One document matched: draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00.txt
MPLS Working Group A. Fulignoli, Ed.
Internet Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 2010 S. Boutros, Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc
M. Vigoureux, Ed.
Alcatel-Lucent
October 16, 2009
Proactive Connection Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile
draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2010.
Copyright Statement
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.
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
Abstract
Continuity Check (CC), Proactive Connectivity Verification (CV) and
Remote Defect Indication (RDI) functionalities are MPLS-TP OAM
requirements listed in [3].
Continuity Check monitors the integrity of the continuity of the path
for any loss of continuity defect. Connectivity verification monitors
the integrity of the routing of the path between sink and source for
any connectivity issues. RDI enables an End Point to report, to its
associated End Point, a fault or defect condition that it detects on
a PW, LSP or Section.
It is RECOMMENDED that a protocol solution, meeting one or more
functional requirement(s), be the same for PWs, LSPs and Sections as
per [3].
This document specifies methods for proactive CV, CC, and RDI for
MPLS-TP Label Switched Path (LSP), PWs and Sections using
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................3
1.1. Contributing Authors.......................................3
2. Conventions used in this document............................3
2.1. Terminology...............................................3
3. MPLS-TP CC, proactive CV and RDI Mechanism using BFD..........4
3.1. MPLS-TP BFD CC Message format..............................5
3.2. MPLS-TP BFD proactive CV/CC Message format.................5
3.3. BFD Profile for MPLS-TP....................................6
3.3.1. Timer negotiation........................................7
3.3.2. Discriminator values.....................................7
3.4. Remote Detection Indication (RDI)..........................7
4. Operation...................................................7
4.1. Unidirectional p2p or p2mp transport path..................8
5. Acknowledgments.............................................9
6. IANA Considerations.........................................9
7. Security Considerations......................................9
8. References..................................................9
8.1. Normative References.......................................9
8.2. Informative References....................................10
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
1. Introduction
In traditional transport networks, circuits are provisioned on
multiple switches. Service Providers (SP) need OAM tools to detect
mis-connectivity and loss of continuity of transport circuits. MPLS-
TP LSPs [11] emulating traditional transport circuits need to provide
the same CC and proactive CV capabilities as mentioned in [3]. This
document describes the use of BFD [7] for CC, proactive CV, and RDI
of an MPLS-TP LSP between two Maintenance End Points (MEPs).
The mechanism specified in this document is restricted only to BFD
asynchronous mode.
The proposed method uses BFD state machine defined in Section 6.2 of
[7] for bidirectional p2p connections and uses the p2mp BFD state
machine defined in [8] for p2p unidirectional and p2mp unidirectional
transport path.
As described in [4], Continuity Check (CC) and Proactive Connectivity
Verification (CV) functions are used to detect loss of continuity
(LOC), unintended connectivity between two MEPs (e.g. mismerging or
misconnection or unexpected MEP).
The Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is an indicator that is
transmitted by a MEP to communicate to its peer MEPs that a signal
fail condition exists.RDI is only used for bidirectional connections
and is associated with proactive CC & CV packet generation.
The main goal here is to specify the BFD extension and behaviour to
satisfy the CC, proactive CV monitoring and the RDI functionality.
1.1. Contributing Authors
Siva Sivabalan, George Swallow, David Ward.
2. 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 [1].
2.1. Terminology
ACH: Associated Channel Header
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
CV: Connection Verification
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
EOS: End of Stack
GAL: Generalized Alert Label
LSR: Label Switching Router
MEP: Maintenance End Point
MIP: Maintenance Intermediate Point
MPLS-OAM: MPLS Operations, Administration and Maintenance
MPLS-TP: MPLS Transport Profile
MPLS-TP LSP: Bidirectional Label Switch Path representing a circuit
MS-PW: Mult-Segment PseudoWire
NMS: Network Management System
PW: PseudoWire
RDI: Remote defect indication.
TTL: Time To Live
TLV: Type Length Value
3. MPLS-TP CC, proactive CV and RDI Mechanism using BFD
This document proposes two modes of BFD operation
o CC mode: uses the existing ACH code point (0x0007) and BFD ACH
packet encapsulation (BFD without IP/UDP headers ) as defined in
[6]. In this mode Continuity Check and RDI functionalities are
supported.
o CV/CC mode: defines a new code point in the Associated Channel
Header (ACH) described in [2]. Under MPLS label stack of the MPLS-
TP LSP, the ACH with "MPLS-TP Proactive CV/CC" code point
indicates that the message is an MPLS-TP BFD proactive CV and CC
message.
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Flags |0xHH MPLS-TP CV/CC Code Point |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ACH Indication of MPLS-TP Connection Verification
The first nibble (0001b) indicates the ACH.
The version and the reserved values are both set to 0 as specified in
[2].
MPLS-TP proactive CV/CC code point = 0xHH. [HH to be assigned by IANA
from the PW Associated Channel Type registry.]
In this mode Continuity Check, Connectivity Verifications and RDI
functionalities are supported.
Both CC and CV/CC modes apply to PWs, MPLS LSPs (including tandem
connection monitoring), and Sections
It's possible to run the BFD in CC mode on some transport paths
and the BFD in CV/CC mode on other transport paths. In any case,
only one tool for OAM instance at time, configurable by
operator, can run.
3.1. MPLS-TP BFD CC Message format
The format of an MPLS-TP CC Message format is shown 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Flags |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ BFD Control Packet ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2. MPLS-TP BFD proactive CV/CC Message format
The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC Message format is shown below, ACH
TLVs MUST precede the BFD control packet.
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Flags |0xHH MPLS-TP CV/CC Code Point |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH TLV Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Unique MEP-ID of source of the BFD packet ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ BFD Control Packet ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: MPLS-TP CV/CC Message
As shown in Figure 2, BFD Control packet as defined in [7] is
transmitted as MPLS labeled packets along with ACH, ACH TLV Header
defined in Section 3 of RFC 5586 and one ACH TLV object carrying the
unique MEP Identifier of the source of the BFD packet defined in [12]
When GAL label is used, the TTL field of the GAL MUST be set to at
least 1, and the GAL will be the end of stack label.
3.3. BFD Profile for MPLS-TP
BFD MUST run in asynchronous mode as described in [7].
No changes to the BFD state machine defined in [7] for p2p
bidirectional transport path and in [8] for unidirectional p2p and
p2mp transport path.
BFD Control Packets are sent at regular configured time rate.
BFD session is declared Down:
If an unexpected MEP identifier is received (mis-connectivity
defect)
If timer and detect multiplier re-negotiation is disabled and an
unexpected desired min Tx interval field value or unexpected
detect multiplier field are received (Unexpected period defect).
If BFD session times out (Loss of Connectivity)
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
3.3.1. Timer negotiation
BFD timer values negotiation is optional and disabled by default on
the MPLS-TP transport paths.
Active Role is default, passive is optional.
The configured BFD packet transmission is carried in the "Desired Min
TX Interval field". For a bidirectional p2p transport path the
"Required Min RX Interval field" MUST be the same as "Desired Min TX
Interval field". The source MEP of an unidirectional p2p and p2mp
session MUST set the "Required Min RX Interval field " to 0.
The default timer values to be used based on what's recommended in
[4].
3.3.2. Discriminator values
In the BFD control packet the discriminator values have either local
or no significance.
My discriminator field MUST be set to a nonzero value (it can be a
fixed value), the transmitted your discriminator value MUST reflect
back the received value of My discriminator field or be set to 0 if
that value is not known yet.
3.4. Remote Detection Indication (RDI)
The BFD Diagnostic (Diag) field defined in [8] can be used for this
functionality.
On MEP mismatch, loss of connectivity or unexpected timer and
unexpected detect multiplier a MEP sends to its peer MEP a BFD packet
with the Diagnostic (Diag) field value set to 1 (corresponding to the
"Control Detection Time Expired").
The value 0 indicates RDI condition has been cleared.
4. Operation
For p2p bidirectional LSPs, both endpoints of the bidirectional MPLS-
TP LSP MUST send BFD messages in-band in the MPLS-TP LSP using the
defined code point.
When on a configured bidirectional transport path the proactive CV/CC
or CC monitoring is enabled, each MEP sends the BFD Control Packets
at the rate of the configured transmission period and each MEP
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
expects to receive the BFD packets from its peer MEP at the same rate
as per [4].
MPLS labels at both MEPs are used to provide context for the received
BFD packets.
Active role is the default behavior, passive role is optional.
In Active role both MEPs start sending initial BFD Control Packets
with the State field set to "Down" value and with "Your
discriminator" field set to zero.
+-----+ +-----+
| | ------- X -------->| |
| A | <----------------- | B |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 3
o If a MEP-B in Figure 3 detects one of the following faults (miss-
connectivity, Unexpected Period or loss of continuity) from its
peer MEP, it declares that the transport path in its receive
direction is down (in other words, MEP-B enters the "receive
defect" state for this transport path) and signals it to its peer
MEP (MEP-A) sending the BFD packets with State (Sta) field set to
"Down" and Diagnostic code 1 (RDI)
o In turn, the peer MEP (MEP-A) declares the transport path is down
in its transmit direction, (in other words, MEP-A enters the
"transmit defect" state for this transport path) setting the State
(Sta field ) to Down with Diagnostic code 3 (Neighbor signaled
session down) in its BFD packets towards MEP-B. Please note that
if the failure is unidirectional, i.e. only from A to B direction
as in Figure 1. MEP-A, transits first to Down State but then to
Init state as it still receives BFD packets from its peer MEP B.
4.1. Unidirectional p2p or p2mp transport path.
o In a unidirectional (point-to-point or point-to-multipoint)
transport path, where the proactive CV/CC or CC monitoring is
enabled, only the Source MEP is enabled to generate BFD packets
with frequency of the configured transmission period and always
with UP State information. This MEP does not expect to receive any
BFD packets from its peer MEP(s), as such all state transitions
are administratively driven.
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
o A MEP Sink, configured on a unidirectional transport path where
the proactive CV and CC monitoring is enabled, expects to receive
the BFD packets from its peer MEP at the configured frequency; the
defects detection procedure is the same as the bidirectional MEP.
Traffic MUST not be affected, when proactive CV/CC or CC monitoring
is enabled/disabled by an operator on a configured MEP or when a BFD
session transits from one state to another as per [4].
5. Acknowledgments
To be added in a later version of this document
6. IANA Considerations
To be added in a later version of this document
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations for the authentication TLV need further
study.
Base BFD foresees an optional authentication section (see [7]
section 6.7); that can be extended even to the tool proposed in
this document.
Authentication methods that require checksum calculation on the
outgoing packet must extend the checksum even on the ME
Identifier Section. This is possible but seems uncorrelated with
the solution proposed in this document: it could be better to
use the simple password authentication method.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Bocci, M. et al., " MPLS Generic Associated Channel ", RFC
5586 , June 2009
[3] Vigoureux, M., Betts, M. and D. Ward, "Requirements for
OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-
requirements-03 (work in progress), August 2009
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
[4] Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and
Overview", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-01 (work in
progress), July 2009
[5] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007
[6] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-
bfd-07 (work in progress), July 2009
[7] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base-09 (work in progress),
February 2009
[8] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for Multipoint Networks",
draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint-02 (work in progress),
February 2009
[9] Boutros, S. et al., "Definition of ACH TLV Structure",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-00 (work in progress), June
2009
[10] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T. and G. Swallow,
"BFD For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in
progress), June 2008
[11] Bocci, M., et al., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-05, (work in
progress), September 2009
[12] Bocci, M. and G. Swallow, "MPLS-TP Identifiers", draft-
swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers-01 (work in progress), July
2009
8.2. Informative References
To be added in a later version of this document
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 October 2009
Authors' Addresses
Annamaria Fulignoli (Editor)
Ericsson
Email: annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com
Sami Boutros (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
Martin Vigoureux (Editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Contributing Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MASSACHUSETTS 01719
United States
Email: swallow@cisco.com
David Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: wardd@cisco.com
Fulignoli et al., Expires April 16, 2010 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:27:16 |