MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework
RFC 6372
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
06 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Network survivability is the ability of a network to recover traffic delivery following failure or degradation … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Network survivability is the ability of a network to recover traffic delivery following failure or degradation of network resources. Survivability is critical for the delivery of guaranteed network services, such as those subject to strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that place maximum bounds on the length of time that services may be degraded or unavailable. The Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) is a packet-based transport technology based on the MPLS data plane that reuses many aspects of the MPLS management and control planes. This document comprises a framework for the provision of survivability in an MPLS-TP network; it describes recovery elements, types, methods, and topological considerations. To enable data-plane recovery, survivability may be supported by the control plane, management plane, and by Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions. This document describes mechanisms for recovering MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs). A detailed description of pseudowire recovery in MPLS-TP networks is beyond the scope of this document. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet-based transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.') |
|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2011-09-26
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-09-21
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-07-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-07-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2010-07-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-07-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-07-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-07-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-07-02
|
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 |
|
2010-07-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Approved-announcement to be sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-07-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-07-01
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-07-01
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I thought this I-D was very well written. I just found nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: … [Ballot comment] I thought this I-D was very well written. I just found nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ 5) Section 4.4.2: Add period: (1:n or m:n). ^ 6) Section 4.4.3: Add period: service degradation. ^ 7) Section 4.7: Missing ): (see Section 4.5 associated with the protection function. 8) Section 4.7.6: Extra "1"?: Additionally, note that the shared-protection resources could be used 1 to carry extra traffic, for example, in Figure 4, an LSP JPQRK ^ ? 9) Section 6.1.1: Missing period: etc.). ^ 10) Section 6.1.2: Missing periods (X2): recovery entity. ^ 11) Section 6.4: r/(Maintenance Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)/MIPs (Maintenance Group Intermediate Points) 12) Section 6.5: r/t1he/the |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Just nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I … [Ballot comment] Just nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ 5) Section 4.4.2: Add period: (1:n or m:n). ^ 6) Section 4.4.3: Add period: service degradation. ^ 7) Section 4.7: Missing ): (see Section 4.5 associated with the protection function. 8) Section 4.7.6: Extra "1"?: Additionally, note that the shared-protection resources could be used 1 to carry extra traffic, for example, in Figure 4, an LSP JPQRK ^ ? 9) Section 6.1.2: Missing periods (X2): recovery entity. ^ |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Just nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I … [Ballot comment] Just nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ 5) Section 4.4.2: Add period: (1:n or m:n). ^ 6) Section 4.4.3: Add period: service degradation. ^ 7) Section 4.7: Missing ): (see Section 4.5 associated with the protection function. 8) Section 4.7.6: Extra "1"?: Additionally, note that the shared-protection resources could be used 1 to carry extra traffic, for example, in Figure 4, an LSP JPQRK ^ ? 9) Section 6.1.2: Missing periods (X2): recovery entity. ^ |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2010-06-30
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Just nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I … [Ballot comment] Just nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ 5) Section 4.4.2: Add period: (1:n or m:n). ^ 6) Section 4.4.3: Add period: service degradation. ^ 7) Section 4.7: Missing ): (see Section 4.5 associated with the protection function. 8) Section 4.7.6: Extra "1"?: Additionally, note that the shared-protection resources could be used 1 to carry extra traffic, for example, in Figure 4, an LSP JPQRK ^ ? 9) Section 6.1.2: Missing periods (X2): recovery entity. ^ |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] I suspect this might be fat-finger mistake, but according to idnits a reference to 2119 is needed for the "MAY" on line 792. … [Ballot discuss] I suspect this might be fat-finger mistake, but according to idnits a reference to 2119 is needed for the "MAY" on line 792. Since no other 2119 keyword is used I assume this should have been "may"? |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Just nits: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" … [Ballot comment] Just nits: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] I suspect this might be fat-finger mistake, but according to idnits a reference to 2119 is needed for the "MAY" on line 792. … [Ballot discuss] I suspect this might be fat-finger mistake, but according to idnits a reference to 2119 is needed for the "MAY" on line 792. Since no other 2119 keyword is used I assume this should have been "may"? |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Sean Turner |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Just nits: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" … [Ballot comment] Just nits: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Just nits: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" … [Ballot comment] Just nits: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ |
|
2010-06-29
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
|
2010-06-28
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2010-06-28
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-06-24
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Note]: 'Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the Document Shepherd.' added by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-06-20
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2010-06-20
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-06.txt |
|
2010-05-06
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-05-06
|
06 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-04-29
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2010-04-25
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
|
2010-04-25
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call was requested by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Stewart Bryant from Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The MPLS WG requests that: Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivability Framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-05.txt is published as an informational RFC with IETF consensus. > … The MPLS WG requests that: Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivability Framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-05.txt is published as an informational RFC with IETF consensus. > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd. He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? The document has been reviewed in - mpls, ccamp and pwe3 working groups - the ITU-T MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Team - the ITU-T SG15, Q9, Q10, Q12 and Q14. The shephered is convinced that this is sufficient review for this framework document. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. No such concerns. There is no IPR claim for this draft. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? The mpls-tp project is a joint project between IETF and ITU-T. We will run a final wg last call, an final ITU-T review and the IETF last call in parallel, we have an open issue on "extra traffic" but hope to close that as part of the final review. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats or extreme discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist > and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, all formal review criteria has been met. This a a framework that needs IETF consensus, but as such, and considering the wide review the document been through, we have we have not considered any 3rd party reviews necessary. The nits tool says that 2119-language is used, but that is not the case, so the error reported is an errror ;) ! > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References are correctly split. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? There are no IANA actions requested by this document. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such formal language. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary 1. Introduction This document specifies the taxonomy for MPLS-TP survivability, the surviability architecture and key components need to meet survivability requiremetns. Network survivability is the network's ability to recover traffic delivery following the failure or degradation of traffic caused by a network fault or a denial of service attacks. Survivability isa critical characteristic of reliable services in transport networks. The MPLS transport profiles are designed to be consistent with existing transport network operations and management models. Some of the MPLS transport profile recovery mechanisms do not depend on a control plane but use OAM mechanisms or management actions to trigger recovery actions. MPLS and GMPLS protection mechanisms are applicable in for the MPLS transport profiles. It is also be possible to provision and manage the related protection entities and functions defined in MPLS and GMPLS using the management plane. Regardless of whether an OAM, management, or control plane initiation mechanism is used, the protection-switching operation is a data-plane operation. Working Group Summary Since the document is an output from the MPLS-TP project it is the joint output of several IETF working groups and Qustion 9, 10, 12 and 14 of ITU-T SG15. Document Quality The document is well reviewed in all the groups mentioned above. |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-04-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the Document Shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-19
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-05.txt |
|
2010-03-08
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-04.txt |
|
2009-11-09
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-03.txt |
|
2009-10-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-02.txt |
|
2009-10-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txt |
|
2009-10-08
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-04-06
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-00.txt |