Pseudo-Wire Edge-to-Edge(PWE3) Thomas D. Nadeau
Internet Draft Monique Morrow
Expiration Date: August 2005 Cisco Systems
Peter Busschbach
Dave Allan Lucent Technologies
Nortel Networks
Mustapha Aissaoui
Alcatel
Editors
February 2005
Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all
provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to
publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than
English.
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.
Abstract
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
This document specifies the mapping of defect states between a
Pseudo Wire and the Attachment Circuits (AC) of the end-to-end
emulated service. This document covers the case whereby the ACs
and the PWs are of the same type in accordance to the PWE3
architecture [PWEARCH] such that a homogenous PW service can be
constructed.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo.............................................1
Abstract........................................................1
Table of Contents...............................................2
1 Conventions used in this document.............................4
2 Contributors..................................................4
3 Scope.........................................................4
4 Terminology...................................................5
5 Reference Model and Defect Locations..........................6
6 Abstract Defect States........................................7
7 PW Status and Defects.........................................8
7.1 PW Defects.................................................8
7.1.1 Packet Loss...........................................9
7.2 Defect Detection and Notification..........................9
7.2.1 Defect Detection Tools................................9
7.2.2 Defect Detection Mechanism Applicability.............10
7.3 Overview of fault notifications...........................11
7.3.1 Use of Native Service notifications..................11
7.3.2 The Use of PW Status for MPLS and MPLS-IP PSNs.......12
7.3.3 The Use of L2TP STOPCCN and CDN......................12
7.3.4 The Use of BFD Diagnostic Codes......................12
8 PW Defect State Entry/Exit...................................14
8.1 PW Forward Defect Entry/Exit..............................14
8.2 PW reverse defect state entry/exit........................15
8.2.1 PW reverse defects that are treated as AC Forward
Defects....................................................15
9 AC Defect States.............................................15
9.1 FR ACs....................................................15
9.2 ATM ACs...................................................16
9.2.1 AC Forward Defect State Entry/Exit...................16
9.2.2 AC Reverse Defect State Entry/Exit...................16
9.3 Ethernet AC State.........................................17
10 PW Forward Defect Entry/Exit procedures.....................17
10.1 PW Forward Defect Entry Procedures.......................17
10.1.1 FR AC procedures....................................17
10.1.2 Ethernet AC Procedures..............................17
10.1.3 ATM AC procedures...................................17
10.1.4 Additional procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the
ææout-of-band ATM OAM over PW methodÆÆ, and an Ethernet PW...17
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
10.2 PW Forward Defect Exit Procedures........................18
10.2.1 FR AC procedures....................................18
10.2.2 Ethernet AC Procedures..............................18
10.2.3 ATM AC procedures...................................18
10.2.4 Additional procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the
ææout-of-band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method, and an Ethernet PW...18
10.3 PW Reverse Defect Entry Procedures.......................19
10.3.1 FR AC procedures....................................19
10.3.2 Ethernet AC Procedures..............................19
10.3.3 ATM AC procedures...................................19
10.4 PW Reverse Defect Exit Procedures........................19
10.4.1 FR AC procedures....................................19
10.4.2 Ethernet AC Procedures..............................19
10.4.3 ATM AC procedures...................................19
10.5 Procedures in FR Port Mode...............................19
10.6 Procedures in ATM Port Mode..............................20
11 AC Defect Entry/Exit Procedures.............................20
11.1 AC Forward defect entry:.................................20
11.1.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band
ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW.................20
11.1.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method.....................................................20
11.1.3 Additional procedures for ATM ACs...................20
11.2 AC Reverse defect entry..................................21
11.2.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band
ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW.................21
11.2.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method.....................................................21
11.3 AC Forward Defect Exit...................................21
11.3.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band
ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW.................21
11.3.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method.....................................................22
11.3.3 Additional procedures for ATM ACs...................22
11.4 AC Reverse Defect Exit...................................22
11.4.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band
ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW.................22
11.4.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method.....................................................22
12 SONET Encapsulation (CEP)...................................22
13 TDM Encapsulation...........................................23
14 Appendix A: Native Service Management.......................24
14.1 Frame Relay Management...................................24
14.2 ATM Management...........................................25
14.3 Ethernet Management......................................25
15 Security Considerations.....................................26
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
16 Acknowledgments.............................................26
17 References..................................................26
18 Intellectual Property Disclaimer............................27
19 Full Copyright Statement....................................28
20 Authors' Addresses..........................................28
1
Conventions used in this document
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 RFC 2119.
2 Contributors
Thomas D. Nadeau, tnadeau@cisco.com
Monique Morrow, mmorrow@cisco.com
Peter B. Busschbach, busschbach@lucent.com
Mustapha Aissaoui, mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel.com
Matthew Bocci, matthew.bocci@alcatel.co.uk
David Watkinson, david.watkinson@alcatel.com
Yuichi Ikejiri, y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Kenji Kumaki, kekumaki@kddi.com
Satoru Matsushima, satoru@ft.solteria.net
David Allan, dallan@nortelnetworks.com
Himanshu Shah, hshah@ciena.com
Simon Delord, simon.delord@francetelecom.com
3 Scope
This document specifies the mapping of defect states between a
Pseudo Wire and the Attachment Circuits (AC) of the end-to-end
emulated service. This document covers the case whereby the ACs
and the PWs are of the same type in accordance to the PWE3
architecture [PWEARCH] such that a homogenous PW service can be
constructed.
Ideally only PW and AC defects need be propagated into the Native
Service (NS), and NS OAM mechanisms are transported transparently
over the PW. Some homogenous scenarios use PW specific OAM
mechanisms to synchronize defect state between PEs due to
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
discontinuities in native service OAM between the AC and the PW
(e.g. FR LMI), or lack of native service OAM (e.g. Ethernet).
The objective of this document is to standardize the behavior of
PEs with respects to failures on PWs and ACs, so that there is no
ambiguity about the alarms generated and consequent actions
undertaken by PEs in response to specific failure conditions.
This document covers PWE over MPLS PSN, PWE over IP PSN and PWE
over L2TP PSN.
4 Terminology
AIS Alarm Indication Signal
AC Attachment circuit
AOM Administration, Operation and Maintenance
BDI Backward Defect Indication
CC Continuity Check
CE Customer Edge
CPCS Common Part Convergence Sublayer
DLC Data Link Connection
FDI Forward Defect Indication
FRBS Frame Relay Bearer Service
IWF Interworking Function
LB Loopback
NE Network Element
NS Native Service
OAM Operations and Maintenance
PE Provider Edge
PW Pseudowire
PSN Packet Switched Network
RDI Remote Defect Indicator
SDU Service Data Unit
VCC Virtual Channel Connection
VPC Virtual Path Connection
The rest of this document will follow the following convention:
The PW can ride over three types of Packet Switched Network (PSN).
A PSN which makes use of LSPs as the tunneling technology to
forward the PW packets will be referred to as an MPLS PSN. A PSN
which makes use of MPLS-in-IP tunneling [MPLS-in-IP], with a MPLS
shim header used as PW demultiplexer, will be referred to as an
MPLS-IP PSN. A PSN, which makes use of L2TPv3 [L2TPv3] as the
tunneling technology, will be referred to as L2TP-IP PSN.
If LSP-Ping is run over a PW as described in [VCCV] it will be
referred to as VCCV-Ping.
If BFD is run over a PW as described in [VCCV] it will be referred
to as VCCV-BFD.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
In the context of this document a PE forwards packets between an
AC and a PW. The other PE that terminates the PW is the ææpeerÆÆ PE
and the attachment circuit associated with the far end PW
termination is the ææremote ACÆÆ.
Defects are discussed in the context of defect states, and the
criteria to enter and exit the defect state.
The direction of defects is discussed from the perspective of the
observing PE and what the PE may explicitly know about information
transfer capabilities of the PW service.
A forward defect is one that impacts information transfer to the
observing PE. It impacts the observing PEÆs ability to receive
information. A forward defect MAY also imply impact on information
sent or relayed by the observer (and as it cannot receive is
therefore unknowable) and so the forward defect state is
considered to be a superset of the two defect states.
A reverse defect is one that uniquely impacts information sent or
relayed by observer.
At the present time code points for forward defect and reverse
defect have not been specified for BFD and LDP PW control. These
are referred to as ææforward defectÆÆ and ææreverse defectÆÆ
indications as placeholders for code point assignment. However, a
mapping to existing PW status code points [IANA] may be performed:
Forward defect - corresponds to the logical OR of
Local Attachment Circuit ( ingress ) Receive Fault
AND
Local PSN-facing PW ( egress ) Transmit Fault
Reverse defect - corresponds to the logical OR of
Local Attachment Circuit ( egress ) Transmit Fault
AND
Local PSN-facing PW ( egress ) Receive Fault
5 Reference Model and Defect Locations
Figure 1 illustrates the PWE3 network reference model with an
indication of the possible defect locations. This model will be
referenced in the remainder of this document for describing the
OAM procedures.
ACs PSN tunnel ACs
+----+ +----+
+----+ | PE1|==================| PE2| +----+
| |---(a)---(b)..(c)......PW1..(d)..(c)..(f)---(e)---| |
| CE1| (N1) | | | | (N2) |CE2 |
| |----------|............PW2.............|----------| |
+----+ | |==================| | +----+
^ +----+ +----+ ^
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
| Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 |
| |
|<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
Customer Customer
Edge 1 Edge 2
Figure 1: PWE3 Network Defect Locations
In all interworking scenarios described in this document, it is
assumed that at PE1 the AC and the PW are of the same type. The
procedures described in this document exclusively apply to PE1.
PE2 for a homogenous service implements the identical
functionality (although it is not required to as long as the
notifications across the PWs are consistent).
The following is a brief description of the defect locations:
(a) Defect in the first L2 network (N1). This covers any defect
in the N1 which impacts all or a subset of ACs terminating in
PE1. The defect is conveyed to PE1 and to the remote L2
network (N2) using the native service specific OAM defect
indication.
(b) Defect on a PE1 AC interface.
(c) Defect on a PE PSN interface.
(d) Defect in the PSN network. This covers any defect in the PSN
which impacts all or a subset of the PSN tunnels and PWs
terminating in a PE. The defect is conveyed to the PE using a
PSN and/or a PW specific OAM defect indication. Note that
control plane, i.e., signaling and routing, messages do not
necessarily follow the path of the user plane messages.
Defect in the control plane are detected and conveyed
separately through control plane mechanisms. However, in some
cases, they have an impact on the status of the PW as
explained in the next section.
(e) Defect in the second L2 network (N2). This covers any defect
in N2 which impacts all or a subset of ACs terminating in PE2
(which is considered a ææremote AC defectÆÆ in the context of
procedures outlined in this draft). The defect is conveyed to
PE2 and to the remote L2 network (N1) using the native
service OAM defect indication.
(f) Defect on a PE2 AC interface (which is also considered a
ææremote AC defectÆÆ in the context of this draft).
6 Abstract Defect States
PE1 is obliged to track four abstract defect states that reflect
the observed state of both directions of the PW service on both
the AC and the PW sides. Faults may impact only one or both
directions of the PW.
The observed state is a combination of faults directly detected by
PE1, or faults it has been made aware of via notifications.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
+-----+
----AC forward---->| |-----PW reverse---->
CE1 | PE1 | PE2/CE2
<---AC reverse-----| |<----PW forward-----
+-----+
(arrows indicate direction of traffic)
Figure 2: Forward and Reverse Defect States
PE1 will directly detect or be notified of AC forward and PW
forward defects as they occur upstream of PE1 and impact traffic
being sent to PE1. PE1 will only be notified of AC reverse and PW
reverse defects as they universally will be detected by other
devices and only impact traffic that has already been relayed by
PE1.
The procedures outlined in this document define the entry and exit
criteria for each of the four states with respect to the set of
potential ACs and PWs within the document scope and the consequent
actions that PE1 must perform to properly interwork those
notifications. The abstract defect states used by PE1 are common
to all potential interworking combinations of PWs and ACs.
When a PE has multiple sources of notifications from a peer (e.g.
PSN and LDP control plane), it is obliged to track all sources,
but with respect to consequent actions the forward state ALWAYS
has precedence over the reverse state.
7 PW Status and Defects
This section describes possible PW defects, ways to detect them
and consequent actions.
7.1 PW Defects
Possible defects that impact PWs are the following.
. Physical layer defect in the PSN interface
. PSN tunnel failure which results in a loss of connectivity
between ingress and egress PE.
. Control session failures between ingress and egress PE
In case of an MPLS PSN and an MPLS-IP PSN there are additional
defects:
. PW labeling error, which is due to a defect in the ingress PE,or
to an over-writing of the PW label value somewhere along the LSP
path.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
. LSP tunnel Label swapping errors or LSP tunnel label merging
errors in the MPLS network. This could result in the termination
of a PW at the wrong egress PE.
. Unintended self-replication; e.g., due to loops or denial-of-
service attacks.
7.1.1 Packet Loss
Persistent congestion in the PSN or in a PE could impact the
proper operation of the emulated service.
A PE can detect packet loss resulting from congestion through
several methods. If a PE uses the sequence number field in the
PWE3 Control Word for a specific Pseudo Wire [PWEARCH], it has the
ability to detect packet loss. [CONGESTION] discusses other
possible mechanisms to detect congestion between PWs.
Generally, there are congestion alarms which are raised in the
node and to the management system when congestion occurs. The
decision to declare the PW Down and to re-signal it through
another path is usually at the discretion of the network operator.
7.2 Defect Detection and Notification
7.2.1 Defect Detection Tools
To detect the defects listed in 7.1, Service Providers have a
variety of options available:
Physical Layer defect detection and notification mechanisms such
as SONET/SDH LOS, LOF,and AIS/FERF.
PSN Defect Detection Mechanisms:
For PWE3 over an L2TP-IP PSN, with L2TP as encapsulation protocol,
the defect detection mechanisms described in [L2TPv3] apply.
Furthermore, the tools Ping and Traceroute, based on ICMP Echo
Messages apply [ICMP].
For PWE3 over an MPLS PSN and an MPLS-IP PSN, several tools can be
used.
. LSP-Ping and LSP-Traceroute( [LSPPING]) for LSP tunnel
connectivity verification.
. LSP-Ping with Bi-directional Forwarding Detection ([BFD]) for
LSP tunnel continuity checking.
.Furthermore, if RSVP-TE is used to setup the PSN Tunnels between
ingress and egress PE, the hello protocol can be used to detect
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
loss of connectivity (see [RSVP-TE]), but only at the control
plane.
PW specific defect detection mechanisms:
[VCCV] describes how LSP-Ping and BFD can be used over individual
PWs for connectivity verification and continuity checking
respectively. When used as such, we will refer to them as VCCV-
Ping and VCCV-BFD respectively.
Furthermore, the detection of a fault could occur at different
points in the network and there are several ways the observing PE
determines a fault exists:
a. egress PE detection of failure (e.g. BFD)
b. ingress PE detection of failure (e.g. LSP-PING)
c. ingress PE notification of failure (e.g. RSVP Path-err)
7.2.2 Defect Detection Mechanism Applicability
The discussion below is intended to give some perspective how
tools mentioned in the previous section can be used to detect
failures.
Observations:
. Tools like LSP-Ping and BFD can be run periodically or on
demand. If used for defect detection, as opposed to diagnostic
usage, they must be run periodically.
. Control protocol failure indications, e.g. detected through L2TP
Keep-alive messages or the RSVP-TE Hello messages, can be used to
detect many network failures. However, control protocol failures
do not necessarily coincide with data plane failures. Therefore, a
defect detection mechanism in the data plane is required to
protect against all potential data plane failures. Furthermore,
fault diagnosis mechanisms for data plane failures are required to
further analyze detected failures.
. For PWE3 over an MPLS PSN and an MPLS-IP PSN, it is effective to
run a defect detection mechanism over a PSN Tunnel frequently and
run one over every individual PW within that PSN Tunnel less
frequently. However in case the PSN traffic is distributed over
Equal Cost Multi Paths (ECMP), it may be difficult to guarantee
that PSN OAM messages follow the same path as a specific PW. A
Service Provider might therefore decide to focus on defect
detection over PWs.
. In MPLS networks, execution of LSP Ping would detect MPLS label
errors, since it requests the receiving node to match the label
with the original FEC that was used in the LSP set up. BFD can
also be used since it relies on discriminators. A label error
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
would result in a mismatch between the expected discriminator and
the actual discriminator in the BFD control messages.
. For PWE3 over an MPLS PSN and an MPLS-IP PSN, PEs could detect
PSN label errors through the execution of LSP-Ping. However, use
of VCCV is preferred as it is a more accurate detection tool for
pseudowires.
Furthermore, it can be run using a BFD mode, i.e., VCCV-BFD, which
allows it to be used as a light-weight detection mechanism for
PWs. If, due to a label error in the PSN, a PW would be terminated
on the wrong egress PE, PEs would detect this through the
execution of VCCV. LSP ping and/or LSP trace could then be used to
diagnose the detected failure.
Based on these observations, it is clear that a service provider
has the disposal of a variety of tools. There are many factors
that influence which combination of tools best meets its needs.
7.3 Overview of fault notifications
For a MPLS PSN and a IP PSN using MPLS-in-IP (MPLS-IP PSN), PW
status signaling messages are used as the default mechanism for AC
and PW status and defect indication [PWE3-CONTROL].
For a IP PSN using L2TPv3, i.e., a L2TP-IP PSN, StopCCN and CDN
messages are used for conveying defects in the PSN and PW
respectively, while the Set-Link-Info (SLI) messages are used to
convey status and defects in the AC and local L2 network.
Optionally, PEs can negotiate the use of VCCV-BFD for both PW
fault detection and AC/PW fault notifications as explained in
[VCCV]. What BFD is used for is negotiated:
i. not used
ii. used for PW fault detection (which implies reverse
notifications)
iii. used for PW fault detection and all PW/AC fault
notifications
When BFD is to be used for all fault notifications, then BFD is
the preferred mechanism of exchanging fault notifications.
PE1 will translate the PW defect states to the appropriate failure
indications on the affected ACs. The exact procedures depend on
the emulated protocols and will be discussed in the next sections.
7.3.1 Use of Native Service notifications
In the context of this document, ATM and unstructured SONET/TDM
PWs are the only examples of a PW that has native service
notification capability. Frame relay does have the FR OAM
specification [FRF.19], but this is not commonly deployed. All
other PWs use PW specific notification mechanisms.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
ATM PWs may optionally also use PW specific notification
mechanisms.
In normal, i.e., defect-free, operation, all the types of ATM OAM
cells described in Section 14.2 are either terminated at the PE,
for OAM segments terminating in the AC endpoint, or transparently
carried over the PSN tunnel [PWE3-ATM]. This is referred to as
ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ and is the default method.
An optional out-of band method based on relaying the ATM defect
state over a PW specific defect indication mechanism is provided
for PEÆs which cannot generate and/or transmit ATM OAM cells over
the ATM PW. This is referred to as ææOut-of-band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ.
7.3.2 The Use of PW Status for MPLS and MPLS-IP PSNs
This document specifies the use of PW status signaling as the
default mechanism for the purpose of conveying the status of a PW
and ACs between PEs.
For a MPLS PSN and a IP PSN using MPLS-in-IP (MPLS-IP PSN), PW
status signaling messages are used as the default mechanism for AC
and PW status and defect indication [PWE3-CONTROL].
PW status is used to convey the defect view of the PW local to the
originating PE. This is the local PW state, and when the NS does
not have native OAM capability or emulation of native capability
is prohibitive, the AC state. This is in the form of a ææforward
defectÆÆ or a ææreverse defectÆÆ.
7.3.3 The Use of L2TP STOPCCN and CDN
[L2TPv3] describes the use of STOPCCN and CDN messages to exchange
alarm information between PEs. Like PW Status, STOPCCN and CDN
messages shall be used to report the following failures:
. Failures detected through defect detection mechanisms in the
L2TP-IP PSN
. Failures detected through VCCV (except for VCCV-BFD)
. Failures within the PE that result in an inability to forward
traffic between ACs and PW
In L2TP, the Set-Link-Info (SLI) message is used to convey
failures on the ACs.
7.3.4 The Use of BFD Diagnostic Codes
If the PEs have negotiated the use of VCCV-BFD for both PW fault
detection and AC/PW fault notifications as explained in [VCCV]
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
then BFD is the preferred mechanism of exchanging fault
notifications.
[BFD] defines a set of diagnostic codes that partially overlap
with failures that can be communicated through PW Status messages
or L2TP STOPCCN and CDN messages. To avoid ambiguous situations,
these messages SHOULD be used for all failures that are detected
through means other than BFD.
For VCCV-BFD, therefore, only the following diagnostic codes
apply:
Code Message
---- ------------------------------
0 No Diagnostic
1 Control Detection Time Expired
3 Neighbor Signaled Session Down
7 Administratively Down
[VCCV] states that, when used over PWs, the asynchronous mode of
BFD should be used. Diagnostic code 2 (Echo Function Failed) does
not apply to the asynchronous mode, but to the Demand Mode.
All other BFD diagnostic codes refer to failures that can be
communicated through PW Status or L2TP STOPCCN and CDN.
The VCCV-BFD procedures are as follows:
When the downstream PE (PE1) does not receive control messages
from the upstream PE (PE2) during a certain number of transmission
intervals (a number provisioned by the operator), it declares that
the PW in its receive direction is down. PE1 sends a message to
PE2 with H=0 (i.e. "I do not hear you") and with diagnostic code
1. In turn, PE2 declares the PW is down in its transmit direction
and it uses diagnostic code 3 in its control messages to PE2.
When a PW is taken administratively down, the PEs will exchange PW
Status messages with code "Pseudo Wire Not Forwarding" or L2TP CDN
messages with code "Session disconnected for administrative
reasons". In addition, exchange of BFD control messages MUST be
suspended. To that end, the PEs MUST send control messages with
H=0 and diagnostic code 7.
In conclusion, one would communicate PW defects through PW Status
messages, or L2TP STOPCCN and CDN messages in all cases, except
for a well-defined set of exceptions where BFD is used. How PW
defects that can be detected through the use of BFD or through
other means, are mapped to defect indications on the ACs is
described in section Error! Reference source not found. and in
subsequent sections.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
8 PW Defect State Entry/Exit
8.1 PW Forward Defect Entry/Exit
A PE will enter the PW forward defect state if one of the
following occurs
. It detects loss of connectivity on the PSN tunnel over which the
PW is riding. This includes label swapping errors and label
merging errors.
. It receives a message from PE2 indicating PW ææforward defectÆÆ or
ææPW not forwardingÆÆ, which indicates PE2 detected or was notified
of a PW fault downstream of it or that there was a remote AC
fault.
In the case of an L2TP-IP, this is a L2TP StopCCN or CDN message.
A StopCCN message indicates that the control connection has been
shut down by the remote PE [L2TPv3]. This is typically used for
defects in the PSN which impact both the co
ntrol connection and the individual data plane sessions. On
reception of this message, a PE closes the control connection and
will clear all the sessions managed by this control connection.
Since each session carries a single PW, the state of the
corresponding PWs is changed to DOWN. A CDN message indicates that
the remote peer requests the disconnection of a specific session
[L2TPv3]. In this case only the state of the corresponding PW is
changed to DOWN. This is typically used for local defects in a PE
which impact only a specific session and the corresponding PW.
. It detects a loss of PW connectivity, including label errors,
through VCCV-BFD or VCCV-PING in no reply mode.
Note that if the PW control session between the PEs fails, the PW
is torn down and needs to be re-established. However, the
consequent actions towards the ACs are the same as if the PW
entered the forward defect state. Precise details of AC defect
state entry and exit criteria are specified elsewhere (e.g. I.610)
and such references will supersede the descriptions herein.
PE1 will exit the forward defect state if the notified PW status
from the PE2 has the ææforward defectÆÆ indication clear, and it has
established that PW/PSN connectivity is working in the forward
direction. Note that this may result in a transition to the PW
working or PW reverse defect states.
For a PWE3 over a L2TP-IP PSN, a PE will exit the PW forward
defect state when the following conditions are true:
. All defects it had previously detected have disappeared, and
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
. A L2TPv3 session is successfully established to carry the PW
packets.
8.2 PW reverse defect state entry/exit
A PE will enter the PW reverse defect state if one of the
following occurs
. It receives a message from PE2 indicating PW ææreverse defectÆÆ
which indicates PE2 detected or was notified of a PW/PSN fault
upstream of it or that there was a remote AC fault and it is not
already in the PW forward defect state.
PE1 will exit the reverse defect state if the notified PW status
from the PE2 has the ææreverse defectÆÆ indication clear, or it has
entered the PW forward defect state.
For a PWE3 over a L2TP-IP PSN, a PE will exit the PW reverse
defect state when the following conditions are true:
. All defects it had previously detected have disappeared, and
. A L2TPv3 session is successfully established to carry the PW
packets.
8.2.1 PW reverse defects that are treated as AC Forward Defects
Some PW mechanisms will result in PW defects being detected by or
notified to PE1 when PE1 is upstream of the fault but the
notification did not originate with PE2. The resultant actions are
identical to that of entering the AC forward defect state as PE1
needs to synchronize state with PE2 and the PW state communicated
from PE1 to PE2 needs to indicate state accordingly.
When the PSN uses RSVP-TE or proactively uses LSP-PING as a PW
fault detection mechanism, PE1 must consider entry to the AC
forward defect state to be the logical or of the AC entry criteria
outlined for each AC type in the subsequent sections, and that of
the known PW state in the direction of PE2 downstream of PE1
(indicated via RSVP patherr or LSP-PINGs).
The exit criteria being when the logical AND of the RSVP fault
state, LSP-PING fault state and the actual AC forward defect exit
criteria has been met, indicating no forward defects.
9 AC Defect States
9.1 FR ACs
PE1 enters the AC Forward Defect state if any of the following
conditions are met:
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
(i) A PVC is not ædeletedÆ from the Frame Relay network and
the Frame Relay network explicitly indicates in a full
status report (and optionally by the asynchronous status
message) that this Frame Relay PVC is æinactiveÆ. In this
case, this status maps across the PE to the corresponding
PW only.
(ii) The LIV indicates that the link from the PE to the Frame
Relay network is down. In this case, the link down
indication maps across the PE to all corresponding PWs.
(iii) A physical layer alarm is detected on the FR interface. In
this case, this status maps across the PE to all
corresponding PWs.
A PE exits the AC Forward Defect state when all defects it had
previously detected have disappeared.
The AC reverse defect state is not valid for FR ACs.
9.2 ATM ACs
9.2.1 AC Forward Defect State Entry/Exit
PE1 enters the AC forward defect state if any of the following
conditions are met:
(i) It detects or is notified of a physical layer fault on the
ATM interface and/or it terminates an F4 AIS flow or has
loss of F4 CC for a VP carrying VCCÆs.
(ii) It terminates an F4/F5 AIS OAM flow indicating that the
ATM VP/VC is down in the adjacent L2 ATM network (e.g., N1
for PE1). This is applicable to the case of the ææout-of-
band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method only.
(iii) It detects loss of connectivity on the NS ATM VPC/VCC
while terminating ATM continuity checking (ATM CC) with
the local ATM network and CE.
A PE exits the AC Forward Defect state when all defects it had
previously detected have disappeared. The exact conditions under
which a PE exits the AIS state, or declares that connectivity is
restored via ATM CC are defined in I.610 [I.610].
9.2.2 AC Reverse Defect State Entry/Exit
A PE enters the AC reverse defect state if any of the following
conditions are met:
(i) It terminates an F4/F5 RDI OAM flow indicating that the
ATM VP/VC AC is down in the adjacent L2 ATM network (e.g.,
N1 for PE1). This is applicable to the case of out-of-band
ATM OAM over PW only.
A PE exits the AC Reverse Defect state if the AC state transitions
to working or to the AC forward defect state. The criteria for
exiting the RDI state are described in I.610.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
9.3 Ethernet AC State
PE1 enters the forward defect state if any of the following
conditions are met:
(i) A physical layer alarm is detected on the Ethernet
interface.
A PE exits the Ethernet AC forward defect state when all defects
it had previously detected have disappeared.
10 PW Forward Defect Entry/Exit procedures
10.1 PW Forward Defect Entry Procedures
10.1.1 FR AC procedures
These procedures are applicable only if the transition from the
working state to the PW Forward defect state. A transition from PW
reverse defect state to the forward defect state does not require
any additional notification procedures to the FR AC as it has
already been told the peer is down.
(i) PE1 MUST generate a full status report with the Active bit
= 0 (and optionally in the asynchronous status message),
as per Q.933 annex A, into N1 for the corresponding FR
ACs.
10.1.2 Ethernet AC Procedures
No procedures are currently defined.
10.1.3 ATM AC procedures
On entry to the PW Forward Defect State
(i) PE1 MUST commence F5 AIS insertion into the corresponding
AC.
(ii) PE1 MUST terminate any F5 CC generation on the
corresponding AC.
10.1.4 Additional procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-
band ATM OAM over PW methodÆÆ, and an Ethernet PW
If the PW failure was explicitly detected by PE1, it MUST assume
PE2 has no knowledge of the defect and MUST notify PE2 in the form
of a reverse defect notification:
For PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN
(i) A PW Status message indicating a ææreverse defectÆÆ, or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code if the optional use of VCCV-BFD
notification has been negotiated
For PW over L2TP-IP PSN
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
(i) An L2TP Set-Link Info (LSI) message with a Circuit Status
AVP indicating "active" Or,
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code if the optional use of VCCV-BFD
notification has been negotiated
Otherwise the entry to the defect state was the result of a
notification from PE2 (indicating that PE2 already had knowledge
of the fault) or loss of the control adjacency (similarly visible
to PE2).
10.2 PW Forward Defect Exit Procedures
10.2.1 FR AC procedures
On transition from the PW forward defect state to the reverse
defect state PE1 takes no action w.r.t. the AC.
On exit from the PW Forward defect state
(i) PE1 MUST generate a full status report with the Active bit
= 1 (and optionally in the asynchronous status message),
as per Q.933 annex A, into N1 for the corresponding FR
ACs.
10.2.2 Ethernet AC Procedures
No procedures are currently defined
10.2.3 ATM AC procedures
On exit from the PW Forward Defect State
(i) PE1 MUST cease F5 AIS insertion into the corresponding AC.
(ii) PE1 MUST resume any F5 CC generation on the corresponding
AC.
10.2.4 Additional procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-
band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method, and an Ethernet PW
If the PW failure was explicitly detected by PE1, it MUST notify
PE2 in the form of clearing the reverse defect notification:
For PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN
(i) A PW Status message with the ææreverse defectÆÆ indication
clear, and the remaining indicators showing either working
or a transition to the ææforward defectÆÆ state. Or,
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code with the same attribute as (i)
if the optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been
negotiated
For PW over L2TP-IP PSN
(i) An L2TP Set-Link Info (LSI) message with a Circuit Status
AVP indicating "active" Or,
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code with the same attributes as (i)
if the optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been
negotiated
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
10.3 PW Reverse Defect Entry Procedures
10.3.1 FR AC procedures
On transition from the PW forward defect state to the reverse
defect state PE1 takes no action w.r.t. the AC.
On entry to the PW reverse defect state
(i) PE1 MUST generate a full status report with the Active bit
= 0 (and optionally in the asynchronous status message),
as per Q.933 annex A, into N1 for the corresponding FR
ACs.
10.3.2 Ethernet AC Procedures
No procedures are currently defined
10.3.3 ATM AC procedures
On entry to the PW Reverse Defect State
(i) PE1 MUST commence F5 RDI insertion into the corresponding
AC. This applies to the case of an ATM PW in the ææout-of-
band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method only.
10.4 PW Reverse Defect Exit Procedures
10.4.1 FR AC procedures
On transition from the PW reverse defect state to the PW forward
defect state PE1 takes no action with respect to the AC.
On exit from the PW Reverse defect state
(i) PE1 MUST generate a full status report with the Active bit
= 1 (and optionally in the asynchronous status message),
as per Q.933 annex A, into N1 for the corresponding FR
ACs.
10.4.2 Ethernet AC Procedures
No procedures are currently defined
10.4.3 ATM AC procedures
On exit from the PW Reverse Defect State
(i) PE1 MUST cease F5 RDI insertion into the corresponding AC.
This applies to the case of an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band ATM OAM
over PWÆÆ method only.
10.5 Procedures in FR Port Mode
In case of pure port mode, STATUS ENQUIRY and STATUS messages are
transported transparently over the PW. A PW Failure will therefore
result in timeouts of the Q.933 link and PVC management protocol
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
at the Frame Relay devices at one or both sites of the emulated
interface.
10.6 Procedures in ATM Port Mode
In case of transparent cell transport, i.e., "port mode", where
the PE does not keep track of the status of individual ATM VPCs or
VCCs, a PE cannot relay PW defect state over these VCCs and VPCs.
If ATM CC is run on the VCCs and VPCs end-to-end (CE1 to CE2), or
on a segment originating and terminating in the ATM network and
spanning the PSN network, it will timeout and cause the CE or ATM
switch to enter the ATM AIS state.
11 AC Defect Entry/Exit Procedures
11.1 AC Forward defect entry:
On entry to the forward defect state, PE1 may need to perform
procedures on both the PW and the AC.
11.1.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band ATM OAM
over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW
On entry to the AC forward defect state, PE1 notifies PE2 of a
forward defect:
For PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN
(i) A PW Status message indicating ææforward defectÆÆ, or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code of ææforward defectÆÆ if the
optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been negotiated.
For PW over L2TP-IP PSN
(i) An L2TP Set-Link Info (LSI) message with a Circuit Status
AVP indicating "inactive", or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code of ææforward defectÆÆ if the
optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been negotiated.
11.1.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method
On entry to the AC forward defect state, PE1 MUST:
a. Commence insertion of ATM AIS cells into the corresponding
PW.
b. If PE1 is originating F4 or F5 I.610 CC cells, PE1 will
suspend CC generation for the duration of the defect
state.
11.1.3 Additional procedures for ATM ACs
On entry to the AC forward defect state PE1 will commence RDI
insertion into the AC as per I.610. This procedure is applicable
to the ææout-of-band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method only.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
11.2 AC Reverse defect entry
11.2.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band ATM OAM
over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW
On entry to the AC reverse defect state, PE1 notifies PE2 of a
reverse defect:
For PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN
(iii) A PW Status message indicating ææreverse defectÆÆ,or
(iv) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code of ææreverse defectÆÆ if the
optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been negotiated.
For PW over L2TP-IP PSN
(iii) An L2TP Set-Link Info (LSI) message with a Circuit Status
AVP indicating "inactive", or
(iv) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code of ææreverse defectÆÆ if the
optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been negotiated.
11.2.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method
There are no procedures in this case as the AC reverse defect
state is not valid for PE1 operating in this method.
11.3 AC Forward Defect Exit
11.3.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band ATM OAM
over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW
On exit from the AC forward defect state PE1 notifies PE2 that the
forward defect state has cleared (note that this may be a direct
state transition to either the working state or the reverse defect
state):
For PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN
(i) A PW Status message with forward defect clear and the
remaining indicators showing either working or reverse
defect state, or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code with the same attributes as (i)
if the optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been
negotiated.
For PW over L2TP-IP PSN
(i) An L2TP Set-Link Info (LSI) message with a Circuit Status
AVP indicating "active", or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code with the same attributes as (i)
if the optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been
negotiated.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
11.3.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method
On exit from the AC forward defect state, PE1 MUST:
(i) Cease insertion of ATM AIS cells into the corresponding
PW.
(ii) If PE1 is originating F4 or F5 I.610 CC cells, PE1 will
resume CC generation for the duration of the defect state.
11.3.3 Additional procedures for ATM ACs
On exit from the AC forward defect state PE1 will cease RDI
insertion into the AC as per I.610. This procedure is applicable
to the ææout-of-band ATM OAM over PWÆÆ method only.
11.4 AC Reverse Defect Exit
11.4.1 Procedures for a FR PW, an ATM PW in the ææout-of-band ATM OAM
over PWÆÆ method, or an Ethernet PW
On exit from the AC reverse defect state, PE1 notifies PE2 that
the reverse defect state has cleared (note that this may be a
direct state transition to either the working state or the forward
defect state):
For PW over MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN
(i) A PW Status message with the ææreverse defectÆÆ indicator
cleared and the remaining indicators showing either
working or a transition to the ææforward defectÆÆ state, or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code with the same information as
(i) if the optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been
negotiated.
For PW over L2TP-IP PSN
(i) An L2TP Set-Link Info (LSI) message with a Circuit Status
AVP indicating "active", or
(ii) A VCCV-BFD diagnostic code with the same information as
(i) if the optional use of VCCV-BFD notification has been
negotiated.
11.4.2 Procedures for a ATM PW in the ææinband ATM OAM over PWÆÆ
method
There are no procedures in this case as the AC reverse defect
state is not valid for PE1 operating in this method.
12 SONET Encapsulation (CEP)
[CEP] discusses how Loss of Connectivity and other SONET/SDH
protocol failures on the PW are translated to alarms on the ACs
and vice versa. In essence, all defect management procedures are
handled entirely in the emulated protocol. There is no need for an
interaction between PW defect management and SONET layer defect
management.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
13 TDM Encapsulation
From an OAM perspective, the PSN carrying a TDM PW provides the
same function as that of SONET/SDH or ATM network carrying the
same low-rate TDM stream. Hence the interworking of defect OAM is
similar.
For structure-agnostic TDM PWs, the TDM stream is to be carried
transparently across the PSN, and this requires TDM OAM
indications to be transparently transferred along with the TDM
data. For structure-aware TDM PWs the TDM structure alignment is
terminated at ingress to the PSN and regenerated at egress, and
hence OAM indications may need to be signaled by special means. In
both cases generation of the appropriate emulated OAM indication
may be required when the PSN is at fault.
Since TDM is a real-time signal, defect indications and
performance measurements may be classified into two classes,
urgent and deferrable. Urgent messages are those whose contents
may not be significantly delayed with respect to the TDM data that
they potentially impact, while deferrable messages may arrive at
the far end delayed with respect to simultaneously generated TDM
data. For example, a forward indication signifying that the TDM
data is invalid (e.g. TDM loss of signal, or MPLS loss of packets)
is only of use when received before the TDM data is to be played
out towards the far end TDM system. It is hence classified as an
urgent message, and we can not delegate its signaling to a
separate maintenance or management flow. On the other hand, the
forward loss of multiframe synchronization, and most reverse
indications do not need to be acted upon before a particular TDM
frame is played out.
From the above discussion it is evident that the complete solution
to OAM for TDM PWs needs to have at least two, and perhaps three
components. The required functionality is transparent transfer of
native TDM OAM and urgent transfer of indications (by flags) along
with the impacted packets. Optionally there may be mapping between
TDM and PSN OAM flows.
TDM AIS generated in the TDM network due to a fault in that
network is generally carried unaltered, although the TDM
encapsulations allow for its suppression for bandwidth
conservation purposes. Similarly, when the TDM loss of signal is
detected at the PE, it will generally emulate TDM AIS.
SAToP and the two structure-aware TDM encapsulations have
converged on a common set of defect indication flags in the PW
control word. When the PE detects or is informed of lack of
validity of the TDM signal, it raises the local ("L") defect flag,
uniquely identifying the defect as originating in the TDM network.
The remote PE must ensure that TDM AIS is delivered to the remote
TDM network. When the defect lies in the MPLS network, the remote
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
PE fails to receive packets. The remote PE generates TDM AIS
towards its TDM network, and in addition raises the remote defect
("R") flag in its PSN-bound packets, uniquely identifying the
defect as originating in the PSN. Finally, defects in the remote
TDM network that cause RDI generation in that network, may
optionally be indicated by proper setting of the field of valid
packets in the opposite direction.
14 Appendix A: Native Service Management
14.1 Frame Relay Management
The management of Frame Relay Bearer Service (FRBS) connections
can be accomplished through two distinct methodologies:
1. Based on ITU-T Q.933 Annex A, Link Integrity Verification
procedure, where STATUS and STATUS ENQUIRY signaling messages are
sent using DLCI=0 over a given UNI and NNI physical link. [ITU-T
Q.933]
2. Based on FRBS LMI, and similar to ATM ILMI where LMI is common
in private Frame Relay networks.
In addition, ITU-T I.620 addresses Frame Relay loopback, but the
deployment of this standard is relatively limited. [ITU-T I.620]
It is possible to use either, or both, of the above options to
manage Frame Relay interfaces. This document will refer
exclusively to Q.933 messages.
The status of any provisioned Frame Relay PVC may be updated
through:
. STATUS messages in response to STATUS ENQUIRY messages, these
are mandatory.
. Optional unsolicited STATUS updates independent of STATUS
ENQUIRY (typically under the control of management system, these
updates can be sent periodically (continuous monitoring) or only
upon detection of specific defects based on configuration.
In Frame Relay, a DLC is either up or down. There is no
distinction between different directions. TO achieve commonality
with other technologies, æædownÆÆ is represented as a forward
defect.
Frame relay connection management is not implemented over the PW
using either of the techniques native to FR, therefore PW
mechanisms are used to synchronize the view each PE has of the
remote NS/AC. A PE will treat a remote NS/AC failure in the same
way it would treat a PW or PSN failure, that is using AC facing FR
connection management to notify the CE that FR is æædownÆÆ.
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
14.2 ATM Management
ATM management and OAM mechanisms are much more evolved than those
of Frame Relay. There are five broad management-related
categories, including fault management (FT), Performance
management (PM), configuration management (CM), Accounting
management (AC), and Security management (SM). ITU-T
Recommendation I.610 describes the functions for the operation and
maintenance of the physical layer and the ATM layer, that is,
management at the bit and cell levels ([ITU-T I.610]). Because of
its scope, this document will concentrate on ATM fault management
functions. Fault management functions include the following:
1) Alarm indication signal (AIS)
2) Remote Defect indication (RDI).
3) Continuity Check (CC).
4) Loopback (LB)
Some of the basic ATM fault management functions are described as
follows: Alarm indication signal (AIS) sends a message in the same
direction as that of the signal, to the effect that an error has
been detected.
Remote defect indication (RDI) sends a message to the transmitting
terminal that an error has been detected. RDI is also referred to
as the far-end reporting failure. Alarms related to the physical
layer are indicated using path AIS/RDI. Virtual path AIS/RDI and
virtual channel AIS/RDI are also generated for the ATM layer.
OAM cells (F4 and F5 cells) are used to instrument virtual paths
and virtual channels respectively with regard to their performance
and availability. OAM cells in the F4 and F5 flows are used for
monitoring a segment of the network and end-to-end monitoring. OAM
cells in F4 flows have the same VPI as that of the connection
being monitored. OAM cells in F5 flows have the same VPI and VCI
as that of the connection being monitored. The AIS and RDI
messages of the F4 and F5 flows are sent to the other network
nodes via the VPC or the VCC to which the message refers. The type
of error and its location can be indicated in the OAM cells.
Continuity check is another fault management function. To check
whether a VCC that has been idle for a period of time is still
functioning, the network elements can send continuity-check cells
along that VCC.
14.3 Ethernet Management
At this point in time, inband Ethernet OAM standards are being
specified in the International Telecommunications Union -
-
Telecommunications (ITU-T) and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). However, it will take some time
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
before they are widely deployed. Therefore, this document
specifies only the procedures for mapping a defect due to a
Ethernet physical layer fault. Defects on a remote Ethernet AC or
defects in a PW cannot be mapped back to the local Ethernet
network.
15 Security Considerations
The mapping messages described in this document do not change the
security functions inherent in the actual messages.
16 Acknowledgments
Hari Rakotoranto, Eric Rosen, Mark Townsley, Michel Khouderchah,
Bertrand Duvivier, Vanson Lim and Chris Metz Cisco Systems
17 References
[BFD] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
Internet Draft <draft-katz-ward-bfd-02.txt>, May 2004
[CEP] Malis, A., et.al., "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet
(CEP)", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-09.txt>, August
2004
[CONGESTION] Rosen, E., Bryant, S., Davie, B., "PWE3 Congestion
Control Framework", Internet Draft <draft-rosen-pwe3-
congestion-02.txt", September 2004
[CONTROL] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Smith, T., "Pseudowire Setup and
Maintenance using LDP", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-pwe3-
control-protocol-14.txt>, December 2004
[FRF.19] Frame Relay Forum, ææFrame Relay Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance Implementation AgreementÆÆ,
March 2001.
[ICMP] Postel, J. "Internet Control Message Protocol" RFC 792
[ITU-T I.610] Recommendation I.610 "B-ISDN operation and
maintenance principles and functions", February 1999
[ITU-T I.620] Recommendation I.620 "Frame relay operation and
maintenance principles and functions", October 1996
[ITU-T Q.933] Recommendation Q.933 " ISDN Digital Subscriber
Signalling System No. 1 (DSS1) Signalling specifications
for frame mode switched and permanent virtual connection
control and status monitoring" February 2003
[L2TPv3] Lau, J., et.al. " Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version
3", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-15.txt>,
December 2004
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
[LSPPING] Kompella, K., Pan, P., Sheth, N., Cooper, D., Swallow,
G., Wadhwa, S., Bonica, R., " Detecting MPLS Data Plane
Failures", Internet Draft < draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-07.txt>,
October 2004
[MPLS-in-IP] Worster. T., et al., ææEncapsulating MPLS in IP or
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)ÆÆ, draft-ietf-mpls-in-ip-
or-gre-08.txt, June 2004.
[OAM REQ] T. Nadeau et.al., "OAM Requirements for MPLS Networks",
Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-05>,
December 2004
[PWEARCH] Bryant, S., Pate, P., "PWE3 Architecture", Internet
Draft, < draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-07.txt>, March 2004
[PWEATM] Martini, L., et al., "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
of ATM Cells/Frame Over IP and MPLS Networks", Internet Draft
<draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-07.txt>, Ocotber 2004
[PWREQ] Xiao, X., McPherson, D., Pate, P., "Requirements for
Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 3916,
September 2004
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et.al. " RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001
[VCCV] Nadeau, T., et al."Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit Connection
Verification (VCCV)", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-
04.txt>, February 2005.
18 Intellectual Property Disclaimer
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent
that it has made any effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in
standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found
in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for
publication 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
Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
to practice this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF Executive Director.
19 Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 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."
20 Authors' Addresses
Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaverbrook Drive
Boxborough, MA 01824
Phone: +1-978-936-1470
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Monique Morrow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Glatt-com
CH-8301 Glattzentrum
Switzerland
Email: mmorrow@cisco.com
Peter B. Busschbach
Lucent Technologies
67 Whippany Road
Whippany, NJ, 07981
Email: busschbach@lucent.com
Mustapha Aissaoui
Alcatel
600 March Rd
Kanata, ON, Canada. K2K 2E6
Email: mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel.com
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel
Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Rd
Maidenhead, Berks, UK SL6 2PJ
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel.co.uk
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02.txt February 2005
David Watkinson
Alcatel
600 March Rd
Kanata, ON, Canada. K2K 2E6
Email: david.watkinson@alcatel.com
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation
1-1-6, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8019, JAPAN
Email: y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
KDDI Bldg. 2-3-2
Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-8003,JAPAN
E-mail : kekumaki@kddi.com
Satoru Matsushima
Japan Telecom
JAPAN
Email: satoru@ft.solteria.net
David Allan
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Ave.,
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Email: dallan@nortelnetworks.com
Simon Delord
France Telecom
2 av, Pierre Marzin
22300 LANNION, France
E-mail: simon.delord@francetelecom.com
Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2005 [Page 29]
