MPLS Working Group M. Vigoureux, Ed.
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward, Ed.
Expires: March 4, 2010 Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Betts, Ed.
Huawei
August 31, 2009
Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-03
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
Abstract
This document lists architectural and functional requirements for the
Operations, Administration and Maintenance of MPLS Transport Profile.
These requirements apply to pseudowires, Label Switched Paths, and
Sections.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. OAM Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Architectural Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Scope of OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. OAM and IP Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Interoperability and Interworking . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.5. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.6. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2. Continuity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3. Connectivity Verifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.4. Diagnostic Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.5. Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.6. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.7. Lock Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.8. Alarm Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.9. Remote Defect Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.10. Client Failure Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.11. Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.12. Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
1. Introduction
In the context of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP, see [5] and [6]),
the rationales for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
are twofold as it can serve:
o as a network-oriented functionality, used by a transport network
operator to monitor his network infrastructure and to implement
internal mechanisms in order to enhance the general behaviour and
the level of performance of his network (e.g., protection
mechanism in case of node or link failure). As an example, fault
localization is typically associated with this use case.
o as a service-oriented functionality, used by a transport service
provider to monitor services offered to end customers in order to
be able to react rapidly in case of a problem and to be able to
verify some of the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) parameters
(e.g., using performance monitoring) negotiated with the end
customers. Note that a transport service could be provided over
several networks or administrative domains that may not all be
owned and managed by the same transport service provider.
More generally, OAM is an important and fundamental functionality in
transport networks as it contributes to:
o the reduction of operational complexity and costs, by allowing for
efficient and automatic detection, localisation, handling and
diagnosis of defects, as well as by minimizing service
interruptions and operational repair times.
o the enhancement of network availability, by ensuring that defects,
for example resulting in misdirected customer traffic, and faults,
are detected, diagnosed and dealt with before a customer reports
the problem.
o meeting service and performance objectives, as the OAM
functionality allows for SLA verification in a multi-maintenance
domain environment and allows for the determination of service
degradation due, for example, to packet delay or packet loss.
1.1. Scope of this Document
This document lists architectural and functional requirements for the
OAM functionality of MPLS-TP. These requirements apply to
pseudowires (PWs), Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Sections.
These requirements are derived from the set of requirements specified
by ITU-T and published in the ITU-T Supplement Y.Sup4 [7].
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
By covering transport specificities, these requirements complement
those identified in RFC 4377 [8], yet some requirements may be
similar.
This document only lists architectural and functional OAM
requirements. It does not detail the implications of their
applicability to the various types (e.g., point-to-point, point-to-
multipoint, unidirectional, bidirectional ...) of PWs, LSPs and
Sections. Furthermore, this document does not provide requirements
on how the protocol solution(s) should behave to achieve the
functional objectives. Please see [9] for further information.
Note that the OAM functions identified in this document may be used
for fault management, performance monitoring and/or protection
switching applications. For example, connectivity verification can
be used for fault management by detecting failure conditions, but may
also be used for performance monitoring through its contribution to
the evaluation of performance metrics (e.g., unavailability time).
Nevertheless, it is outside the scope of this document to specify
which function should be used for which application.
1.2. Requirements Language and Terminology
Although this document is not a protocol specification, the key words
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be
interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and are to be interpreted as
instructions to the protocol designers producing solutions that
satisfy the requirements set out in this document.
In this document we refer to the inability of a function to perform a
required action, as a fault. This does not include an inability due
to preventive maintenance, lack of external resources, or planned
actions. See also ITU-T G.806 [2].
In this document we refer to the situation in which the density of
anomalies has reached a level where the ability to perform a required
function has been interrupted, as a defect. See also ITU-T G.806
[2].
In this document we refer to a Label Edge Router (LER), for a given
LSP or Section, and to a PW Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE), for a
given PW, as an End Point. Further, we refer to a Label Switching
Router (LSR), for a given LSP, and to a PW Switching Provider Edge
(S-PE), for a given PW, as an Intermediate Point. This document does
not make a distinction between End Points (e.g., source and
destination) as it can be inferred from the context of the sentences.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
In this document we use the term "node" as a general reference to End
Points and Intermediate Points.
In this document we refer to both segment and concatenated segments
as segments (see [6] for definitions relating to the term "segment"
as well as for other definitions relating to MPLS-TP).
In this document we refer to both single segment PWs and multi-
segment PWs as PWs.
In this document we refer to both bidirectional associated LSPs and
bidirectional co-routed LSPs as bidirectional LSPs.
2. OAM Requirements
This section lists the requirements by which the OAM functionality of
MPLS-TP should abide.
The requirements listed below may be met by one or more OAM
protocols; the definition or selection of these protocols is outside
the scope of this document.
2.1. Architectural Requirements
2.1.1. Scope of OAM
The protocol solution(s) developed to meet the requirements
identified in this document MUST at least be applicable to point-to-
point bidirectional PWs, point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSPs,
and point-to-point bidirectional Sections. Section 2.2 provides
additional information with regards to the applicability to point-to-
point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point undirectional
LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
The service emulated by a PW may span multiple domains. An LSP may
also span multiple domains. The protocol solution(s) MUST be
applicable end-to-end and to segments. More generally, it MUST be
possible to operate OAM functions on a per domain basis and across
multiple domains.
Since LSPs may be stacked, the protocol solution(s) MUST be
applicable on any LSP, regardless of the label stack depth.
Furthermore it MUST be possible to estimate OAM fault and performance
metrics of a single PW or LSP segment or of an aggregate of PWs or
LSPs segments.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
2.1.2. Independence
The protocol solution(s) SHOULD be independent of the underlying
tunnelling or point-to-point technology or transmission media.
The protocol solution(s) SHOULD be independent of the service a PW
may emulate.
Any OAM function operated on a PW, LSP or Section SHOULD be
independent of the OAM function(s) operated on a different PW, LSP or
Section. In other words, only the OAM functions operated on e.g., a
given LSP should be used to achieve the OAM objectives for that LSP.
The protocol solution(s) MUST support the capability to be
concurrently and independently operated end-to-end and on segments.
Therefore, any OAM function applied to segment(s) of a PW or LSP
SHOULD be independent of the OAM function(s) operated on the end-to-
end PW or LSP. It SHOULD also be possible to distinguish an OAM
packet running over a segment of a PW or LSP from another OAM packet
running on the end-to-end PW or LSP.
Furthermore, any OAM function applied to segment(s) of a PW or LSP
SHOULD be independent of the OAM function(s) applied to other
segment(s) of the same PW or LSP.
Note: Independence should not be understood in terms of isolation as
there can be interactions between OAM functions operated on e.g.,
an LSP, and on another LSP or a PW.
2.1.3. OAM and IP Capabilities
The OAM functionality may be deployed in various environments.
o In some environments (e.g., IP/MPLS environments), IP routing and
forwarding capabilities are inherently present in the data plane.
o In some environments (e.g., MPLS-TP environments), IP routing and
forwarding capabilities may not necessarily be present in the data
plane.
In the former case, it MUST be possible to operate the OAM functions
by relying on IP routing and forwarding capabilities (e.g.,
encapsulation in IP header for (de)multiplexing purposes) while in
the latter case it MUST be possible to operate the OAM functions
without relying on IP routing and forwarding capabilities.
For certain functions, OAM messages need to incorporate
identification information (e.g., of source and/or destination
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
nodes). The protocol solution(s) MUST at least support
identification information in the form of an IP addressing structure
and MUST also be extensible to support additional identification
schemes.
2.1.4. Interoperability and Interworking
It is REQUIRED that OAM interoperability is achieved between distinct
domains materializing the environments described in Section 2.1.3.
It is also REQUIRED that the first two requirements of Section 2.1.3
still hold and MUST still be met when interoperability is achieved.
When MPLS-TP is run with IP routing and forwarding capabilities, it
MUST be possible to operate any of the existing IP/MPLS and PW OAM
protocols (e.g., LSP-Ping [3], MPLS-BFD [10], VCCV [4] and VCCV-BFD
[11]).
2.1.5. Data Plane
OAM functions operate in the data plane. OAM packets MUST run in-
band; that is, OAM packets for a specific PW, LSP or Section MUST
follow the exact same data path as user traffic of that PW, LSP or
Section. This is often referred to as fate sharing.
It MUST be possible to discriminate user traffic from OAM packets.
This includes a means to differentiate OAM packets from user traffic
as well as the capability to apply specific treatment to OAM packets,
at the nodes processing these OAM packets.
As part of the design of OAM protocol solution(s) for MPLS-TP, a
mechanism, for enabling the encapsulation and differentiation of OAM
messages on a PW, LSP or Section, MUST be provided. Such mechanism
SHOULD also support the encapsulation and differentiation of existing
IP/MPLS and PW OAM messages.
2.1.6. Configuration
OAM functions MUST operate and be configurable even in the absence of
a control plane. Conversely, it SHOULD be possible to configure as
well as enable/disable the capability to operate OAM functions as
part of connectivity management and it SHOULD also be possible to
configure as well as enable/disable the capability to operate OAM
functions after connectivity has been established.
In the latter case, the customer MUST NOT perceive service
degradation as a result of OAM enabling/disabling. Ideally OAM
enabling/disabling should take place without introducing any customer
impairments (e.g., no customer packet losses). Procedures aimed to
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
prevent any traffic impairment MUST be defined for the enabling/
disabling of OAM functions.
Means for configuring OAM functions and for connectivity management
are outside the scope of this document.
2.2. Functional Requirements
Hereafter are listed the required functionalities composing the
MPLS-TP OAM toolset. The list may not be exhaustive and as such the
OAM mechanisms developed in support of the identified requirements
SHALL be extensible and thus SHALL NOT preclude the definition of
additional OAM functionalities, in the future.
The design of OAM mechanisms for MPLS-TP, MUST allow for the ability
to support experimental OAM functions. These functions MUST be
disabled by default.
The use of any OAM function MUST be optional and it MUST be possible
to select the set of OAM function(s) to use on any PW, LSP or
Section.
It is RECOMMENDED that any protocol solution, meeting one or more
functional requirement(s), be the same for PWs, LSPs and Sections.
It is RECOMMENDED that any protocol solution, meeting one or more
functional requirement(s), effectively provides a fully featured
function; that is, a function which is applicable to all the cases
identified for that functionality. In that context, protocol
solution(s) MUST state their applicability.
Unless otherwise stated, the OAM functionalities MUST NOT rely on
user traffic; that is, only OAM messages MUST be used to achieve the
objectives.
2.2.1. General Requirements
If a defect or fault occurs on a PW, LSP or Section, mechanisms MUST
be provided to detect it, diagnose it, localize it, and notify the
appropriate nodes. Mechanisms SHOULD exist such that corrective
actions can be taken.
Furthermore, mechanisms MUST be available for a service provider to
be aware of a fault or defect affecting the service(s) he provides,
even if the fault or defect is located outside of his domain.
Protocol solution(s) developed to meet these requirements may rely on
information exchange. Information exchange between various nodes
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
involved in the operation of an OAM function SHOULD be reliable such
that, for example, defects or faults are properly detected or that
state changes are effectively known by the appropriate nodes.
2.2.2. Continuity Checks
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable an End
Point to determine whether or not it receives traffic on a PW, LSP or
Section.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Sections.
This function SHOULD be performed pro-actively.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
2.2.3. Connectivity Verifications
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable an End
Point of a PW, LSP or Section to determine whether or not the
connectivity provided to an other node through a PW, LSP or Section
is effective (i.e., that a packet sent on that PW, LSP or Section,
reaches the expected node).
This function SHOULD be performed pro-actively between End Points of
PWs, LSPs and Sections.
This function SHOULD be performed on-demand between End Points and
Intermediate Points of PWs and LSPs, and between End Points of PWs,
LSPs and Sections.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function pro-
actively MUST also apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional
LSPs, point-to-point unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint
LSPs.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function on-demand
MAY also apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, to
point-to-point unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs in
case a return path exists.
2.2.4. Diagnostic Tests
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable conducting
diagnostic tests on a PW, LSP or Section. An example of such
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
diagnostic test consists in looping the traffic at an Intermediate
Point back to the originating End Point. Another example of such
diagnostic test consists in estimating the bandwidth of e.g., an LSP.
This function SHOULD be performed on-demand.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points and Intermediate
Points of PWs and LSPs, and between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Sections.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MAY also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, to point-to-
point unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs in case a
return path exists.
2.2.5. Route Tracing
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide functionality to enable an End
Point to discover the Intermediate (if any) and End Point(s) along a
PW, LSP or Section, and more generally to trace the route of a PW,
LSP or Section. The information collected MUST include identifiers
related to the nodes and interfaces composing that route.
This function SHOULD be performed on-demand.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points and Intermediate
Points of PWs and LSPs, and between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Sections.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MAY also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, to point-to-
point unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs in case a
return path exists.
2.2.6. Lock Instruct
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide functionality to enable an End
Point of a PW, LSP or Section to instruct its associated End Point(s)
to lock the PW, LSP or Section. Note that lock corresponds to an
administrative status in which it is expected that only test traffic,
if any, and OAM (dedicated to the PW, LSP or Section) can be mapped
on that PW, LSP or Section.
This function SHOULD be performed on-demand.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Sections.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
2.2.7. Lock Reporting
Based on the tunnelling capabilities of MPLS, there are cases where
Intermediate Point(s) of a PW or of an LSP coincide with End Point(s)
of another LSP on which the former is mapped/tunnelled. Further, it
may happen that the tunnel LSP be out of service as a result of a
lock action on that tunnel LSP. By means outside of the scope of
this document, the Intermediate Point(s) of the PW or LSP may be
aware of this condition. The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a
function to enable an Intermediate Point of a PW or LSP to report, to
an End Point of that same PW or LSP, a lock condition indirectly
affecting that PW or LSP.
This function SHOULD be performed pro-actively.
This function SHOULD be performed between Intermediate Points and End
Points of PWs and LSPs.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
2.2.8. Alarm Reporting
Based on the tunnelling capabilities of MPLS, there are cases where
Intermediate Point(s) of a PW or of an LSP coincide with End Point(s)
of another LSP on which the former is mapped/tunnelled. Further, it
may happen that the tunnel LSP be out of service as a result of a
fault on that tunnel LSP. By means outside of the scope of this
document, the Intermediate Point(s) of the PW or LSP may be aware of
this condition. The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide functionality
to enable an Intermediate Point of a PW or LSP to report, to an End
Point of that same PW or LSP, a fault or defect condition indirectly
affecting that PW or LSP.
This function SHOULD be performed pro-actively.
This function SHOULD be performed between Intermediate Points and End
Points of PWs and LSPs.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
2.2.9. Remote Defect Indication
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable an End
Point to report, to its associated End Point, a fault or defect
condition that it detects on a PW, LSP or Section for which they are
the End Points.
This function SHOULD be performed pro-actively.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Sections.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs and MAY also
apply to point-to-point unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint
LSPs in case a return path exists.
2.2.10. Client Failure Indication
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable the
propagation, from edge to edge of an MPLS-TP network, of information
pertaining to a client (i.e., external to the MPLS-TP network) defect
or fault condition detected at an End Point of a PW or LSP, if the
client layer OAM functionality does not provide an alarm
notification/propagation functionality.
This function SHOULD be performed pro-actively.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points of PWs and LSPs.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
2.2.11. Packet Loss Measurement
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable the
quantification of packet loss ratio over a PW, LSP or Section.
Note that packet loss ratio is the ratio of the user packets not
delivered to the total number of user packets transmitted during a
defined time interval. The number of user packets not delivered is
the difference between the number of user packets transmitted by an
End Point and the number of user packets received at an End Point.
This function MAY either be performed pro-actively or on-demand.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
Sections.
It SHOULD be possible to rely on user traffic to perform that
functionality.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs.
2.2.12. Packet Delay Measurement
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable the
quantification of the one-way, and if appropriate, the two-way, delay
of a PW, LSP or Section.
o One-way delay is the time elapsed from the start of transmission
of the first bit of a packet by an End Point until the reception
of the last bit of that packet by the other End Point.
o Two-way delay is the time elapsed from the start of transmission
of the first bit of a packet by a End Point until the reception of
the last bit of that packet by the same End Point, when loopback
is performed at the other End Point.
This function SHOULD be performed on-demand and MAY be performed pro-
actively.
This function SHOULD be performed between End Points of PWs, LSPs and
Sections.
The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function MUST also
apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point
unidirectional LSPs and point-to-multipoint LSPs but only to enable
the quantification of the one-way delay.
3. Congestion Considerations
A mechanism (e.g., rate limiting) MUST be provided to prevent OAM
packets from causing congestion in the Packet Switched Network.
4. Security Considerations
This document, in itself, does not imply any security consideration
but OAM, as such, is subject to several security considerations. OAM
messages can reveal sensitive information such as passwords,
performance data and details about e.g., the network topology.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
The nature of OAM therefore suggests having some form of
authentication, authorization and encryption in place. This will
prevent unauthorized access to MPLS-TP equipment and it will prevent
third parties from learning about sensitive information about the
transport network.
In general, mechanisms SHOULD be provided to ensure that OAM
functions cannot be accessed unauthorized.
Further, OAM messages MAY be authenticated to prove their origin and
to make sure that they are destined for the receiving node.
An OAM packet received over a PW, LSP or Section MUST NOT be
forwarded beyond the End Point of that PW, LSP or Section, so as to
avoid that the OAM packet leaves the current administrative domain.
5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions required by this draft.
6. Acknowledgements
The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Matthew
Bocci, Italo Busi, Thomas Dietz, Annamaria Fulignoli, Huub van
Helvoort, Wataru Imajuku, Marc Lasserre, Lieven Levrau, Han Li,
Julien Meuric, Philippe Niger, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins, Jing Ruiquan,
Nurit Sprecher, Yuji Tochio, Satoshi Ueno and Yaacov Weingarten.
The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
specification of MPLS-TP.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] ITU-T Recommendation G.806, "Characteristics of transport
equipment - Description methodology and generic functionality",
2009.
[3] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[4] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[5] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and L. Levrau, "A Framework for MPLS in
Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-03 (work in
progress), August 2009.
[6] 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.
[7] ITU-T Supplement Y.Sup4, "ITU-T Y.1300-series: Supplement on
transport requirements for T-MPLS OAM and considerations for
the application of IETF MPLS technology", 2008.
[8] Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S.
Matsushima, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for
Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4377,
February 2006.
[9] Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and
Overview", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-01 (work in
progress), July 2009.
[10] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, "BFD
For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in progress),
June 2008.
[11] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07
(work in progress), July 2009.
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP August 2009
Authors' Addresses
Martin Vigoureux (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Villejust
Nozay, 91620
France
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
David Ward (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: dward@cisco.com
Malcolm Betts (editor)
Huawei
Email: malcolm.betts@huawei.com
Vigoureux, et al. Expires March 4, 2010 [Page 16]
