Network Working Group A. Takacs
Internet-Draft B. Gero
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: May 7, 2009 D. Fedyk
D. Mohan
Nortel
November 3, 2008
GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration
draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2009.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Abstract
The GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) work is
extending GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the establishment of Ethernet
LSPs. IEEE Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) specifies an
adjunct OAM flow to check connectivity in Ethernet networks. CFM can
be also used with Ethernet LSPs for fault detection and triggering
recovery mechanisms. The ITU-T Y.1731 specification builds on CFM
and specifies additional OAM mechanisms, including Performance
Monitoring, for Ethernet networks. This document specifies
extensions of GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the setup of the associated
Ethernet OAM (CFM and Y.1731) entities adding a technology specific
TLV to [OAM-CONF-FWK].
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Changes from previous version
Technology independent extensions were moved to a separate framework
document leaving only the Ethernet specific extensions in this
document.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in
Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Overview of Ethernet OAM operation in PBB-TE networks . . . . 6
3. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Operation overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. MD Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. Short MA Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.3. MEP ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.4. Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4. Ethernet OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
1. Background
Provider Backbone Bridging - Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
[IEEE-PBBTE] decouples the Ethernet data and control planes by
explicitly supporting external control/management mechanisms to
configure static filtering entries in bridges and create explicitly
routed Ethernet connections. In addition PBB-TE defines mechanisms
for 1:1 protection switching of bidirectional Ethernet connections.
Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) defines an adjunct
connectivity monitoring OAM flow to check the liveliness of Ethernet
networks [IEEE-CFM]. With PBB-TE Ethernet networks will support
explicitly-routed Ethernet connections. CFM can be used to track the
liveliness of PBB-TE connections and detect data plane failures.
In IETF the GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS)
[GELS-Framework] work is extending the GMPLS control plane to support
the establishment of point-to-point PBB-TE data plane connections.
We refer to GMPLS established PBB-TE connections as Ethernet LSPs.
GELS enables the application of MPLS-TE and GMPLS provisioning and
recovery features in Ethernet networks.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
2. Overview of Ethernet OAM operation in PBB-TE networks
For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM
[IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring
of point-to-point PBB-TE connections.
PBB-TE [IEEE-PBBTE] defines point-to-point Ethernet Switched Paths
(ESPs) as a provisioned traffic engineered unidirectional
connectivity, identified by the 3-tuple [ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP-
VID] where the ESP-MAC DA is the destination address of the ESP, the
ESP-MAC SA is the source address of the ESP, and the ESP-VID is a
VLAN identifier allocated for explicitly routed connections. To form
a bidirectional PBB-TE connection two co-routed point-to-point ESPs
are combined. The combined ESPs must have the same ESP-MAC addresses
but may have different ESP-VIDs.
Note that although it would be possible to use GMPLS to setup a
single unidirectional ESP, the Ethernet OAM mechanisms are only full
functional when bidirectional connections are established with co-
routed ESPs. Hence, we focus on bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE
connections.
At both ends of the bidiretional point-to-point PBB-TE connection one
Maintenance Endpoint (MEP) is configured. The MEPs monitoring a
PBB-TE connection must be configured with the same Maintenance Domain
Level (MD Level) and Maintenance Association Identifier (MAID). Each
MEP has a unique identifier, the MEP ID. Besides these identifiers a
MEP monitoring a PBB-TE connection must be provisioned with the
3-tuples [ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP-VID] of the two ESPs.
MEPs exchange Connectivity Check Messages (CCMs) periodically with
fixed intervals. Eight distinct intervals are defined in [IEEE-CFM]:
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
+---+--------------------+----------------+
| # | CCM Interval (CCI) | 3 bit encoding |
+---+--------------------+----------------+
| 0 | Invalid | 000 |
| | | |
| 1 | 3 1/3 ms | 001 |
| | | |
| 2 | 10 ms | 010 |
| | | |
| 3 | 100 ms | 011 |
| | | |
| 4 | 1 s | 100 |
| | | |
| 5 | 10 s | 101 |
| | | |
| 6 | 1 min | 110 |
| | | |
| 7 | 10 min | 111 |
+---+--------------------+----------------+
Table 1: CCM Interval encoding
If 3 consecutive CCM messages are not received by one of the MEPs it
declares a connectivity failure and signals the failure in subsequent
CCM messages, by setting the Remote Defect Indicator (RDI) bit, to
the remote MEP. If a MEP receives a CCM message with RDI set it
immediately declares failure. The detection of a failure may trigger
protection switching mechanisms or may be signalled to a management
system. However, what happens once a failure is detected is out of
the scope of this document.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
3. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions
3.1. Operation overview
To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an
Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically
established. To monitor an Ethernet LSP a set of parameters must be
provided to setup a Maintenance Association and related MEPs.
o A unique MAID must be allocated for the PBB-TE connection and both
MEPs must be configured with the same information. The MAID
consists of an optional Maintenance Domain Name (MD Name) and a
mandatory Short Maintenance Association Name (Short MA Name).
Various formating rules for these names have been defined by
[IEEE-CFM]. Since these information is also carried in all CCM
messages, the combined length of the Names is limited to 44 bytes.
How these parameters are determined is out of scope of this
document.
o Each MEP must be provisioned with a MEP ID. The MEP ID uniquely
identifies a given MEP within a Maintenance Association. That is,
the combination of MAID and MEP ID must uniquely identify a MEP.
How the value of the MEP ID is determined is out of scope of this
document.
o The Maintenance Domain Level (MD Level) allows hierarchical
separation of monitoring entities. [IEEE-CFM] allows
differentiation of 8 levels. How the value of the MD Level is
determined is out of scope of this document. Note that most
probably for all Ethernet LSPs a single (default) MD Level will be
used.
o The desired CCM Interval must be specified by the management
system based on service requirements or operator policy. The same
CCM Interval must be set in each of the MEPs monitoring a given
Ethernet LSP. How the value of the CCM Interval is determined is
out of scope of this document.
o The desired CCM priority to be set by MEPs for the CCM frames can
be specified. The same CCM priority must be set in each of the
MEPs monitoring a given Ethernet LSP. How CCM priority is
determined is out of scope of this document.
o MEPs must be aware of their own and the reachability parameters of
the remote MEP. In the case of bidirectional point-to-point
PBB-TE connections this requires that the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC A,
ESP-MAC B, ESP-VID1] and [ESP-MAC B, ESP-MAC A, ESP-VID2] are
configured in each MEP, where the ESP-MAC A is the same as the
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
local MEP's MAC and ESP-MAC B is the same as remote MEP's MAC.
The GMPLS Ethernet Label for forwarding, as defined in
[GELS-PBBTE], consists of the ESP-MAC DA and ESP-VID. Hence the
necessary reachability parameters for the MEPs can be obtained
from Ethernet Labels (i.e., carried in the "downstream" and
upstream labels).
Assuming the procedures described in [GELS-PBBTE] for bidirectional
Ethernet LSP establishment the MEP configuration should be as
follows. When the RSVP-TE signalling is initiated for the
bidirectional Ethernet LSP the local node generates a Path message
and:
o Allocates an Upstream Label from its MAC address (ESP-MAC A) and
locally selected VID (ESP-VID1), that it would like to use to
receive traffic;
o Inserts an Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object, specifying the CCM Interval and MD Level;
o Adds an MD Name Sub-TLV (optional) and a Short MA Name Sub-TLV to
the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV, that will unambiguously
identify a Maintenance Association for this specific PBB-TE
connection. Note that values for these parameters may be derived
from the GMPLS LSP identification parameters;
o Adds a MEP ID Sub-TLV to the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV. It
selects two distinct integer values to identify the local and
remote MEPs within the Maintenance Association created for
monitoring of the point-to-point PBB-TE connection.
Once the remote node receives the Path message it can use the
UPSTREAM_LABEL to extract the reachability information of the
initiator. Then it allocates a LABEL by selecting the MAC address
(ESP-MAC B) and VID (ESP-VID2) it would like to use to receive
traffic. These parameters determine the reachability information of
the local MEP. That is, the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC A, ESP-MAC B, ESP-
VID1] and [ESP-MAC B, ESP-MAC A, ESP-VID2] are derived from the
Ethernet Labels. In addition the information received in the
Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV is used to configure the local MEP.
Once the Resv message successfully arrives to the initiator it can
extract the remote side's reachability information from the LABEL
object whereby this node has also obtained all the information needed
to establish its local MEP.
Once the MEPs are established the monitoring of the LSP is
operational. In certain situations, e.g., maintenance, re-
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
optimisation of LSPs, it is desirable to explicitly enable or disable
the monitoring of LSPs (i.e., start/stop exchanging CC messages). To
allow administrative control of LSP monitoring the "Monitoring
Disabled" (M) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object is used [OAM-CONF-FWK].
3.2. OAM Configuration TLV
This TLV is specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and is used to select which
OAM technology/method should be used for the LSP. In this document a
new OAM Type: Ethernet OAM is defined.
OAM Type Description
------------ ------------------
0 Reserved
1 Ethernet OAM
2-256 Reserved
The receiving node when the Ethernet OAM Type is requested should
look for the corresponding technology specific Ethernet OAM
configuration TLV.
3.3. Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV
The Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV (depicted below) is defined for
Ethernet OAM specific configuration parameters. The Ethernet OAM
Configuration TLV is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path
messages. This new TLV accommodates generic Ethernet OAM information
and carries sub-TLVs.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (3) (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version |MD L.| Reserved (set to all 0s) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ sub TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: indicates a new type: the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV (3)
(IANA to define).
Length: indicates the total length including sub-TLVs.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Version: identifies the CFM protocol version according to [IEEE-CFM].
If a node does not support a specific CFM version an error must be
generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version"
MD L. (MD Level): indicates the desired MD Level. The values are
according to [IEEE-CFM]. If a node does not support a specific MD
Level an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM
Level".
3.3.1. MD Name Sub-TLV
The optional MD Name sub-TLV is depicted below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (1) (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Format | Name Length | Reserved (set to all 0s) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ MD Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 1, MD Name Sub-TLV (IANA).
Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding.
Format: according to [IEEE-CFM].
Name Length: the length of the MD Name field in bytes. This is
necessary to allow non 4 byte padded MD Name lengths.
MD Name: variable length field, formatted according to the format
specified in the Format field.
If an undefined Format is specified an error must be generated: "OAM
Problem/Unknown MD Name Format". Also the combined length of MD Name
and Short MA Name must be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is
violated an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length
Problem". Note that it is allowed to have no MD Name, as such the MD
Name sub-TLV is optional. In this case the MA Name must uniquely
identify a Maintenance Association.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
3.3.2. Short MA Name Sub-TLV
The Short MA Name sub-TLV is depicted below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (2) (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Format | Name Length | Reserved (set to all 0s) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Short MA Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 2, Short MA Name Sub-TLV (IANA)
Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding.
Format: according to [IEEE-CFM].
Name Length: the length of the MA Name field in bytes. This is
necessary to allow non 4 byte padded MA Name lengths.
Short MA Name: variable length field formatted according to the
format specified in the Format field.
If an undefined Format is specified an error must be generated: "OAM
Problem/Unknown MA Name Format". Also the combined length of MD Name
and Short MA Name must be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is
violated an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length
Problem". Note that it is allowed to have no MD Name, in this case
the MA Name must uniquely identify a Maintenance Association.
3.3.3. MEP ID Sub-TLV
The MEP ID Sub-TLV is depicted below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (3) (IANA) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local MEP ID |T|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote MEP ID |T|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Type: 3, MEP ID Sub-TLV (IANA)
Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding.
Local MEP ID: a 16 bit integer value in the range 1-8191 of the MEP
ID on the initiator side.
Remote MEP ID: a 16 bit integer value in the range 1-8191 of the MEP
ID to be set for the MEP established at the receiving side. This
value is determined by the initiator node. This is possible, since a
new MAID is assigned to each PBB-TE connection, and MEP IDs must be
only unique within the scope of the MAID.
Two flags are defined Transmit (T) and Receive (R). When T is set
the corresponding MEP must send OAM packets. When R is set the
corresponding MEP must expect to receive OAM packets. These flags
are used to configure the role of MEPs.
3.3.4. Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV
The Continuity Check (CC) sub-TLV is depicted below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (4) (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prio | CCM I | Reserved (set to all 0s) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prio: Indicates the priority to be set for CCM frames. In Ethernet 3
bits carried in VLAN TAGs identify priority information.
CCM I (CCM Interval): CCM Interval, according to the 3 bit encoding
[IEEE-CFM] shown in Table 1. If a node does not support the
requested CCM Interval an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/
Unsupported CC Interval".
3.4. Ethernet OAM configuration errors
In addition to error values specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] this document
defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" Error Code.
o If a node does not support a specific CFM version an error must be
generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version".
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
o If a node does not support a specific MD Level an error must be
generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Level".
o If an undefined MD name format is specified an error must be
generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MD Name Format".
o If an undefined MA name format is specified an error must be
generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MA Name Format".
o If the combined length of MD Name and Short MA Name must be less
or equal to 44bytes, if this is violated an error must be
generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length Problem".
o If a node does not support the requested CCM Interval an error
must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported CC Interval".
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
4. IANA Considerations
This document specifies a new Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV to be
carried in the OAM Configuration TLV in LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects in Path messages.
The following values need to be assigned under the Error Code: "OAM
Problem": "Unsupported OAM Version", "Unsupported OAM Level",
"Unknown MD Name Format", "Unknown MA Name Format", "Name Length
Problem", "Unsupported CC Interval".
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
5. Security Considerations
The signalling of OAM related parameters and the automatic
establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security
considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473]. In particular, a
network element could be overloaded, if an attacker would request
liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high
number of LSPs, targeting a single network element.
Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent
versions of this document.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Francesco Fondelli, Adrian Farrel,
Loa Andersson, Eric Gray and Dimitri Papadimitriou for their useful
comments.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
7. References
[GELS-Framework]
"GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and
Framework", Internet Draft, work in progress.
[GELS-PBBTE]
"GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE", Internet Draft, work
in progress.
[GMPLS-OAM]
"OAM Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Networks", Internet Draft, work in
progress.
[IEEE-CFM]
"IEEE 802.1ag, Draft Standard for Connectivity Fault
Management", work in progress.
[IEEE-PBBTE]
"IEEE 802.1Qay Draft Standard for Provider Backbone
Bridging Traffic Engineering", work in progress.
[OAM-CONF-FWK]
"OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", Internet
Draft, work in progress.
[RFC3469] "Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based
Recovery", RFC 3469, February 2003.
[RFC3471] "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4377] "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-
Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4377,
February 2006.
[RFC4420] "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Attila Takacs
Ericsson
Laborc u. 1.
Budapest, 1037
Hungary
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Balazs Gero
Ericsson
Laborc u. 1.
Budapest, 1037
Hungary
Email: balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Don Fedyk
Nortel
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
USA
Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Dinesh Mohan
Nortel
3500 Carling Ave
Ottawa, ON, K2H8E9
Canada
Email: mohand@nortel.com
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 20]