PWE3 T. Nadeau, Ed.
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro, Ed.
Expires: August 22, 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc.
February 18, 2009
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 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.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract
This document describes new Connectivity Verification (CV) types
using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV). VCCV provides a control channel
that is associated with a Pseudowire (PW), as well as the
corresponding operations and management functions such as
connectivity verification to be used over that control channel.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
Table of Contents
1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Connectivity
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. CV Types for BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Capability Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV . 10
5.2. PW Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP . . . . . . . 11
6. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
1. Specification of Requirements
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].
The reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology and
abbreviations defined in [RFC5085].
2. Introduction
This document describes new Connectivity Verification (CV) types
using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV). VCCV [RFC5085] provides a control
channel that is associated with a Pseudowire (PW), as well as the
corresponding operations and management functions such as
connectivity/fault verification to be used over that control channel.
BFD [I-D.ietf-bfd-base] is used over the VCCV control channel
primarily as a pseudowire fault detection mechanism, for detecting
dataplane failures. Some BFD CV Types can additionally carry fault
status between the endpoints of the pseudowire. Furthermore, this
information can then be translated into the native OAM status codes
used by the native access technologies, such as ATM, Frame-Relay or
Ethernet. The specific details of such status interworking are out
of the scope of this document, and are only noted here to illustrate
the utility of BFD over VCCV for such purposes. Those details can be
found in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map].
The new BFD CV Types are PW Demultiplexer-agnostic, and hence
applicable for both MPLS and L2TPv3 Pseudowire Demultiplexers. This
document concerns itself with the BFD VCCV operation over Single-
Segment Pseudowires (SS-PW). This specification describes procedures
only for BFD asynchronous mode.
3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Connectivity Verification
VCCV can support several Connectivity Verification (CV) types. This
section defines new CV Types for use when BFD is used as the VCCV
payload.
The CV Type is defined as a bitmask field used to indicate the
specific CV Type or Types (i.e., none, one or more) of VCCV packets
that may be sent on the VCCV control channel. The values shown below
augment those already defined in [RFC5085]. They represent the
numerical value corresponding to the actual bit being set in the CV
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
Type bitfield.
BFD CV Types:
The defined values for the different BFD CV Types for MPLS and
L2TPv3 PWs are:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ====================================================
Bit 2 (0x04) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 3 (0x08) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
Bit 4 (0x10) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 5 (0x20) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
It should be noted that four BFD CV Types have been defined by
permutation of their encapsulation and functionality, see
Section 3.3.
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation
When heart-beat indication is necessary for one or more PWs, the
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [I-D.ietf-bfd-base] provides
a means of continuous monitoring of the PW data path and, in some
operational modes, propagation of forward and reverse defect
indications.
In order to use BFD, both ends of the PW connection need to agree on
the BFD CV Type to use:
For statically provisioned pseudowires, both ends need to be
statically configured to use the same BFD CV Type (in addition to
be statically configured for VCCV with the same CC Type).
For dynamically established pseudowires, both ends of the PW must
have signaled the existence of a control channel and the ability
to run BFD on it (see Section 3.3 and Section 4).
Once a node has selected a valid BFD CV Type to use (either
statically provisioned or selected dynamically after the node has
both signaled and received signaling from its peer of these
capabilities), it begins sending BFD control packets.
The BFD control packets are sent on the VCCV control channel. The
use of the VCCV control channel provides the context required to bind
and bootstrap the BFD session, since discriminator values are not
exchanged; the pseudowire demultiplexer field (e.g., MPLS PW Label or
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
L2TPv3 Session ID) provides the context to demultiplex the first BFD
control packet, and thus single-hop BFD initialization procedures are
followed (see Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop] and Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic]). A single BFD session exists per-pseudowire.
Both PW endpoints take the Active role sending initial BFD Control
packets with a "Your Discriminator" field of zero, and BFD Control
packets received with a "Your Discriminator" field of zero are
associated to the BFD session bound to the PW. BFD MUST be run in
asynchronous mode (see [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]).
The operation of BFD VCCV for PWs is therefore symmetrical. Both
endpoints of the bidirectional pseudowire MUST send BFD messages on
the VCCV control channel.
When the downstream PE (D-PE) does not receive BFD control messages
from its upstream peer PE (U-PE) during a certain number of
transmission intervals (a number provisioned by the operator as
Detect Mult), D-PE declares that the PW in its receive direction is
down. In other words, D-PE enters the "forward defect" state for
this PW. After this calculated Detection Time, D-PE declares the
session Down, and signals this to the remote end via the State (Sta)
with Diagnostic code 1 (Control Detection Time Expired). In turn,
U-PE declares the PW is down in its transmit direction setting the
State to Down, and it using Diagnostic code 3 (Neighbor signaled
session down) in its control messages to D-PE. U-PE enters the
"reverse defect" state for this PW. If needed, how it further
processes this error condition, and conveys this status to the
attachment circuits is out of the scope of this specification, and is
instead defined in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map].
The VCCV message comprises a BFD Control packet [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
encapsulated as specified by the CV Type (see Section 3.2).
3.2. BFD Encapsulation
There are two ways in which a BFD connectivity verification packet
may be encapsulated over the VCCV control channel. This document
defines four BFD CV Types (see Section 3), which can be grouped into
two pairs of BFD CV Types from an encapsulation point of view.
Table 1 in Section 3.3 summarizes the BFD CV Types.
o IP/UDP BFD Encapsulation (BFD with IP/UDP Headers)
In the first method, the VCCV encapsulation of BFD includes the
IP/UDP headers as defined in Section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]. BFD Control packets are therefore
transmitted in UDP with destination port 3784 and source port
within the rage 49152 through 65535. The IP Protocol Number and
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
UDP Port numbers discriminate among the possible VCCV payloads
(i.e., differentiate among ICMP Ping and LSP Ping defined in
[RFC5085] and BFD).
The IP version (IPv4 or IPv6) matches the IP version used for
signaling for dynamically established pseudowires, or is
configured for statically provisioned pseudowires. The source IP
address is an address of the sender. The destination IP address
is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from the range 127/8 or IPv6
address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127.0.0.0/104. The
rationale is explained in Section 2.1 of [RFC4379]. The Time to
Live/Hop Limit procedures from Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop] apply to this encapsulation, and hence
the TTL/Hop Limit is set to 255. In this encapsulation, the BFD
CV Type used in signaling (if used) is either 0x04 or 0x08.
o PW-ACH BFD Encapsulation (BFD without IP/UDP Headers)
In the second method, a BFD Control packet (format defined in
Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]) is encapsulated directly in the
VCCV control channel (see Sections 6 and 8 of
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic]) and the IP/UDP headers are omitted from
the BFD encapsulation. Therefore, to utilize this encapsulation,
a pseudowire MUST use the PW Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH)
Control Word format for its Control Word (CW) or L2-Specific
Sublayer (L2SS, used in L2TPv3).
In this encapsulation, a "raw" BFD Control packet follows directly
the PW-ACH, and the PW-ACH Channel Type identifies "raw" BFD. The
PW Associated Channel (PWAC) is defined in Section 5 of [RFC4385],
and its Channel Type field is used as a payload type identifier to
discriminate the VCCV payload types.
The usage of the PW-ACH on different VCCV CC Types is specified
for CC Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 respectively in Sections 5.1.1,
5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of [RFC5085], in all cases depending on the use of
a CW. When VCCV carries raw BFD, the PW-ACH (Pseudowire CW's or
L2SS') Channel Type MUST be set to 0x0007 to indicate "BFD
Control, PW-ACH-encapsulated" (i.e., BFD Without IP/UDP Headers,
see Section 5.2), to allow the identification of the encased BFD
payload when demultiplexing the VCCV control channel. In this
case, the BFD CV Type employed in signaling (if used) is either
0x10 or 0x20.
In summary, for the IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD (BFD with IP/UDP
headers), if a PW Associated Channel Header is used, the Channel Type
can indicate IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057). For the PW-ACH
encapsulation of BFD (BFD without IP/UDP headers), the PW Associated
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
Channel Header MUST be used and indicates BFD Control packet
(0x0007).
3.3. CV Types for BFD
Four CV Types are defined for BFD. Table 1 summarizes the BFD CV
Types, grouping them by encapsulation (i.e., with and without IP/UDP
headers) and by functionality (i.e., fault detection only, or fault
detection and status signaling).
+----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| | Fault | Fault Detection and |
| | Detection | Status Signaling |
| | Only | |
+----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| BFD, IP/UDP encapsulation | 0x04 | 0x08 |
| (with IP/UDP Headers) | | |
| | | |
| BFD, PW-ACH encapsulation | 0x10 | 0x20 |
| (without IP/UDP Headers) | | |
+----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+
Table 1: Bitmask Values for BFD CV Types
Given the bidirectional nature of BFD, before selecting a given BFD
CV Type capability to be used in dynamically established pseudowires,
there MUST be common CV Types in the VCCV capability advertised and
received. That is, only BFD CV Types that were both advertised and
received are available to be selected. Additionally, only one BFD CV
Type can be used (selecting a BFD CV Type excludes all the remaining
BFD CV Types).
The following list enumerates rules, restrictions and clarifications
on the usage of BFD CV Types:
1. BFD CV Types used for fault detection and status signaling (i.e.,
CV Types 0x08 and 0x20) SHOULD NOT be used when a control
protocol such as LDP [RFC4447] or L2TPV3 [RFC3931] is available
that can signal the AC/PW status to the remote endpoint of the
PW. More details can be found in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map].
2. BFD CV Types used for fault detection only (i.e., CV Types 0x04
and 0x10) can be used whether a protocol that can signal AC/PW
status is available or not. This includes both statically
provisioned and dynamically signaled pseudowires.
A. In this case, BFD is used exclusively to detect faults on the
PW; if it is desired to convey AC/PW fault status, some means
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
other than BFD are to be used. Examples include using LDP
status messages when using MPLS as a transport (see Section
5.4 of [RFC4447]), and the Circuit Status AVP in an L2TPv3
SLI message for L2TPv3 (see Section 5.4.5 of [RFC3931]).
3. Pseudowires that do not use a CW or L2SS using the PW Associated
Channel Header MUST NOT use the BFD CV Types 0x10 or 0x20 (i.e.,
PW-ACH encapsulation of BFD, without IP/UDP headers).
A. PWs that use a PW-ACH include CC Type 1 (for both MPLS and
L2TPv3 as defined in Sections 5.1.1 and 6.1 of [RFC5085]),
and MPLS CC Types 2 and 3 when using a Control Word (as
specified in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of [RFC5085]). This
restriction stems from the fact that the PW-ACH contains a
Protocol Identification (PID) field, the Channel Type.
B. PWs that do not use a PW-ACH can use the VCCV BFD
encapsulation with IP/UDP headers, including its concurrent
use along with another CV Type that uses an encapsulation
with IP headers (e.g., ICMP Ping or LSP Ping). For example,
as specified in Section 7 of [RFC4385], a Pseudowire
operating without CW MUST NOT use the PW-ACH.
4. Only a single BFD CV Type can be selected and used. All BFD CV
Types are mutually exclusive with the rest, after selecting a BFD
CV Type, a node MUST NOT use any of the other three BFD CV Types.
4. Capability Selection
The precedence rules for selection of various CC and CV Types is
clearly outlined in Section 7 of [RFC5085]. This section augments
these rules when the BFD CV Types defined herein are supported. The
selection of a specific BFD CV Type to use out of the four available
CV Types defined is tied to multiple factors, as hinted in
Section 3.3. Given that BFD is bidirectional in nature, only CV
Types that are both received and sent in VCCV capability signaling
advertisement can be selected.
There may be more than one CV Type available for selection after
considering the intersection of advertised and received BFD CV Types,
and applying the rules in Section 3.3. For these cases were multiple
BFD CV Types are available for selection, the following precedence
order applies when choosing the single BFD CV Type to use. The
lowest numbered item (where both ends have set the indicated flag and
such flag is allowed by the rules above) is used:
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
1. 0x20 - BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated (without IP/UDP headers), for PW
Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
2. 0x10 - BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated (without IP/UDP headers), for PW
Fault Detection only
3. 0x08 - BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW
Fault Status Signaling
4. 0x04 - BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
This precedence order prioritizes superset of functionality and
simplicity of encapsulation.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV
The VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV codepoint is defined in
[RFC4446], and the VCCV CV Types registry is defined in [RFC5085].
This section lists the new BFD CV Types.
IANA is requested to augment the "VCCV Connectivity Verification
Types" registry in the Pseudo Wires Name Spaces, reachable from
[IANA.pwe3-parameters]. These are bitfield values. CV Type values
0x04 0x08, 0x10 and 0x20 are specified in Section 3.
MPLS Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ====================================================
Bit 2 (0x04) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 3 (0x08) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
Bit 4 (0x10) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 5 (0x20) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
5.2. PW Associated Channel Type
The PW Associated Channel Types used by VCCV rely on previously
allocated numbers from the Pseudowire Associated Channel Types
Registry [RFC4385] in the Pseudo Wires Name Spaces reachable from
[IANA.pwe3-parameters]. In particular, 0x21 (Internet Protocol
version 4) is used whenever an IPv4 payload follows the Pseudowire
Associated Channel Header, or 0x57 is used when an IPv6 payload
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
follows the Pseudowire Associated Channel Header.
In cases where a raw BFD Control packet follows the Pseudowire
Associated Channel as specified in Section 3.2 (i.e., when using the
PW-ACH-encapsulated BFD without IP/UDP headers), a new "Pseudowire
Associated Channel Types" Registry [RFC4385] entry of 0x07 is used.
IANA is requested to reserve a new Pseudowire Associated Channel Type
value as follows:
Value (in hex) Protocol Name Reference
-------------- --------------------------------- ---------
0x0007 BFD Control, PW-ACH encapsulation [This document]
(without IP/UDP Headers)
5.3. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP
This section lists the new BFD CV Types to be added to the existing
"VCCV Capability AVP" registry in the L2TP name spaces. The Layer
Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP" Name Spaces are reachable from
[IANA.l2tp-parameters].
IANA is requested to reserve the following L2TPv3 Connectivity
Verification (CV) Types in the VCCV Capability AVP Values registry.
VCCV Capability AVP (Attribute Type AVP-TBD) Values
---------------------------------------------------
L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ====================================================
Bit 2 (0x04) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 3 (0x08) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
Bit 4 (0x10) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 5 (0x20) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
6. Congestion Considerations
The congestion considerations that apply to [RFC5085] apply to this
mode of operation as well.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
7. Security Considerations
Routers that implement the additional CV Types defined herein are
subject to the same security considerations as defined in [RFC5085],
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base], and [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]. This
specification does not raise any additional security issues beyond
these. The IP/UDP-encapsulated BFD makes use of the TTL/Hop Limit
procedures described in Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop],
including the use of the Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) as
a security mechanism.
8. Acknowledgements
This work forks from a previous revision of the PWE3 WG document that
resulted in [RFC5085], to which a number of people contributed,
including Rahul Aggarwal, Peter B. Busschbach, Yuichi Ikejiri, Kenji
Kumaki, Luca Martini, Monique Morrow, George Swallow, and others.
Sam Aldrin, Stewart Bryant, Vishwas Manral, Luca Martini, Dave
McDysan, Pankil Shah, and George Swallow provided useful feedback and
valuable comments and suggestions on the newer versions of this
document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base-09 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of BFD",
draft-ietf-bfd-generic-05 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-09 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map]
Nadeau, T., "Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping",
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-08 (work in progress),
November 2008.
[IANA.l2tp-parameters]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol "L2TP"", December 2008,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters>.
[IANA.pwe3-parameters]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Pseudowire Name
Spaces (PWE3)", August 2008,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters>.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2009
Authors' Addresses
Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
BT
BT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London, EC1A 7AJ
United Kingdom
Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com
Carlos Pignataro (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 22, 2009 [Page 14]