One document matched: draft-bellagamba-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="exp" docName="draft-bellagamba-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-02"
ipr="trust200902">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="RSVP-TE Ext for MPLS-TP OAM Config">RSVP-TE Extensions for
MPLS-TP OAM Configuration</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->
<author fullname="Elisa Bellagamba" initials="E.B." role="editor"
surname="Bellagamba">
<organization>Ericsson</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Farogatan 6</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Kista</city>
<region></region>
<code>164 40</code>
<country>Sweden</country>
</postal>
<phone>+46 761440785</phone>
<email>elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Loa Andersson" initials="L.A." role="editor"
surname="Andersson">
<organization>Ericsson</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Farogatan 6</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Kista</city>
<region></region>
<code>164 40</code>
<country>Sweden</country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>loa.andersson@ericsson.com</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Pontus Skoldstrom" initials="P.S." role=""
surname="Skoldstrom">
<organization>Acreo AB</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Electrum 236</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Kista</city>
<region></region>
<code>164 40</code>
<country>Sweden</country>
</postal>
<phone>+46 8 6327731</phone>
<email>pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is
necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the
purpose of calculating the expiry date). With drafts it is normally sufficient to
specify just the year. -->
<!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
<date day="28" month="September" year="2009" />
<area>Signaling</area>
<workgroup>CCAMP Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>RSVP-TE</keyword>
<keyword>GMPLS</keyword>
<keyword>MPLS-TP</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document defines a method for the configuration of MPLS-TP OAM
functionalities through RSVP-TE Control Plane. The procedures presented are experimental
and currently describe BFD configuration for CC and CV. Updated version of this document
will possibly describe the configuration of the remaining MPLS-TP OAM functionalities.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>This document provides extensions to RSVP-TE in order to accommodate the MPLS-TP CC
(Continuity Check) and CV (Connectivity Verification) MPLS-TP OAM functionalities. Further revisions
of this document might describe RSVP-TE extensions for the other MPLS-TP OAM functionalities.</t>
<t>The procedures described are experimental and are intended to be possibly updated
with other proposed OAM tools and BFD future extensions.</t>
<t>The document intent is both disseminating experimental results carried out within
Ericsson Research and provide an initial input for further Control Plane extension in
CCAMP IETF group.</t>
<section title="Contributing Authors">
<t>The editors gratefully acknowledge the precious contributions of (in alphabetical order)
Annamaria Fulignoli, Andras Kern, David Jocha, David Sinicrope, Attila Takacs and
Benoit Tremblay.</t>
</section>
<section title ="Requirements Language">
<t>
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 <xref
target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Background">
<t>MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP), describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational
models typical in transport networks, while providing additional OAM, survivability and
other maintenance functions not currently supported by MPLS.</t>
<t>RSVP-TE control plane [RFC3471] has been chosen to support the establishment of MPLS-TP LSPs.</t>
<t>[MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ] defines the requirements by which the OAM functionality of
MPLS-TP should abide.</t>
<t>The MPLS-TP design team provided recommendations regarding the functionalities that should
be covered by the existing toolsets and which extensions or new tools will be needed in order
to provide full coverage of the OAM functionalities for MPLS-TP.
A detailed overview of the adopted OAM tools will be documented in the next revision of
[MPLS-TP OAM Analysis].</t>
<t>This document provides extensions to RSVP-TE in order to accommodate the MPLS-TP CC
(Continuity Check) and CV (Connectivity Verification) MPLS-TP OAM functionalities.
Further revisions of this document might describe RSVP-TE extensions for the other
MPLS-TP OAM functionalities.</t>
<t>Bidirectional Forwarding Detection, as described in [BFD],
defines a protocol that provides low-overhead, short-duration detection
of failures in the path between two forwarding engines, including the interfaces,
data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves.
BFD can be used to track the liveliness of MPLS-TP point-to-point and p2mp
connections and detect data plane failures. This version of the draft is focused
on unidirectional and bidirectional p2p connection.</t>
<t>BFD has been chosen to cover MPLS-TP CC functionality.</t>
<t>An extended version of BFD, as described in [BFD-CV], has been chosen
to accomplish both MPLS-TP CC and CV.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Overview of BFD OAM operation">
<t>BFD is a simple hello protocol that in many respects is similar to the detection
components of well-known routing protocols. A pair of system transmits BFD packets
periodically over each path between the two systems, and if a system stops receiving
BFD packets for long enough, some component in that particular bidirectional path to
the neighboring system is assumed to have failed. Systems may also negotiate to not
send periodic BFD packets in order to reduce overhead.</t>
<t>A path is only declared to be operational when two-way communication has been
established between systems, though this does not preclude the use of unidirectional links.</t>
<t>[BFD, sect. 3] states that a separate BFD session is created for each
communications path and data protocol in use between two systems.</t>
<t>Each system estimates how quickly it can send and receive BFD packets
in order to come to an agreement with its neighbor about how rapidly detection
of failure will take place. These estimates can be modified in real time in order
to adapt to unusual situations. This design also allows for fast systems on a shared
medium with a slow system to be able to more rapidly detect failures between the fast
systems while allowing the slow system to participate to the best of its ability.</t>
<t>The ability of each system to control the BFD packet transmission rate
in both directions provides a mechanism for congestion control, particularly
when BFD is used across multiple network hops.</t>
<t>As recommended in [BFD-CV], the BFD tool needs to be extended for the CV functionality
by the addition of a unique identifier in order to meet the requirements.
The document in [BFD-CV] specifies the BFD extension and behavior to meet the requirements
for MPLS-TP proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification functionality and
the RDI functionality as defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ].</t>
</section>
<section title="RSVP-TE Extensions">
<section title="Operation overview">
<t>Below, extension to RSVP-TE for setting up BFD or BFD extended version are defined
in order to configure MPLS-TP CC and CV OAM functionalities during the LSP setup.</t>
<t>The terms "ingress LER" and "egress LER" will not refer in this document to any
direction in the forwarding plane, but only to the LER triggering the LSP setup
(ingress LER) and the one triggering the response to it (egress LER).</t>
<t>During the LSP signaling, the Control Plane instance in the ingress and the egress LER
announces the BFD OAM Configuration TLV (inside the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object carried by the
Path and Resv message respectively), which includes the "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV.
During the BFD session the ingress LER will use as "MyDiscriminator" the value announced in the
"Local Discriminator"(Path message) and as "YourDiscriminator" the value received in the
"Local Discriminator" (Resv message).</t>
<t>The system initiating the signaling MUST advertise the interval value at which it
requires BFD control packets both in transmission and reception. If the receiving system
can not support this value, a new value can be signaled back in the Resv message, with
the constraint that the new value MUST be comprised between the Maximum and Minimum values
indicated by the ingress. If the egress system can not support any value in the indicated
range, it will reply with an error.</t>
<t>In the case BFD extended version should be configured, the ME ID unique parameter
MUST be included along with the Discriminator and timing values as described in the
following sections.</t>
</section>
<section title="OAM Configuration TLV">
<t>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: BFD OAM is defined.</t>
<texttable align="center" anchor="table_example" suppress-title="true"
title="">
<ttcol align="left">OAM Type</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>
<c>0</c>
<c>Reserved</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>Ethernet OAM</c>
<c>2 </c>
<c>BFD</c>
<c>3-256</c>
<c>Reserved</c>
<postamble>The receiving node when the BFD OAM Type is requested
should look for the corresponding technology specific BFD OAM
configuration TLV.</postamble>
</texttable>
<t>The receiving LER, when the BFD OAM Type is requested, should look for
the corresponding technology specific BFD OAM configuration TLV. There are
two types of allowed BFD OAM configuration TLV:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV" which MUST be used for configuring BFD for setting
up the proactive MPLS-TP CC OAM tool (TLV type = 4)</t>
<t>- "BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV" which MUST be used for configuring BFD
for setting up the proactive MPLS-TP CC&CV OAM tool (TLV type = 5)</t>
</list></t>
<t>In case the receiving LER does not support the CC&CV functionality,
an error "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD functionality" must be generated when receiving
the BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV.</t>
</section>
<section title="BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV">
<t>The BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV (depicted below) is defined for BFD OAM
specific configuration parameters. The BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV is
carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV" in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object both in Path
and Resv messages.</t>
<t>This new TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries
sub-TLVs.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Vers.|R| Reserved (set to all 0s) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ sub TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Type: indicates a new type, the "BFD CC OAM
Configuration TLV" (4) (IANA to define).</t>
<t>Length: indicates the total length including sub-TLVs.</t>
<t>Version: identifies the BFD protocol version. If a node does not
support a specific BFD version an error must be generated:
“OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version ”</t>
<t>R Flag: Role Flag. If set, the receiving node is required to
act with an Active Role as described in [BFD, sect. 6.1].
When the BFD OAM Configuration TLV is carried in the Resv message,
the flag it not taken into consideration by the receiving node.</t>
<t>The BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV MUST include the following
sub-TLVs during the Path signaling:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.1)</t>
<t>- "Suggested TX interval" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.2)</t>
</list></t>
<t>The BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs
during the Resv signaling:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.1)</t>
<t>- "Suggested TX interval" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.2) if a different timing
value needs to be used.</t>
</list></t>
<section title="Local Discriminator sub-TLV">
<t>The Local Discriminator sub-TLV is depicted below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Discriminator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Type: indicates a new type, the Local Discriminator sub TLV (1)
(IANA to define).</t>
<t>Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding.</t>
<t>Local Discriminator: A unique, nonzero discriminator value
generated by the transmitting system and referring to itself,
used to demultiplex multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of systems.
This Discriminator will be signaled both by the ingress LSR and the egress
LSR in the Path and Resv message respectively.</t>
</section>
<section title="Suggested TX interval">
<t>The Suggested TX interval sub-TLV is depicted below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Req. TX int. Type (2) (IANA) | Length = 24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Suggested Asynchronous TX interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acceptable Max. Asynchronous TX interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Required Echo TX Interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Detect. Mult | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Type: indicates a new type, the Suggested TX interval sub TLV (3)
(IANA to define).</t>
<t>Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding, it is set to 24 (octects).</t>
<t>Suggested Asynchronous TX interval: the interval, in microseconds, that the system initiating
the signaling want to have when both transmitting and receiving BFD Control packets, less any
jitter applied. The value zero is reserved. If the receiving system can not support this value,
a new value can be signaled back in the Resv message, with the constraint that the new value will
be not higher than "Acceptable Max. Asynchronous TX interval" and not lower than "Acceptable
Min. Asynchronous TX interval".</t>
<t>Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval: the maximum TX interval, in microseconds,
that the system initiating the signaling can support. In case the receiving system
sends back this TLV for proposing a different "Suggested Asynchronous TX interval", the
"Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" will not be taken into consideration by the system
which initiated the signaling.</t>
<t>Acceptable Max. Asynchronous TX interval: the minimum TX interval, in microseconds,
that the system initiating the signaling can support. In case the receiving system
sends back this TLV for proposing a different "Suggested Asynchronous TX interval",
the "Acceptable Max. Asynchronous TX interval" will not be taken into consideration
by the system which initiated the signaling.</t>
<t>Required Echo TX Interval: the minimum interval, in microseconds,
between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of
supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in
[BFD, sect. 6.8.9]. This value is also an indication for the
receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo
packets. If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not
support the receipt of BFD Echo packets. If the receiving system can
not support this value an error MUST be generated "Unsupported BFD TX rate interval"</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV">
<t>The BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV (depicted below) is defined for BFD OAM
specific configuration parameters. The BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV is
carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV" in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object both in Path and Resv messages.</t>
<t>This new TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries
sub-TLVs.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BFD CC&CV Type (5) (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Vers.|R| Reserved (set to all 0s) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ sub TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Type: indicates a new type, the BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV (5) (IANA
to define).</t>
<t>Length: indicates the TLV total length (in octects) including sub-TLVs.</t>
<t>Version: identifies the BFD protocol version. If a node does not support a specific
BFD version an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version"</t>
<t>R Flag: Role Flag. If set, the receiving node is required to act
with an Active Role as described in [BFD, sect. 6.1]. When the BFD
OAM Configuration TLV is carried in the Resv message, the flag it not
taken into consideration by the receiving node.</t>
<t>The BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV MUST include the following
sub-TLVs during the Path signaling:</t>
<t>The BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs during the Path signaling:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.1)</t>
<t>- "Suggested TX interval" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.2)</t>
<t>- "Trail Termination Source Identifier" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.4.1)</t>
</list></t>
<t>The BFD CC OAM Configuration TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs
during the Resv signaling:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.1)</t>
<t>- "Suggested TX interval" sub-TLV (described in paragraph 3.3.2) if a different timing
value needs to be used.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs during the Resv signaling:</t>
<section title="Trail Termination Source Identifier (TTSI) sub-TLV">
<t>The MPLS Generic Associated Channel specification (see[RFC5586, sect. 3])
describes the ACH TLV structure that can be used to provide additional
context information to the G-ACh packet.</t>
<t>In this section it is showed how the TTSI sub-TLV in the BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration
TLV can be used to configure the TLV Objects in the ACH TLV for providing the MEP
Identifier information and the ME Identifier information as required by[MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK].</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TTSI Type (3) (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MEP ID value |Reserved ( fixed to all ZEROs) !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Unique ME ID sub-TLV ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Length: indicates the TLV total length (in octects) including sub-TLVs.</t>
<t>MEP ID value: 13-bit integer value field, identifying the transmitting MEP within
the ME. The three MSBs of the first octet are not used and should be set to ZERO.</t>
<t>Unique ME ID: the value of the ME identifier. The ME Identifier Type transmitted
and expected MUST be the same at both MEPs. Since different formats/semantics of ME
ID Value can be chosen, the ME ID Value is encoded as a further TLV and the possible
options are described in the next paragraphs.</t>
<section title="LSP ME ID IPv4 Source/Destination Address Format sub-TLV">
<t>This ME ID format MAY be used to identify an LME (as defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK]) where IPv4
addresses are used to identify the LERs terminating the LSP.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP ME ID IPv4 Type (1)(IANA) | Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 source address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 destination address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Index | Tunnel Instance Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>ME ID Type: indicates the specific format.</t>
<t>Length: indicates the sub-TLV total length and it is set to 16 (octets).</t>
<t>IPv4 source address: set to the IPv4 address of the LSP source port/node.</t>
<t>IPv4 destination address: set to the IPv4 address of the LSP destination port/node.</t>
<t>TunnelIndex: 2 octets field as defined in RFC 3812.</t>
<t>TunnelInstance Index: 2 octets field as defined in RFC 3812.</t>
<t>If the receiving LER does not support this ME ID format in an error must
be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported ME ID Format".</t>
</section>
<section title="LSP ME ID IPv6 Source/Destination Address Format sub-TLV">
<t>This ME ID format MAY be used to identify an LME (as defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK]) where IPv6
addresses are used to identify the LERs terminating the LSP.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP ME ID IPv6 Type (2)(IANA) | Length = 40 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 source address |
~ (16 bytes) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 destination address |
~ (16 bytes) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Index | TunnelInstance Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>ME ID Type: indicates the specific format.</t>
<t>Length: indicates the sub-TLV total length and it is set to 40 (octets).</t>
<t>IPv6 source address: set to the IPv6 address of the LSP source port/node.</t>
<t>IPv6 destination address: set to the IPv6 address of the LSP destination port/node.</t>
<t>TunnelIndex: 2 octets field as defined in RFC 3812.</t>
<t>TunnelInstance Index: 2 octets field as defined in RFC 3812.</t>
<t>If the receiving LER does not support this ME ID format in an error must be generated:
"OAM Problem/Unsupported ME ID Format".</t>
</section>
<section title="FEC128PWv4 ME ID Format sub-TLV">
<t>It contains a PW ID that terminates on a PE identified by an IPv4 address.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|FEC128PWv4 ME ID Type (3)(IANA)| Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>FEC128PWv4 Type: indicates the specific format.</t>
<t>Length: indicates the sub-TLV total length and it is set to 16 (octets).</t>
<t>IPv4 Address: IPv4 addresses are used to identify the T-PEs terminating the PW.</t>
<t>Group ID: indicates an arbitrary 32-bit value that represents a group of
PWs that is used to create groups in the PW space, as specified in [RFC4447, sect. 5.2].</t>
<t>PW ID: a non-zero 32-bit pseudowire connection ID (PW ID) as
specified in [RFC4447, sect. 5.2] that terminates on a PE identified by an IPv4 address.</t>
<t>If the receiving LER does not support this ME ID format
in an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported ME ID Format".</t>
</section>
<section title="FEC128PWv6 ME ID Format sub-TLV">
<t>It contains a PW ID that terminates on a PE identified by an IPv6 address.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|FEC128PWv4 ME ID Type (4)(IANA)| Length = 28 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ IPv6 Address ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>FEC128PWv6 Type: indicates the specific format.</t>
<t>Length: indicates the sub-TLV total length and it is set to 28 (octets).</t>
<t>IPv6 Address: IPv6 addresses are used to identify the T-PEs terminating the PW.</t>
<t>Group ID: indicates an arbitrary 32-bit value that represents a group of
PWs that is used to create groups in the PW space, as specified in [RFC4447, Sect. 5.2].</t>
<t>PW ID: a non-zero 32-bit pseudowire connection ID (PW ID)
as specified in [RFC4447, sect. 5.2] that terminates on a PE identified by an IPv6 address.</t>
<t>If the receiving LER does not support this ME ID format
in an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported ME ID Format".</t>
</section>
<section title="ICC-based ME ID Format sub-TLV">
<t>This ME ID format MAY be used to identify SME, LME,
LTCME, PME and PTCME(as defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK]) independently on LER/T-PE
addressing schemes as well as of the FECs used to identify the PW.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ME ID Type | Length = 20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| MEG ID |
+ (13 bytes) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>ME ID Type: it identifies the specific format, value = TBD.</t>
<t>Length: indicates the total length and it is set to 20.</t>
<t>MEG ID value: Refer to Annex A of ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731
for the format used for the MEG ID field with ICC-based format.</t>
<t>If the receiving LER does not support this ME ID format in an error
must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported ME ID Format".</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document specifies the following new TLV types.</t>
<t> sub-TLVs types to be carried in the OAM Configuration TLV in LSP_ATTRIBUTES:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "BFD CC OAM Configuration" sub-TLV type: 4</t>
<t>- "BFD CC&CV OAM Configuration" sub-TLV type (to be carried
in the OAM Configuration TLV in LSP_ATTRIBUTES): 5</t>
</list>
</t>
<t> sub-TLV types to be carried in the BFD OAM Configuration sub-TLV:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV type: 1</t>
<t>- "Suggested TX interval" sub-TLV type: 2</t>
<t>- "Trail Termination Source Identifier (TTSI)" sub-TLV type: 3 </t>
</list> </t>
<t> sub-TLV types to be carried in the TTSI sub-TLV:
<list>
<t>- "LSP ME ID IPv4 Source/Destination Address Format" sub-TLV type: 1</t>
<t>- "LSP ME ID IPv6 Source/Destination Address Format" sub-TLV type: 2</t>
<t>- "FEC128PWv4 ME ID Format" sub-TLV type: 3</t>
<t>- "FEC128PWv6 ME ID Format" sub-TLV type: 4</t>
<t>- "ICC-based ME ID Format" sub-TLV type: 5</t>
</list> </t>
</section>
<section title="BFD OAM configuration errors">
<t>In addition to error values specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and [ETH-OAM]
this document defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" Error Code:</t>
<t><list>
<t>- "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD functionality"</t>
<t>- "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD TX rate interval"</t>
<t>- "OAM Problem/Unsupported ME ID Format" </t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>The signaling 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.</t>
<t>Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent
versions of this document.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
<back>
<!-- References split into informative and normative -->
<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
(for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")
Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
with a value containing a set of directories to search. These can be either in the local
filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->
<references title="Normative References">
<!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3471"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5586"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4447"?>
<reference anchor="MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ"
target="draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks</title>
<author initials="M" surname="Vigoureux">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Ward">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="M" surname="Betts">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="BFD"
target="draft-ietf-bfd-base-09.txt">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>Bidirectional Forwarding Detection</title>
<author initials="D" surname="Katz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Ward">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="OAM-CONF-FWK"
target="draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE</title>
<author initials="A" surname="Takacs">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Fedyk">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J" surname="van He">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="BFD-CV"
target="draft-fulignoli-mpls-tp-bfd-cv-proactive-and-rdi">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>MPLS-TP BFD for Proactive CC-CV and RDI</title>
<author initials="A" surname="Fulignoli">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Boutros">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="M" surname="Vigoreux">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK"
target="draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>MPLS-TP OAM Framework and Overview</title>
<author initials="I" surname="Busi">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="B" surname="Niven-Jenkins">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="ETH-OAM"
target="draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM</title>
<author initials="A" surname="Takacs">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="B" surname="Gero">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Fedyk">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Mohan">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Long">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="MPLS-TP OAM Analysis"
target="draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>MPLS-TP OAM Analysis</title>
<author initials="N" surname="Sprecher">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="T" surname="Nadeau">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="H" surname="van Helvoort">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="" surname="Weingarten">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2006" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="LSP Ping"
target="RFC 3479">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
<front>
<title>Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures</title>
<author initials="K" surname="Kompella">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="G" surname="Swallow">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2006" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<section anchor="app-additional" title="Additional Stuff">
<t>This becomes an Appendix.</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:49:38 |