicates the ratio of packets
that are not delivered out of all packets that are transmitted by the
path source.
There are two possible ways of determining this measurement -
o Using OAM packets, it is possible to compute the statistics based
on a series of OAM packets. This, however, has the disadvantage
of being artificial, and may not be representative since part of
the packet loss may be dependent upon packet sizes.
o Sending delimiting messages for the start and end of a measurement
period during which the source and sink of the path count the
packets transmitted and received. After the end delimiter, the
ratio would be calculated by the path OAM entity.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
3.9.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in the IETF to support this function.
[Y.1731] describes a function that is based on sending the CCM
packets [used for CC-V support (see sec 3.1)] for proactive support
and specialized loss-measurement packets for on-demand measurement.
These packets include information (in the additional TLV fields) of
packet counters that are maintained by each of the end-points of a
path. These counters maintain a count of packets transmitted by the
ingress end-point and the count of packets received from the far-end
of the path by the egress end-point.
3.9.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
One possibility is to define a mechanism to support Packet Loss
Measurement, based on the delimiting messages. This would include a
way for delimiting the periods for monitoring the packet
transmissions to measure the loss ratios, and computation of the
ratio between received and transmitted packets.
A second possibility would be to define a functionality based on the
description of the loss-measurement function defined in [Y.1731] that
is dependent on the counters maintained, by the MPLS LSR (as
described in [RFC3813], of received and transmitted octets. Define a
new PDU for the message that utilizes G-ACH. This option appears
more suitable for performance monitoring statistics, which in
transport applications are based on the continuous monitoring of the
traffic interested (100 ms gating).
3.10. Packet Delay Measurement
Packet Delay Measurement is a function that is used to measure one-
way or two-way delay of a packet transmission between a pair of the
end-points of a path (PW, LSP, or Section). Where:
o One-way packet delay is the time elapsed from the start of
transmission of the first bit of the packet by a source node until
the reception of the last bit of that packet by the destination
node.
o Two-way packet delay is the time elapsed from the start of
transmission of the first bit of the packet by a source node until
the reception of the last bit of the loop-backed packet by the
same source node, when the loopback is performed at the packet's
destination node.
Similarly to the packet loss measurement this could be performed in
one of two ways -
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
o Using OAM packets - checking delay (either one-way or two-way) in
transmission of OAM packets. May not fully reflect delay of
larger packets, however, gives feedback on general service level.
o Using delimited periods of transmission - may be too intrusive on
the client traffic.
3.10.1. Existing tools
There is no mechanism defined in the IETF toolset that fulfills all
of the MPLS-TP OAM requirements.
[Y.1731] describes a function in which specific OAM packets are sent
with a transmission time-stamp from one end of the managed path to
the other end (these are transparent to the intermediate nodes). The
delay measurement is supported for both one-way and two-way
measurement of the delay. It should be noted that the functionality
on the one-way delay measurement is dependent upon a certain degree
of synchronization between the time clocks of the two-ends of the
transport path.
3.10.2. Recommendations and Guidelines
Define a mechanism that would support Packe Delay Measurement, based
on the procedures defined in [Y.1731]. The mechanism should be based
on measurement of the delay in transmission and reception of OAM
packets, transmitted in-band with normal traffic. Define an
appropriate PDU that would utilize the G-ACH.
4. Recommendations
As indicated above, LSP-Ping could easily be extended to support some
of the functionality between the path end-points and between an end-
point of a path and an intermediate point. BFD could also be
extended to support some of the functions between the end-points of a
path. Some of the OAM functions defined in [Y.1731] (especially for
performance monitoring) could also be adapted.
The guidelines that are used in this document are as follows:
o Re-use/extend existing IETF protocols wherever applicable.
o Define new message format for each of the rest of the OAM
functions, which are aligned with the ACH and ACH-TLV definitions,
and includes only relevant information.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
o Adapt Y.1731 functionality where applicable (mainly for
performance monitoring).
The recommendations on the MPLS-TP OAM tools are as follows:
o Define a maintenance entity that could be applied both to LSPs and
PWs that would support management of a sub-path. This entity
should allow for transmission of traffic by means of label
stacking and proper TTL setting.
o Extend the control and the management planes to support the
configuration of the OAM maintenance entities and the set of
functions to be supported by these entities.
o Define a mechanism that would allow the unique addressing of the
elements that need to be monitored, e.g., the connections, end-
points, and intermediate points of a path. This mechanism needs
to be flexible enough to support different addressing schemes,
e.g. IP addresses, NSAP, connection names. As pointed out above,
LSP Ping uses the full FEC identifier for the LSP - this could
easily be applied to Section OAM since this would be considered as
a stacked LSP.
o The appropriate assignment of network-wide unique identifiers for
transport paths, needed to support connectivity verification,
should be considered.
o Extend existing MPLS tools to disengage from IP forwarding
mechanisms.
o Extend BFD to support the proactive CC-V functionalities. The
extensions should address the gaps described above.
o Extend LSP Ping to support the on-demand Connectivity Verification
functionality. The extensions should address the gaps described
above.
o Define a new PDU which will be transmitted over G-ACH to support
the Alarm Reporting functionality for data-plane implementations.
Describe how Alarm Reporting can be supported by a control-plane
and by a management-plane.
o Define a new PDU which will be transmitted over G-ACH to support
the Lock Reporting functionality. Use the same procedures as for
Alarm Reporting.
o Extend BFD to support the Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
functionality. The extensions should address the gaps described
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
above.
o Extend LSP-Ping to support the Route tracing functionality. The
extensions should address the gaps described above.
o Extend LSP-Ping to support the Lock Instruct functionality between
end-points of a path. The extensions should address the gaps
described above.
o Use PWE3 tool to transmit Client Fault Indication (CFI) via ACH.
There are already some proposals in the PWE3 WG.
o Define a new PDU which will be transmitted over G-ACH to support
the Packet Loss Measurement functionality. Base the functionality
on the procedures defined in Y.1731.
o Define a new PDU which be transmitted over G-ACH to support the
Packet Delay Measurement functionality. Base the functionality on
the procedures defined in Y.1731. For one-way delay measurement
define mechanisms to ensure a certain degree of synchronization
between the time clocks of the two-ends of the transport path.
o Define a new PDU which be transmitted over G-ACH to support the
Diagnostic functionality.
o The tools may have the capability to authenticate the messages.
The information may be carried in a G-ACH TLV.
5. MPLS-TP OAM Documents Organization
The following paragraphs list the set of documents necessary to cover
the OAM functionalities analyzed above. This compilation of
documents is one of the outcomes of the MEAD team discussions that
took place during IETF75 in Stockholm.
It should be noted that the various document titles listed here may
not reflect the draft titles that will be chosen at the time that the
drafts are written, but they serve just as a topic pointer from the
current analysis.
5.1. Document 1: "Encapsulation of BFD and LspPing in ACH"
The scope of the document is to define the usage of LSP Ping and BFD
in both IP and IP-less environments. As described in the following
paragraphs, BFD and Lsp Ping need to be extended in order to be
compliant with [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs]. However, this document should be
focused on the existing Lsp Ping and BFD, without necessarily
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
referring to their extended versions.
The draft "nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures" will be considered
as the starting point for this definition.
In particular, the following sections will be taken into account for
the scope:
o nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures section 2 ("LSP-Ping
extensions") for addressing the "Lsp Ping encapsulation in ACH"
o nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures section 5 ("Running BFD
over MPLS-TP LSPs") for addressing the "BFD encapsulation in ACH"
5.2. Document 2: "Extended BFD"
The scope of the document is to define the BFD extension and behavior
to meet the requirements for MPLS-TP proactive Continuity Check and
Connectivity Verification functionality and the RDI functionality as
defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
The document will likely take the name
"draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00" and will be formed by the merging of
the following two drafts:
o draft-fulignoli-mpls-tp-bfd-cv-proactive-and-rd
o draft-boutros-mpls-tp-cc-cv-01.txt
5.3. Document 3: "Extended LSP Ping"
The scope of the document is to define:
o A place holder for On Demand Connectivity Verification if LSP Ping
needs to be enhanced over and above the encapsulations changes
(defined in Document 1 "Encapsulation of BFD and LSP Ping in
ACH").
o Usage of LSP Ping with MIPs and MEPs, which is partially covered
in nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures.
o Route Trace. This topic has already been partially covered in
"draft-boutros-mpls-tp-path-trace-00" and "nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-
ping-bfd-procedures", which will be considered as starting point
for the Route Trace functionality included in Document 3. The
Route Trace section should also cover these aspects:
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
* LSP Ping Loose ends. This section will describe what to do
when receiving an LSP Ping with MIP and MEP ids.
* In an IP-Less environment Route Trace works only in co-routed
bidirectional LSP.
* In Y.1731 the CV function is separate from the Route Trace
function, it should be captured how LSP Ping works for Route
Trace using TTL.
5.4. Document 4: "Extensions for Lock Instruct"
A new document describing the LSP Ping extensions to accomplish the
Lock Instruct desired behavior is needed. Some material useful for
this scope can be found in "draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-02".
5.5. Document 5: "AIS and Lock Reporting"
A new document is need for the definition of the AIS and Lock
Reporting, however the document definition has been temporarily
deferred by the MEAD team. Therefore this paragraph will be updated
in future versions.
5.6. Document 6: "Client Fault Indication"
A new document describing Client Fault Indication procedure needs to
be defined.
The following two drafts indicating a client fault indication
transported across MPLS-TP network will be compared and merged in the
new document:
o "draft-he-mpls-tp-csf", which describes a tool to propagate a
client failure indication across an MPLS-TP network in case the
propagation of failure status in the client layer is not
supported.
o "draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status", which describes the usage
of PW associated channel to signal PW status messages in case a
static PW is used without a control plane
It is worth noting that a Client Failure Indication is used if the
client does not support its own OAM (IP and MPLS as clients use their
own). It has been also agreed that CFI is used on PW and not on
client directly mapped on LSP MPLS-TP.
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
5.7. Document 7: "Packet Loss"
A new document needs to be defined in order to describe a stand alone
tool for Packet Loss measurements that can work both proactively and
on demand. The tool will be functionally based on Y.1731.
5.8. Document 8: "Packet Delay"
A new document needs to be defined about the Packet Delay measurement
which will be based on Y.1731 from the functionality point of view.
Moreover, [MPLS-TP OAM Frwk] needs to be updated in order to clarify
the functionality behavior expected from this tool.
5.9. Document 9: "Diagnostic Tests"
One or more new documents are needed for the tools definition for
Diagnostic Tests. However, the documents definition has been
temporarily deferred by the MEAD team until a clearer definition of
"diagnostic test" in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
7. Security Considerations
This document does not by itself raise any particular security
considerations.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the MEAD team for their review and proposed
enhancements to the text.
9. Informative References
[RFC 2119]
Bradner, S., "Internet Control Message Protocol", BCP 14,
RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ICMP] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
RFC 792, Sept 1981.
[LSP Ping]
Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[PW ACH] 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, February 2006.
[PW VCCV] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[BASE BFD]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", ID draft-ietf-bfd-base-09.txt, February 2009.
[MPLS BFD]
Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"BFD For MPLS LSPs", ID draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt,
June 2008.
[VCCV BFD]
Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)",
ID draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07.txt, February 2008.
[P2MP LSP Ping]
Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Detecting Data Plane Failures
in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-06.txt, June 2008.
[MPLS LSP Ping]
Bahadur, N. and K. Kompella, "Mechanism for performing
LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-00, June 2008.
[MPLS-TP OAM Reqs]
Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., and D. Ward, "Requirements for
OAM in MPLS Transport Networks",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-01, April 2009.
[MPLS-TP OAM Frwk]
Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
Overview", ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-01,
March 2009.
[MPLS-TP Reqs]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Nadeau, T., and C. Pignataro,
"Requirements for the Trasport Profile of MPLS",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-06, April 2009.
[MPLS G-ACH]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and M. Vigoureux, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[MPLS-TP ACH TLV]
Boutros, S., Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., Swallow, G., and
D. Ward, "Definition of ACH TLV Structure",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-00, June 2009.
[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)",
RFC 3813, June 2004.
[Y.1731] International Telecommunications Union - Standardization,
"OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
networks", ITU Y.1731, May 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Nurit Sprecher (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
Hod Hasharon, 45241
Israel
Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
Huub van Helvoort (editor)
Huawei
Kolkgriend 38, 1356 BC Almere
Netherlands
Phone: +31 36 5316076
Email: hhelvoort@huawei.com
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nov 2009
Elisa Bellagamba
Ericsson
6 Farogatan St
Stockholm, 164 40
Sweden
Phone: +46 761440785
Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
Hod Hasharon, 45241
Israel
Phone: +972-9-775 1827
Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com
Sprecher, et al. Expires May 13, 2010 [Page 29]
