MPLS Working Group H. van Helvoort (Ed)
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational
Expires: December 2009 L. Andersson (Ed)
Redback
N. Sprecher (Ed)
Nokia Siemens Networks
June 19, 2009
A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label
Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's
Transport Network Recommendations.
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-00
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 December 1, 2009.
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.
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
Abstract
MPLS-TP is based on a profile of the MPLS and PW procedures as
specified in the MPLS-TE and (MS-)PW architectures developed by the
IETF. The ITU-T has specified a Transport Network architecture.
This document provides a thesaurus for the interpretation of MPLS-TP
terminology within the context of the ITU-T Transport Network
recommendations.
It is important to note that MPLS-TP is applicable in a wider set of
contexts than just Transport Networks. The definitions presented in
this document do not provide exclusive nor complete interpretations
of MPLS-TP concepts. This document simply allows the MPLS-TP terms
to be applied within the Transport Network context.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1. Contributing Authors 4
1.2. Abbreviations 4
2. Terminology 4
2.1. MPLS-TP Terminology Sources 4
2.2. ITU-T Transport Network Terminology Sources 4
2.3. Common Terminology Sources 5
3. Thesaurus 5
3.1. Associated bidirectional path: 5
3.2. Bidirectional path: 5
3.3. Concatenated Segment: 5
3.4. Co-routed bidirectional path: 5
3.5. Domain: 5
3.6. Layer network: 6
3.7. Link: 6
3.8. Logical Ring: 6
3.9. Path: 6
3.10. Physical Ring: 6
3.11. Ring Topology: 6
3.12. Section: 7
3.13. Segment: 7
3.14. Service layer: 7
3.15. Span: 7
3.16. Sublayer: 7
3.17. Tandem Connection: 7
3.18. Transport path: 8
3.19. Transport path layer: 8
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.20. Transport service layer: 8
3.21. Transmission media layer: 8
3.22. Unidirectional path: 8
3.23. Failure: 8
3.24. Fault: 8
3.25. Defect: 9
3.26. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP): 9
3.27. MPLS Section: 9
3.28. MPLS-TP NE: 9
3.29. MPLS-TP network: 9
3.30. Equipment Management Function (EMF): 9
3.31. Data Communication Network (DCN): 9
3.32. Communication Channel (CC): 10
3.33. Embedded Communication Channel (ECC): 10
3.34. Management Communication Channel (MCC): 10
3.35. Management Communication Network (MCN): 10
3.36. Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): 10
3.37. Signaling Communication Network (SCN): 10
3.38. Operations System (OS): 10
3.39. Maintenance Entity 11
3.40. Maintenance End Points (MEPs) 11
3.41. Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs) 12
3.42. Server MEPs 12
4. Guidance on the Application of this Thesaurus 16
5. Management Considerations 16
6. Security Considerations 16
7. IANA Considerations 16
8. Acknowledgments 17
9. References 17
9.1. Normative References 17
9.2. Informative References 17
Authors' Addresses 18
Contributing Authors' Addresses 18
1. Introduction
Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) has been
developed by the IETF to facilitate the Operation, Administration
and Management of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a Transport Network
environment as defined by the ITU-T.
The ITU-T has specified a Transport Network architecture for the
transfer of signals from different technologies. This architecture
forms the basis of many Recommendations within the ITU-T.
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
Because of the difference in historic background of MPLS, and
inherently MPLS-TP (the Internet) and the Transport Network (ITU
telecommunication Sector), the terminology used is different.
This document provides a thesaurus for the interpretation of ITU-T
Transport Network terminology within the context of the MPLS-TP.
This allows MPLS-TP documents to be generally understood by those
familiar with MPLS RFCs. The definitions presented in this document
do not provide exclusive or complete interpretations of the ITU-T
Transport Network concepts.
1.1. Contributing Authors
Italo Busi, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Enrique Hernandez-Valencia, Lieven
Levrau, Dinesh Mohan, Vincenzo Sestito, Nurit Sprecher, Huub van
Helvoort, Martin Vigoureux, Yaacov Weingarten
1.2. Abbreviations
CC Communications Channel
DCN Data Communication Network
ECC Embedded Communication Channel
EMF Equipment Management Function
MCC Management Communication Channel
MCN Management Communication Network
ME Maintenance Entity
MEG ME Group
MEP MEG End Point
MIP MEG Intermediate Point
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
NE Network Element
OAM Operations, Administration and Maintenance
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
O&M OAM and Management
SCC Signaling Communication Channel
SCN Signaling Communication Network
2. Terminology
Throughout this document, angle brackets ("<" and ">") are used to
indicate that the term is used by both IETF and ITU-T but has a
different definition. The bracketed term is the IETF term.
[editor: check all terms used that this applies to, TBD]
2.1. MPLS-TP Terminology Sources
MPLS-TP terminology is principally defined in [RFC3031]. Other
documents provide further key definitions including [RFC4397], and
[RFC....].
2.2. ITU-T Transport Network Terminology Sources
The ITU-T Transport Network is specified in a number of
recommendations: generic functional architectures and requirements
are specified in [ITU-T_G.805], [ITU-T_G.806], and [ITU-T_G.872].
[ITU-T_G.8101] contains an overview of the Terms and Definitions for
transport MPLS.
2.3. Common Terminology Sources
The work in this document builds on the shared view of MPLS
requirements.
3. Thesaurus
From: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-04 [1]
3.1. Associated bidirectional path:
A path that supports traffic flow in both directions but which is
constructed from a pair of unidirectional paths (one for each
direction) which are associated with one another at the path's
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
ingress/egress points. The forward and backward directions may or
may not follow the same route (links and nodes) across the network.
3.2. Bidirectional path:
A path that supports traffic flow in two opposite directions, i.e.
the forward and backward direction.
3.3. Concatenated Segment:
A serial-compound link connection as defined in [ITU-T_G.805]. A
concatenated segment is a contiguous part of an LSP or multi-segment
PW that comprises a set of segments and their interconnecting nodes
in sequence.
3.4. Co-routed bidirectional path:
A bidirectional path where the forward and backward directions
follow the same route (links and nodes) across its layer network.
3.5. 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,
aggregation, survivability techniques, distributions of control
functionality, etc. Examples of such domains include IGP areas and
Autonomous Systems.
3.6. Layer network:
Layer network is defined in [ITU-T_G.805]. A layer network provides
for the transfer of client information and independent operation of
the client OAM. A Layer Network may be described in a service
context as follows: one layer network may provide a (transport)
service to higher client layer network and may, in turn, be a client
to a lower layer network. A layer network is a logical construction
somewhat independent of arrangement or composition of physical
network elements. A particular physical network element may
topologically belong to more than one layer network, depending on
the actions it takes on the encapsulation(s) associated with the
logical layers (e.g. the label stack), and thus could be modeled as
multiple logical elements. A layer network may consist of zero or
more sublayers. For additional explanation of how layer networks
relate to the OSI concept of layering see Appendix I of [ITU-T
Y.2611].
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.7. Link:
A physical or logical connection between a pair of LSRs that are
adjacent at the (sub)layer network under consideration. A link may
carry zero, one or more LSPs or PWs. A packet entering a link will
emerge with the same label stack entry values.
A link as defined in [ITU-T_G.805] is used to describe a fixed
relationship between two ports.
3.8. Logical Ring:
An MPLS-TP logical ring is constructed from a set of LSRs and
logical data links (such as MPLS-TP LSP tunnels or MSPL-TP
pseudowires) and physical data links that form a ring topology.
3.9. Path:
See Transport path.
3.10. Physical Ring:
An MPLS-TP physical ring is constructed from a set of LSRs and
physical data links that form a ring topology.
3.11. Ring Topology:
In an MPLS-TP ring topology each LSR is connected to exactly two
other LSRs, each via a single point-to-point bidirectional MPLS-TP
capable data link. A ring may also be constructed from only two
LSRs where there are also exactly two bidirectional links. Rings
may be connected to other LSRs to form a larger network. Traffic
originating or terminating outside the ring may be carried over the
ring. Client network nodes (such as CEs) may be connected directly
to an LSR in the ring.
3.12. Section:
A section is a server layer (which may be MPLS-TP or a different
technology) 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. Note that [ITU-T_G.805]
defines the section layer as one of the two layer networks in a
transmission media layer network. The other layer network is the
physical media layer network.
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
Section layer networks are concerned with all the functions which
provide for the transfer of information between locations in path
layer networks.
Physical media layer networks are concerned with the actual fibres,
metallic wires or radio frequency channels which support a section
layer network.
3.13. Segment:
A link connection as defined in [ITU-T_G.805]. A segment is the
part of an LSP that traverses a single link or the part of a PW that
traverses a single link (i.e. that connects a pair of adjacent
{S|T}-PEs).
3.14. 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).
3.15. Span:
A span is synonymous with a link.
3.16. Sublayer:
Sublayer is defined in [ITU-T_G.805]. The distinction between a
layer network and a sublayer is that a sublayer is not directly
accessible to clients outside of its encapsulating layer network and
offers no direct transport service for a higher layer (client)
network.
3.17. Tandem Connection:
A tandem connection is an arbitrary part of a transport path that
can be monitored (via OAM) independently from the end-to-end
monitoring (OAM). It may be a monitored segment, a monitored
concatenated segment or any other monitored ordered sequence of
contiguous hops and/or segments (and their interconnecting nodes) of
a transport path.
3.18. Transport path:
A network connection as defined in [ITU-T_G.805]. In an MPLS-TP
environment a transport path corresponds to an LSP or a PW.
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.19. 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 transport service layer. It provides for independent OAM (of
the client OAM) in the transport of the clients.
3.20. Transport 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).
3.21. 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.
3.22. Unidirectional path:
A path that supports traffic flow in only one direction.
===
from: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-00 [2]
3.23. Failure:
[editor: this is not in [2] BUT added for completeness]
The fault cause persisted long enough to consider the ability of an
item to perform a required function to be terminated. The item may
be considered as failed; a fault has now been detected. See also
[ITU-T_G.806].
3.24. Fault:
The inability of a function to perform a required action. This does
not include an inability due to preventive maintenance, lack of
external resources, or planned actions. See also [ITU-T_G.806].
3.25. Defect:
The situation for which density of anomalies has reached a level
where the ability to perform a required function has been
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
interrupted. Defects are used as input for PM, the control of
consequent actions, and the determination of fault cause. See also
[ITU-T_G.806].
3.26. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP):
The set of MPLS functions used to support packet transport services
and network operations.
3.27. MPLS Section:
A network segment between two LSRs that are immediately adjacent at
the MPLS layer.
==
From: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00 [3]
==
From: draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 [4]
3.28. MPLS-TP NE:
A network element (NE) that supports MPLS-TP functions.
3.29. MPLS-TP network:
A network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed
3.30. Equipment Management Function (EMF):
The management functions within an NE. See [ITU-T G.7710].
3.31. Data Communication Network (DCN):
A network that supports Layer 1 (physical layer), Layer 2 (data-link
layer), and Layer 3 (network layer) functionality for distributed
management communications related to the management plane, for
distributed signaling communications related to the control plane,
and other operations communications (e.g., order-wire/voice
communications, software downloads, etc.).
3.32. Communication Channel (CC):
A logical channel between network elements (NEs) that can be used -
e.g. - for management plane application or control plane
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
applications. The physical channel supporting the CC is technology
specific. See [4] APPENDIX A
3.33. Embedded Communication Channel (ECC):
A logical operations channel between network elements (NEs) that can
be utilized by multiple applications (e.g., management plane
applications, control plane applications, etc.). The physical
channel supporting the ECC is technology specific. An example of
physical channels supporting the ECC is a DCC channel within SDH.
3.34. Management Communication Channel (MCC):
A CC dedicated for management plane communications.
3.35. Management Communication Network (MCN):
A DCN supporting management plane communication is referred to as a
Management Communication Network (MCN).
3.36. Signaling Communication Channel (SCC):
A CC dedicated for control plane communications. The SCC may be used
for GMPLS/ASON signaling and/or other control plane messages (e.g.,
routing messages).
3.37. Signaling Communication Network (SCN):
A DCN supporting control plane communication is referred to as a
Signaling Communication Network (SCN).
3.38. Operations System (OS):
A system that performs the functions that support processing of
information related to operations, administration, maintenance, and
provisioning (OAM&P) for the networks, including surveillance and
testing functions to support customer access maintenance.
==
From: draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-00 [5]
MPLS Section: [editor: see 3.27]
OAM flow: to be added in a future revision of this document.
Tandem Connection: [editor: see 3.17]
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.39. Maintenance Entity
A Maintenance Entity can be viewed as the association of two (or
more) Maintenance End Points (MEPs), that should be configured and
managed in order to bound the OAM responsibilities of an OAM flow
[editor: definition?] across a network or sub-network, i.e. a
transport path or segment, in the specific layer network that is
being monitored and managed.
A Maintenance Entity may be defined to monitor and manage
bidirectional or unidirectional point-to-point connectivity or
point-to-multipoint connectivity in an MPLS-TP layer network.
[editor: should the following be included?]
Therefore, in the context of MPLS-TP LSP or PW Maintenance Entity
(defined below) LERs and T-PEs can be MEPs while LSRs and S-PEs can
be MIPs. In the case of Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity
(defined below), LSRs and S-PEs can be either MEPs or MIPs.
The following properties apply to all MPLS-TP MEs:
o OAM entities can be nested but not overlapped.
o Each OAM flow is associated to a unique Maintenance Entity.
o OAM packets are subject to the same forwarding treatment as the
data traffic, but they are distinct from the data traffic.
3.40. Maintenance End Points (MEPs)
Maintenance End Points (MEPs) are the end points of a pre-configured
(through the management or control planes) ME. MEPs are responsible
for activating and controlling all of the OAM functionality for the
ME. A MEP may initiate an OAM packet to be transferred to its
corresponding MEP, or to an intermediate MIP that is part of the ME.
A MEP terminates all the OAM packets that it receives corresponding
to its ME and does not forward them further along the path.
All OAM packets coming to a MEP source are tunnelled via label
stacking and are not processed within the ME as they belong either
to the client network layers or to an higher TCM level.
A MEP in a tandem connection is not coincident with the termination
of the MPLS-TP transport path (LSP or PW), though it can monitor its
connectivity (e.g. count packets). A MEP of an MPLS-TP network
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
transport path is coincident with transport path termination and
monitors its connectivity (e.g. count packets).
MPLS-TP MEP notifies a fault indication to the MPLS-TP client layer
network.
3.41. Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs)
A Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP) is a point between the two
MEPs in an ME and is capable of responding to some OAM packets and
forwarding all OAM packets while ensuring fate sharing with data
plane packets. A MIP responds only to OAM packets that are sent on
the ME it belongs to and that are addressed to the MIP, it does not
initiate OAM messages.
3.42. Server MEPs
A server MEP is a MEP of an ME that is defined in a layer network
below the MPLS-TP layer network being referenced. A server MEP
coincides with either a MIP or a MEP in the client (MPLS-TP) layer
network.
For example, a server MEP can be either:
. A termination point of a physical link (e.g. 802.3), an SDH VC or
OTH ODU for the MPLS-TP Section layer network, defined in [5]
section 3.1.;
. An MPLS-TP Section MEP for MPLS-TP LSPs, defined in [5] section
3.2.;
. An MPLS-TP LSP MEP for MPLS-TP PWs, defined in [5] section 3.4.;
. An MPLS-TP TCM MEP for higher-level TCMs, defined in [5] sections
3.3. and 3.5.
The server MEP can run appropriate OAM functions for fault
detection, and notifies a fault indication to the MPLS-TP layer
network.
[editor: the following are definitions from G.8101 which should be
defined only if they will cause misunderstanding. It is not usefull
to define them if the definition is the same in IETF and ITU-T, TBD]
===== [ITU-T_G.8101] =====
3.1 access point
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.2 adapted information
3.3 characteristic information
3.4 client/server relationship
3.5 connection
3.6 connection point
3.9 forward direction
3.12 link connection
3.13 matrix
3.14 network
3.15 network connection
3.16 network operator
3.17 port
3.18 reference point
3.19 service provider
3.20 subnetwork
3.21 subnetwork connection
3.22 termination connection point
3.23 trail
3.24 trail termination
3.25 trail termination point
3.26 transport
3.27 transport entity
3.28 transport processing function
3.29 unidirectional connection
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.30 unidirectional trail
3.31 Z layer
Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) Recommendations uses the following terms
defined in ITU-T Rec. G.809:
3.33 access point
3.34 adaptation
3.35 adapted information
3.36 characteristic information
3.37 client/server relationship
3.50 network
3.52 port
3.53 reference point
3.56 traffic unit
3.57 transport
3.58 transport entity
Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) Recommendations uses the following term
defined in ITU-T Rec. G.8010/Y.1306:
3.59 point-to-point Ethernet connection
Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) Recommendations uses the following terms
defined in [ITU-T_Y.1711]:
3.60 backward direction
3.62 client/server (relationship between layer networks)
3.63 failure
3.64 forward direction
3.65 user-plane
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) Recommendations uses the following terms
defined in [ITU-T_Y.1720]:
3.66 1+1 protection
3.67 1:1 protection
3.68 bidirectional protection switching
3.69 bridge
3.71 extra traffic
3.72 failure
3.73 forced switch for working LSP
3.74 hold-off time
3.75 manual switch
3.76 MPLS protection domain
3.77 non-revertive protection switching
3.78 no request
3.79 packet 1+1 protection
3.80 path switch LSR
3.81 path merge LSR
3.82 protection LSP
3.83 protection switching
3.84 rerouting
3.85 revertive protection switching
3.86 selector
3.87 shared mesh protection
3.88 Shared Risk Group (SRG)
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
3.89 sink of the protection domain
3.90 source of the protection domain
3.91 unidirectional protection switching
3.92 wait to restore
3.93 wait to restore timer
3.94 working LSP
Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) Recommendations uses the following terms
defined in [ITU-T_Y.1731]:
3.95 in-service OAM
===== end of [ITU-T_G.8101] =====
4. Guidance on the Application of this Thesaurus
As discussed in the introduction to this document, this thesaurus is
intended to bring the concepts and terms associated with MPLS-TP
into the context of the ITU-T's Transport Network architecture.
Thus, it should help those familiar with MPLS to see how they may
use the features and functions of the Transport Network in order to
meet the requirements of MPLS-TP.
This lexicography should not be used in order to obtain or derive
definitive definitions of GMPLS terms. To obtain definitions of
GMPLS terms that are applicable across all GMPLS architectural
models, the reader should refer to the RFCs listed in the references
sections of this document. [RFC3945] provides an overview of the
GMPLS architecture and should be read first.
5. Management Considerations
The MPLS-TP based network requires management. The MPLS-TP
specifications include considerable efforts to provide operator
control and monitoring, as well as Operations and Management (OAM)
functionality.
These concepts are, however, out of scope of this document.
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
6. Security Considerations
Security is also a significant requirement of MPLS-TP.
However, this informational document is intended only to provide a
lexicography, and the security concerns are, therefore, out of
scope.
7. IANA Considerations
To be incorporated in a future revision of this document
<<TBA>>
8. Acknowledgments
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.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] B. Niven-Jenkins, et al., "MPLS-TP Requirements", draft-ietf-
mpls-mpls-tp-requirements, november 2008
[2] Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., Ward, D., "Requirements for OAM in
MPLS Transport Networks", draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-
requirements, november 2008
[3] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework, november 2008
[4] Gray, E., Mansfield, S., et al., "MPLS TP Network Management
Requirements", draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req, november 2008
[5] Busi, I., Niven-Jenkins, B., et al., "MPLS-TP OAM Framework
and Overview", draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework, november 2008
[RFC3031]
[RFC4397]
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
9.2. Informative References
For information on the availability of the following documents,
please see http://www.itu.int
[ITU-T_G.8101] ITU-T Recommendation G.8101/Y.1355 (12/2006), Terms
and definitions for transport MPLS.
[ITU-T_G.805] ITU-T Recommendation G.805 (03/2000), Generic
functional architecture of transport networks.
[ITU-T_G.806] ITU-T Recommendation G.806 (03/2006), Characteristics
of transport equipment - Description methodology and
generic functionality.
[ITU-T_Y.1711] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1711 (10/2005) Operation &
Maintenance mechanism for MPLS networks.
[ITU-T_Y.1720] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1720 (02/2008), Protection
switching for MPLS networks.
[ITU-T_Y.1731] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731 (02/2008), OAM functions
and mechanisms for Ethernet based networks.
[ITU-T_G.872] ITU-T Recommendation G.872 (11/2001), Architecture of
optical transport networks.
[ITU-T G.7710] ITU-T Recommendation G.7710 (07/2007), Common
equipment management function requirements
[ITU-T Y.2611] ITU-T Recommendation Y.2611 (12/2006), High-level
architecture of future packet-based networks
Authors' Addresses
Huub van Helvoort (Editor)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Email: hhelvoort@huawei.com
Loa Andersson (Editor)
Redback
Email: loa@pi.nu
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Rosetta Stone Huub van Helvoort
Nurit Sprecher (Editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks
Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
Contributing Authors' Addresses
van Helvoort et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 20]
