Network Working Group B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Informational D. Brungard, Ed.
Expires: May 24, 2009 AT&T
M. Betts, Ed.
Nortel Networks
N. Sprecher
Nokia Siemens Networks
November 20, 2008
MPLS-TP Requirements
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 May 24, 2009.
Abstract
This document specifies the requirements for a MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP). This document is a product of a joint International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)-IETF effort to include a MPLS
Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS architecture to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
defined by International Telecommunications Union -
Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T).
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
This work is based on two sources of requirements, MPLS architecture
as defined by IETF and packet transport networks as defined by ITU-T.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Transport network overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. MPLS-TP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. General requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Layering requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Data plane requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Control plane requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. Network Management (NM) requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6. Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7. Network performance management (PM) requirements . . . . . 11
2.8. Protection & Survivability requirements . . . . . . . . . 11
2.9. QoS requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.10. Security requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
1. Introduction
For many years, Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET)/Synchronous
Digital hierarchy (SDH) has provided carriers with a high benchmark
for reliability and operational simplicity. With the accelerating
growth of packet-based services (such as Ethernet, Voice over IP
(VoIP), Layer 2 (L2)/Layer 3 (L3) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), IP
Television (IPTV), Radio Access Network (RAN) backhauling, etc.),
carriers are in need of capabilities to efficiently support packet-
based services on their transport networks. The need to increase
their revenue while remaining competitive forces operators to look
for the lowest network Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Investment in
equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)) and
Operational Expenditure (OPEX) should be minimized.
Carriers are considering migrating or evolving to packet transport
networks in order to reduce their costs and to improve their ability
to support services with guaranteed Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
For carriers it is important that migrating from SONET/SDH to packet
transport networks should not involve dramatic changes in network
operation, should not necessitate extensive retraining, and should
not require major changes to existing work practices. The aim is to
preserve the look-and-feel to which carriers have become accustomed
in deploying their SONET/SDH networks, while providing common, multi-
layer operations, resiliency, control and management for packet,
circuit and lambda transport networks.
Transport carriers require control and deterministic usage of network
resources. They need end-to-end control to engineer network paths
and to efficiently utilize network resources. They require
capabilities to support static (Operational Support System (OSS)
based) or dynamic (control plane) provisioning of deterministic,
protected and secured services and their associated resources.
Carriers will still need to cope with legacy networks (which are
composed of many layers and technologies), thus the packet transport
network should interwork with other packet and transport networks
(both horizontally and vertically). Vertical interworking is also
known as client/server or network interworking. Horizontal
interworking is also known as peer-partition or service interworking.
For more details on each type of interworking and some of the issues
that may arise (especially with horizontal interworking) see
[ITU.Y1401.2008].
MPLS is a maturing packet technology and it is already playing an
important role in transport networks and services. However, not all
of MPLS's capabilities and mechanisms are needed and/or consistent
with transport network operations. There is therefore the need to
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
define an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) in order to support the
capabilities and functionalities needed for packet transport network
services and operations through combining the packet experience of
MPLS with the operational experience of SONET/SDH.
MPLS-TP will enable the migration of SONET/SDH networks to a packet-
based network that will efficiently scale to support packet services
in a simple and cost effective way. MPLS-TP needs to combine the
necessary existing capabilities of MPLS with additional minimal
mechanisms in order that it can be used in a transport role.
This document specifies the requirements for a MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP). This document is a product of a joint ITU-IETF effort to
include a MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS architecture to
support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport
network as defined by ITU-T.
This work is based on two sources of requirements, MPLS architecture
as defined by IETF and packet transport networks as defined by ITU-T.
The requirements of MPLS-TP are provided below. The relevant
functions of MPLS are included in MPLS-TP, except where explicitly
excluded.
Although both static and dynamic configuration of MPLS-TP transport
paths (including Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) and
protection capabilities) is required by this document, it MUST be
possible for operators to be able to completely operate (including
OAM and protection capabilities) an MPLS-TP network in the absence of
any control plane protocols for dynamic configuration.
1.1. Terminology
Domain: A domain represents a collection of entities (for example
network elements) that are grouped for a particular purpose, examples
of which are administrative and/or managerial responsibilities, trust
relationships, addressing schemes, infrastructure capabilities,
survivability techniques, distributions of control functionality,
etc. Examples of such domains include IGP areas and Autonomous
Systems.
Layer network: A layer network as defined in G.805 [ITU.G805.2000]
provides for the transfer of client information and independent
operations (OAM) of the client OAM. For an explanation of how a
layer network as described by G.805 relates to the OSI concept of
layering see Appendix I of Y.2611 [ITU.Y2611.2006].
Link: A link as defined in G.805 [ITU.G805.2000] is used to describe
a fixed relationship between two ports.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
Path: See Transport path.
Section: A section is a MPLS-TP network server layer which provides
for encapsulation and OAM of a MPLS-TP transport path client layer.
A section layer may provide for aggregation of multiple MPLS-TP
clients.
Segment: A segment corresponds to part of a path. A segment may be a
single link (hop) within a path, a series of adjacent links (hops)
within a path, or the entire end-to-end-path.
Service layer: A layer network in which transport paths are used to
carry a customer's (individual or bundled) service (may be point-to-
point, point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-multipoint services).
Span: A span is synonymous with a link.
Tandem Connection: A tandem connection corresponds to a segment of a
path. This may be either a segment of an LSP (i.e. a sub-path), or
one or more segment(s) of a PW.
Transport path: A connection as defined in G.805 [ITU.G805.2000].
The combination of a PW (Single Segment or Multi-Segment) and LSP
corresponds to an MPLS-TP transport path.
Transport path layer: A layer network which provides point-to-point
or point-to-multipoint transport paths which are used to carry a
higher (client) layer network or aggregates of higher (client) layer
networks, for example the network service layer. It provides for
independent OAM (of the client OAM) in the transport of the clients.
Transmission media layer: A layer network which provides sections
(two-port point-to-point connections) to carry the aggregate of
network transport path or network service layers on various physical
media.
1.2. Transport network overview
The connection (or transport path) service is the basic service
provided by a transport network. The purpose of a transport network
is to carry its clients (i.e. the stream of client PDUs or client
bits) between endpoints in the network (typically over several
intermediate nodes). These endpoints may be service switching points
or service terminating points. The connection services offered to
customers are aggregated into large transport paths with long-holding
times and independent OAM (of the client OAM), which contribute to
enabling the efficient and reliable operation of the transport
network. These transport paths are modified infrequently.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
Aggregation and hierarchy are beneficial for achieving scalability
and security since:
1. They reduce the number of provisioning and forwarding states in
the network core.
2. They reduce load and the cost of implementing service assurance
and fault management.
3. Clients are encapsulated and layer associated OAM overhead is
added. This allows complete isolation of customer traffic and
its management from carrier operations.
An important attribute of a transport network is that it is able to
function regardless of which clients are using its connection service
or over which transmission media it is running. The client,
transport network and server layers are from a functional and
operations point of view independent layer networks. Another key
characteristic of transport networks is the capability to maintain
the integrity of the client across the transport network. A
transport network must provide the means to commit quality of service
objectives to clients. This is achieved by providing a mechanism for
client network service demarcation for the network path together with
an associated network resiliency mechanism. A transport network must
also provide a method of service monitoring in order to verify the
delivery of an agreed quality of service. This is enabled by means
of carrier-grade OAM tools.
Clients are first encapsulated. These encapsulated client signals
may then be aggregated into a connection for transport through the
network in order to optimize network management. Server layer OAM is
used to monitor the transport integrity of the client layer or client
aggregate. At any hop, the aggregated signals may be further
aggregated in lower layer transport network paths for transport
across intermediate shared links. The encapsulated client signals
are extracted at the edges of aggregation domains, and are either
delivered to the client or forwarded to another domain. In the core
of the network, only the server layer aggregated signals are
monitored; individual client signals are monitored at the network
boundary in the client layer network.
Quality-of-service mechanisms are required in the packet transport
network to ensure the prioritization of critical services, to
guarantee BW and to control jitter and delay.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
2. MPLS-TP Requirements
2.1. General requirements
1 MPLS-TP MUST be compatible with the MPLS data plane as defined by
IETF. When MPLS offers multiple options in this respect, MPLS-TP
SHOULD select the minimum sub-set (necessary and sufficient
subset) applicable to a transport network application.
2 Any new functionality that is defined to fulfil the requirements
for MPLS-TP MUST be agreed within IETF and re-use (as far as
practically possible) existing MPLS standards.
3 Mechanisms and capabilities MUST be able to interoperate with
existing IETF MPLS [RFC3031] and IETF PWE3 [RFC3985] control and
data planes where appropriate.
4 MPLS-TP MUST support a connection-oriented packet switching
paradigm with traffic engineering capabilities that allow
deterministic control of the use of network resources.
5 MPLS-TP MUST support traffic engineered point to point (P2P) or
point to multipoint (P2MP) transport paths.
6 MPLS-TP MUST support the logical separation of the control and
management planes from the data plane.
7 MPLS-TP MUST allow the physical separation of the control and
management planes from the data plane.
8 MPLS-TP MUST support static provisioning of transport paths via a
Network Management System (NMS) or OSS (i.e. via the management
plane).
9 Static provisioning MUST NOT depend on routing or signaling
protocols (e.g. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (ISIS), Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP), Border gateway Protocol (BGP), Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP) etc.).
10 MPLS-TP MUST support the capability for network operation
(including OAM) via an NMS/OSS (without the use of any control
plane protocols).
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
11 A solution MUST be provided to suppor dynamic provisioning of
MPLS-TP transport paths via a control plane.
12 The MPLS-TP data plane MUST be capable of functioning
independently of the control or management plane used to operate
the MPLS-TP layer network. That is the MPLS-TP data plane
operation MUST continue to operate normally if the management
plane or control plane that configured the transport paths fails.
13 MPLS-TP MUST support transport paths through multiple homogeneous
domains.
14 MPLS-TP MUST NOT dictate the deployment of any particular network
topology either physical or logical.
15 MPLS-TP MUST be able to scale with growing and increasingly
complex network topologies as well as increasing bandwidth
demands, number of customers or number of services.
16 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms to safeguard against the
provisioning of transport paths which contain forwarding loops.
2.2. Layering requirements
17 An MPLS-TP network MUST operate in a multiple layer network
environment consisting of independent service, transport path and
transmission media layers.
MPLS-TP may be used as the service layer (for P2P and P2MP services)
and/or as the transport path layer within a packet transport network.
18 A solution MUST be provided to support the transport of MPLS-TP
and non MPLS-TP client layer networks over an MPLS-TP layer
network.
19 A solution MUST be provided to support the transport of an
MPLS-TP layer network over MPLS-TP and non MPLS-TP server layer
networks (such as Ethernet, OTN, etc.)
20 In an environment where an MPLS-TP layer network is supporting a
client network, and the MPLS-TP layer network is supported by a
server layer network then operation of the MPLS-TP layer network
MUST be possible without any dependencies on the server or client
network.
The above are not only technology requirements, but also operational.
Different administrative groups may be responsible for the same layer
network or different layer networks, and require the capability for
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
autonomous network operations.
21 It MUST be possible to hide MPLS-TP layer network addressing and
other information (e.g. topology) from client layers.
2.3. Data plane requirements
22 The identification of each transport path within its aggregate
MUST be supported.
23 A label in a particular section MUST uniquely identify the
transport path.
24 A transport path's source MUST be identifiable at its
destination.
Transport paths can be aggregated by pushing and de-aggregated by
popping labels. MPLS-TP labels are swapped within a transport path
in a layer network instance when the traffic is forwarded from one
MPLS-TP link to another MPLS-TP link.
25 MPLS-TP MUST support MPLS labels that are assigned by the
downstream (with respect to data flow) node per [RFC3031] and
[RFC3473] and MAY support context-specific MPLS labels as defined
in [RFC5331].
26 It MUST be possible to operate and configure the MPLS-TP data
(transport) plane without any IP forwarding capability in the
MPLS-TP data plane.
27 MPLS-TP MUST support both unidirectional and bi-directional
point-to-point transport paths.
28 An MPLS-TP network MUST require the forward and backward
directions of a bi-directional transport path to follow the same
path at each layer.
29 The intermediate nodes at each layer MUST be aware about the
pairing relationship of the forward and the backward directions
belonging to the same bi-directional transport path.
30 MPLS-TP MUST support unidirectional point-to-multipoint transport
paths.
31 MPLS-TP transport paths MUST NOT perform merging in a way that
prevents the unique identification of the source at the
destination (e.g. no use of LDP mp2p signaling in order to avoid
losing LSP head-end information, no use of PHP, etc).
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
32 MPLS-TP MUST be able to accommodate new types of client networks
and services.
33 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms to minimize traffic impact
during network reconfiguration.
34 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms which ensure the integrity of
the transported customer's service traffic.
35 MPLS-TP MUST support an unambiguous and reliable means of
distinguishing users' (client) packets from MPLS-TP control
packets (e.g. control plane, management plane, OAM and protection
switching packets).
2.4. Control plane requirements
The requirements for ASON signalling and routing and the requirements
for multi-region and multi-layer networks as specified in [RFC4139],
[RFC4258] and [RFC5212] respectively apply to MPLS-TP.
Additionally:
36 MPLS-TP SHOULD support control plane topologies that are
independent of the data plane topology.
37 The MPLS-TP control plane MUST be able to be operated independent
of any particular client or server layer control plane.
38 The MPLS-TP control plane MUST support establishing all the
connectivity patterns defined for the MPLS-TP data plane (e.g.,
uni-directional and bidirectional P2P, uni-directional P2MP,
etc.) including configuration of protection functions and any
associated maintenance functions.
39 The MPLS-TP control pane MUST support the configuration and
modification of OAM maintenance points as well as the activation/
deactivation of OAM when the transport path is established or
modified.
40 An MPLS-TP control plane MUST support pre-allocated path
protection.
In some situations it is impractical to expect acceptable recovery
performance to be achieved using dynamic recalculation of transport
path routes. For this reason, it is necessary to allow for pre-
planning of protection routes for selected transport paths.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
41 An MPLS-TP control plane MUST scale gracefully to support a large
number of transport paths.
42 An MPLS-TP control plane SHOULD provide a common control
mechanism for architecturally similar operations.
2.5. Network Management (NM) requirements
For requirements related to NM functionality for MPLS-TP, see the
MPLS-TP NM requirements document [I-D.gray-mpls-tp-nm-req].
2.6. Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) requirements
For requirements related to OAM functionality for MPLS-TP, see the
MPLS-TP OAM requirements document
[I-D.vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements].
2.7. Network performance management (PM) requirements
For requirements related to PM functionality for MPLS-TP, see the
MPLS-TP OAM requirements document
[I-D.vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements].
2.8. Protection & Survivability requirements
Network survivability plays a critical factor in the delivery of
reliable services. Network availability is a significant contributor
to revenue and profit. Service guarantees in the form of SLAs
require a resilient network that rapidly detects facility or node
failures and restores network operation in accordance with the terms
of the SLA.
The requirements in this section use the recovery terminology defined
in RFC 4427 [RFC4427].
43 MPLS-TP MUST support transport network style protection switching
mechanisms (tandem network connection protection, LSP protection
and PW protection) to provide the appropriate recovery time
required to maintain customer SLAs when potentially thousands of
services are simultaneously affected by a single failure.
44 MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms MUST be applicable at various levels
throughout the network including support for span, tandem
connection and end-to-end recovery.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
45 MPLS-TP MUST support network restoration mechanisms controlled by
a distributed control plane and MUST support network restoration
mechanisms controlled by a management plane.
A. The restoration resources MAY be pre-planned and selected a
priori, or computed after failure occurrence.
B. MPLS-TP MAY support shared-mesh restoration.
C. MPLS-TP MUST support soft (make before break) LSP
restoration.
D. MPLS-TP MAY support hard (break before make) LSP restoration.
E. The restoration mechanism MUST be applicable to any topology.
F. Restoration priority MUST be implemented to determine the
order in which transport paths should be restored (to
minimize service restoration time as well as to gain access
to available spare capacity on the best paths). Preemption
priority MUST be supported, so that in the event that not all
transport paths can be restored transport paths with lower
preemption priority can be released. When preemption is
supported, its use MUST be operator configurable.
G. The restoration mechanism MUST operate in synergy with other
transport network technologies (SDH, OTN, WDM).
46 MPLS-TP MUST support inband OAM driven protection mechanisms
(without any dependency on a control plane) to enable fast
recovery from failure.
47 If protection is supported then:
A. MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST apply to LSPs and PWs.
B. MPLS-TP MUST support mechanisms that rapidly detect, locate,
notify and remedy network faults.
C. MPLS-TP MAY support 1:1 bidirectional protection switching.
If bi-directional 1:1 protection switching is activated then
the protection state of both ends of the protected entity
MUST be synchronized.
D. MPLS-TP MAY support 1+1 unidirectional protection switching.
E. MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST be applicable to point-to-
point and point-to-multipoint transport paths.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
F. Protection ratio MUST be of 100%, i.e. 100% of impaired
working traffic MUST be protected for a failure on the
working path. Additionally:
1. The QoS objectives defined by the operator MUST also be
met along the protection path.
2. In the case of 1:1 protection mechanisms, the bandwidth
reserved for the protection path MAY be available for
other traffic when the working path is operational.
G. Operator requests for manual control of protection switching
such as clear, lockout of protection, forced-switch and
manual-switch commands MUST be supported. Prioritized
protection between Signal Fail (SF), Signal Degradation (SD)
and operator switch requests MUST be supported.
H. MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST support priority logic to
negotiate and accommodate coexisting requests (i.e. multiple
requests) for protection switching (e.g. "administrative"
requests and requests due to link/node failures).
I. MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST support revertive and non-
revertive behaviour.
J. MPLS-TP protection switching mechanisms MUST prevent frequent
operation of the protection switch due to an intermittent
defect.
K. MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST ensure co-ordination of
timing of protection switches at multiple layers to avoid
races and to allow the protection switching mechanism of the
server layer to fix the problem before switching at the
MPLS-TP layer.
L. MPLS-TP MAY support mechanisms that are optimized for
specific network topologies (e.g. ring). These mechanisms
MUST be interoperable with the mechanisms defined for
arbitrary topology (mesh) networks.
M. If optimised mechanisms for ring topologies are supported
then they MUST support switching times within 50 ms
(depending on CV rate configuration) assuming a reference
network of a 16 node ring with less than 1200 Km of fiber, as
defined by ITU SG15, Question 9.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
2.9. QoS requirements
Carriers require advanced traffic management capabilities to enforce
and guarantee the QoS parameters of customers' SLAs.
Quality of service mechanisms are required to ensure:
48 Support for differentiated services and different traffic types
with traffic class separation associated with different traffic.
49 Prioritization of critical services.
50 Enabling the provisioning and the guarantee of Service Level
Specifications (SLS), with support for hard and relative end-to-
end BW guaranteed.
51 Controlled jitter and delay.
52 Guarantee of fair access to shared resources in an MPLS-TP
network.
53 Resources for control and management plane packets so that data
plane traffic, regardless of the amount, will not cause control
and management functions to become inoperative.
54 MPLS-TP MUST support a flexible bandwidth allocation scheme.
This will provide carriers with the capability to efficiently
support service demands over the MPLS-TP network.
[Should we refer here to the requirements specified in RFC 2702?]
2.10. Security requirements
For a description of the security threats relevant in the context of
MPLS and GMPLS and the defensive techniques to combat those threats
see the Security Framework for MPLS & GMPLS Networks
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework].
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
4. Security Considerations
For a description of the security threats relevant in the context of
MPLS and GMPLS and the defensive techniques to combat those threats
see the Security Framework for MPLS & GMPLS Networks
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework].
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
specification of MPLS Transport Profile.
The authors would also like to thank Loa Andersson, Italo Busi, John
Drake, Neil Harrison, Wataru Imajuku, Julien Meuric, Tom Nadeau,
Hiroshi Ohta, Tomonori Takeda and Satoshi Ueno for their comments and
enhancements to the text.
6. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4139] Papadimitriou, D., Drake, J., Ash, J., Farrel, A., and L.
Ong, "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling
Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)", RFC 4139, July 2005.
[RFC4258] Brungard, D., "Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically
Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC 4258, November 2005.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March 2006.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
July 2008.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, August 2008.
[I-D.gray-mpls-tp-nm-req]
Lam, H., Mansfield, S., and E. Gray, "MPLS TP Network
Management Requirements", draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-01
(work in progress), July 2008.
[I-D.vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements]
Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
OAM in MPLS Transport Networks",
draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-00 (work in
progress), July 2008.
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework]
Fang, L. and M. Behringer, "Security Framework for MPLS
and GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-03 (work
in progress), July 2008.
[ITU.Y2611.2006]
International Telecommunications Union, "High-level
architecture of future packet-based networks", ITU-
T Recommendation Y.2611, December 2006.
[ITU.Y1401.2008]
International Telecommunications Union, "Principles of
interworking", ITU-T Recommendation Y.1401, February 2008.
[ITU.G805.2000]
International Telecommunications Union, "Generic
functional architecture of transport networks", ITU-
T Recommendation G.805, March 2000.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
Authors' Addresses
Ben Niven-Jenkins (editor)
BT
208 Callisto House, Adastral Park
Ipswich, Suffolk IP5 3RE
UK
Email: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
Deborah Brungard (editor)
AT&T
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Email: dbrungard@att.com
Malcolm Betts (editor)
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8E9
Canada
Email: betts01@nortel.com
Nurit Sprecher
Nokia Siemens Networks
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
Hod Hasharon, 45241
Israel
Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements November 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires May 24, 2009 [Page 18]
