One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="MPLS Transport Profile Framework">A Framework for MPLS in
Transport Networks</title>
<author fullname="Matthew Bocci" initials="M" role="editor"
surname="Bocci">
<organization>Alcatel-Lucent</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road</street>
<city>Maidenhead</city>
<region>Berks</region>
<code>SL6 2PJ</code>
<country>United Kingdom</country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Stewart Bryant" initials="S" role="editor"
surname="Bryant">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>250 Longwater Ave</street>
<city>Reading</city>
<code>RG2 6GB</code>
<country>United Kingdom</country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>stbryant@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Dan Frost" initials="D" surname="Frost">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country></country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<facsimile></facsimile>
<email>danfrost@cisco.com</email>
<uri></uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Lieven Levrau" initials="L" surname="Levrau">
<organization>Alcatel-Lucent</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>7-9, Avenue Morane Sulnier</street>
<city>Velizy</city>
<code>78141</code>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>lieven.levrau@alcatel-lucent.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Lou Berger" initials="L" surname="Berger">
<organization>LabN</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country></country>
</postal>
<phone>+1-301-468-9228</phone>
<facsimile></facsimile>
<email>lberger@labn.net</email>
<uri></uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="22" month="December" year="2009" />
<area>Routing</area>
<workgroup>MPLS Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>mpls-tp</keyword>
<keyword>MPLS</keyword>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies an architectural framework for the
application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the construction
of packet-switched equivalents of traditional circuit-switched carrier
networks. It describes a common set of protocol functions - the MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) - that supports the operational models and
capabilities typical of such networks, including signaled or explicitly
provisioned bi-directional connection-oriented paths, protection and
restoration mechanisms, comprehensive Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) functions, and network operation in the absence of a
dynamic control plane or IP forwarding support. Some of these functions
are defined in existing MPLS specifications, while others require
extensions to existing specifications to meet the requirements of the
MPLS-TP.</t>
<t>This document defines the subset of the MPLS-TP applicable in general
and to point-to-point paths. The remaining subset, applicable
specifically to point-to-multipoint paths, are out of scope of this
document.</t>
<t>This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
defined by the ITU-T.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<section title="Motivation and Background">
<t>This document describes an architectural framework for the
application of MPLS to the construction of packet-switched transport
networks. It specifies the common set of protocol functions that meet
the requirements in <xref target="RFC5654"></xref>, and that together
constitute the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) for point-to-point
paths. The remaining MPLS-TP functions, applicable specifically to
point-to-multipoint paths, are out of scope of this document.</t>
<t>Historically the optical transport infrastructure - Synchronous
Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) and Optical
Transport Network (OTN) - has provided carriers with a high benchmark
for reliability and operational simplicity. To achieve this, transport
technologies have been designed with specific characteristics:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Strictly connection-oriented connectivity, which may be
long-lived and may be provisioned manually (i.e. configuration of
the node via a command line interface) or by network
management.</t>
<t>A high level of availability.</t>
<t>Quality of service.</t>
<t>Extensive OAM capabilities.</t>
</list> Carriers wish to evolve such transport networks to take
advantage of the flexibility and cost benefits of packet switching
technology and to support packet based services more efficiently.
While MPLS is a maturing packet technology that already plays an
important role in transport networks and services, not all MPLS
capabilities and mechanisms are needed in or consistent with the
transport network operational model. There are also transport
technology characteristics that are not currently reflected in
MPLS.</t>
<t>There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and
operated in a similar manner to existing transport
technologies.</t>
<t>To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
transport networks.</t>
</list></t>
<t>In order to achieve these objectives, there is a need to define a
common set of MPLS protocol functions - an MPLS Transport Profile -
for the use of MPLS in transport networks and applications. Some of
the necessary functions are provided by existing MPLS specifications,
while others require additions to the MPLS tool-set. Such additions
should, wherever possible, be applicable to MPLS networks in general
as well as those that conform strictly to the transport network
model.</t>
<t>This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union
Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an
MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to
support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport
network as defined by the ITU-T.</t>
</section>
<section title="Scope">
<t>This document describes an architectural framework for the
application of MPLS to the construction of packet-switched transport
networks. It specifies the common set of protocol functions that meet
the requirements in <xref target="RFC5654"></xref>, and that together
constitute the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) for point-to-point
MPLS-TP transport paths. The remaining MPLS-TP functions, applicable
specifically to point-to-multipoint transport paths, are out of scope
of this document.</t>
</section>
<section title="Terminology">
<texttable align="left" style="headers">
<ttcol>Term</ttcol>
<ttcol>Definition</ttcol>
<c>LSP</c>
<c>Label Switched Path</c>
<c>MPLS-TP</c>
<c>MPLS Transport Profile</c>
<c>SDH</c>
<c>Synchronous Digital Hierarchy</c>
<c>ATM</c>
<c>Asynchronous Transfer Mode</c>
<c>OTN</c>
<c>Optical Transport Network</c>
<c>cl-ps</c>
<c>Connectionless - Packet Switched</c>
<c>co-cs</c>
<c>Connection Oriented - Circuit Switched</c>
<c>co-ps</c>
<c>Connection Oriented - Packet Switched</c>
<c>OAM</c>
<c>Operations, Administration and Maintenance</c>
<c>G-ACh</c>
<c>Generic Associated Channel</c>
<c>GAL</c>
<c>Generic Alert Label</c>
<c>MEP</c>
<c>Maintenance End Point</c>
<c>MIP</c>
<c>Maintenance Intermediate Point</c>
<c>APS</c>
<c>Automatic Protection Switching</c>
<c>SCC</c>
<c>Signaling Communication Channel</c>
<c>MCC</c>
<c>Management Communication Channel</c>
<c>EMF</c>
<c>Equipment Management Function</c>
<c>FM</c>
<c>Fault Management</c>
<c>CM</c>
<c>Configuration Management</c>
<c>PM</c>
<c>Performance Management</c>
<c>LSR</c>
<c>Label Switching Router</c>
<c>MPLS-TP PE</c>
<c>MPLS-TP Provider Edge LSR</c>
<c>MPLS-TP P</c>
<c>MPLS-TP Provider LSR</c>
<c>PW</c>
<c>Pseudowire</c>
<c>Adaptation</c>
<c>The mapping of client information into a format suitable for
transport by the server layer</c>
<c>Native Service</c>
<c>The traffic belonging to the client of the MPLS-TP network</c>
<c>T-PE</c>
<c>PW Terminating Provider Edge</c>
<c>S-PE</c>
<c>PW Switching provider Edge</c>
</texttable>
<section title="Transport Network">
<t>A Transport Network provides transparent transmission of client
user plane traffic between attached client devices by establishing
and maintaining point-to-point or point-to-multipoint connections
between such devices. The architecture of networks supporting point
to multipoint connections is out of scope of this document. A
Transport Network is independent of any higher-layer network that
may exist between clients, except to the extent required to supply
this transmission service. In addition to client traffic, a
Transport Network may carry traffic to facilitate its own operation,
such as that required to support connection control, network
management, and Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
functions.</t>
<t>See also the definition of Packet Transport Service in <xref
target="pts"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS Transport Profile">
<t>The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the subset of MPLS
functions that meet the requirements in <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref>. Note that MPLS is defined to include any
present and future MPLS capability specified by the IETF, including
those capabilities specifically added to support transport network
requirements <xref target="RFC5654"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS-TP Section">
<t>An MPLS-TP Section is defined in Section 1.2.2 of <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS-TP Label Switched Path">
<t>An MPLS-TP Label Switched Path (MPLS-TP LSP) is an LSP that uses
a subset of the capabilities of an MPLS LSP in order to meet the
requirements of an MPLS transport network as set out in <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref>. The characteristics of an MPLS-TP LSP are
primarily that it:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Uses a subset of the MPLS OAM tools defined as described in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework"></xref>.</t>
<t>Supports 1+1, 1:1, and 1:N protection functions.</t>
<t>Is traffic engineered.</t>
<t>May be established and maintained via the management plane,
or using GMPLS protocols when a control plane is used.</t>
<t>Is either point-to-point or point-to-multipoint. Multipoint
to point and multipoint to multipoint LSPs are not
permitted.</t>
</list>Note that an MPLS LSP is defined to include any present and
future MPLS capability, including those specifically added to
support the transport network requirements.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS-TP Label Switching Router (LSR) and Label Edge Router (LER)">
<t>Editor's Note: These terms are here for clarity - but this is not
the authoritative definition - (need to find a definition)</t>
<t>An MPLS-TP Label Switching Router (LSR) is either an MPLS-TP
Provider Edge (PE) router or an MPLS-TP Provider (P) router for a
given LSP, as defined below. The terms MPLS-TP PE router and MPLS-TP
P router describe logical functions; a specific node may undertake
only one of these roles on a given LSP.</t>
<t>Note that the use of the term "router" in this context is
historic and neither requires nor precludes the ability to perform
IP forwarding.</t>
<section title="MPLS-TP Provider Edge (PE) Router">
<t>An MPLS-TP Provider Edge (PE) router is an MPLS-TP LSR that
adapts client traffic and encapsulates it to be transported over
an MPLS-TP LSP. Encapsulation may be as simple as pushing a label,
or it may require the use of a pseudowire. An MPLS-TP PE exists at
the interface between a pair of layer networks. For an MS-PW, an
MPLS-TP PE may be either an S-PE or a T-PE, as defined in <xref
target="RFC5659"></xref>.</t>
<t>A layer network is defined in <xref target="G.805"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS-TP Provider (P) Router">
<t>An MPLS-TP Provider router is an MPLS-TP LSR that does not
provide MPLS-TP PE functionality for a given LSP. An MPLS-TP P
router switches LSPs which carry client traffic, but does not
adapt client traffic and encapsulate it to be carried over an
MPLS-TP LSP.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Customer Edge (CE)">
<t>A Customer Edge (CE) is the client function sourcing or sinking
native service traffic to or from the MPLS-TP network. CEs on either
side of the MPLS-TP network are peers and view the MPLS-TP network
as a single point-to-point or point-to-multipoint link.</t>
</section>
<section title="Additional Definitions and Terminology">
<t>Detailed definitions and additional terminology may be found in
<xref target="RFC5654"></xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Applicability">
<t>MPLS-TP can be used to construct packet transport networks and is
therefore applicable in any packet transport network context. It is
also applicable to subsets of a packet network where the transport
network operational model is deemed attractive. The following are
examples of MPLS-TP applicability models:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>MPLS-TP provided by a network that only supports MPLS-TP LSPs
and PWs (i.e. Only MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs exist between the PEs or
LSRs), acting as a server for other layer 1, layer 2 and layer 3
networks (<xref target="tp-server"></xref>).</t>
<t>MPLS-TP provided by a network that also supports non-MPLS-TP
LSPs and PWs (i.e. both LSPs and PWs that conform to the transport
profile and those that do not, exist between the PEs), acting as a
server for other layer 1, layer 2 and layer 3 networks (<xref
target="tp-in-mpls"></xref>).</t>
<t>MPLS-TP as a server layer for client layer traffic of IP or
MPLS networks which do not use functions of the MPLS transport
profile. For MPLS traffic, the MPLS-TP server layer network uses
PW switching or LSP stitching at the PE that terminates the
MPLS-TP server layer (<xref target="tp-client-service"></xref>). -
See notes in word document - ref = rfc5150</t>
</list>These models are not mutually exclusive.</t>
<t><figure anchor="tp-server" title="MPLS-TP Server Layer Example">
<artwork><![CDATA[MPLS-TP LSP, provided by a network that only supports MPLS-TP, acting as
a server for other layer 1, layer 2 and layer 3 networks.
|<-- L1/2/3 -->|<-- MPLS-TP-->|<-- L1/2/3 -->|
Only
MPLS-TP
+---+ LSP +---+
+---+ Client | |----------| | Client +---+
|CE1|==Traffic=|PE2|==========|PE3|=Traffic==|CE1|
+---+ | |----------| | +---+
+---+ +---+
Example a) [Ethernet] [Ethernet] [Ethernet]
layering [ PW ]
[-TP LSP ]
b) [ IP ] [ IP ] [ IP ]
[ Demux ]
[-TP LSP ]
]]></artwork>
</figure><figure anchor="tp-in-mpls"
title="MPLS-TP in MPLS Network Example">
<artwork><![CDATA[MPLS-TP LSP, provided by a network that also supports non-MPLS-TP
functions, acting as a server for other layer 1, layer 2 and
layer 3 networks.
|<-- L1/2/3 -->|<-- MPLS -->|<-- L1/2/3 -->|
MPLS-TP
+---+ LSP +---+
+---+ Client | |----------| | Client +---+
|CE1|==Traffic=|PE2|==========|PE3|=Traffic==|CE1|
+---+ | |----------| | +---+
+---+ +---+
Example a) [Ethernet] [Ethernet] [Ethernet]
layering [ PW ]
[-TP LSP ]
b) [ IP ] [ IP ] [ IP ]
[ Demux ]
[-TP LSP ]]]></artwork>
</figure><figure anchor="tp-client-service"
title="MPLS-TP Transporting Client Service Traffic">
<artwork><![CDATA[MPLS-TP as a server layer for client layer traffic of IP or MPLS
networks which do not use functions of the MPLS transport
profile.
|<-- MPLS ---->|<-- MPLS-TP-->|<--- MPLS --->|
Only
+---+ +----+ Non-TP +----+ MPLS-TP +----+ Non-TP +----+ +---+
|CE1|---|T-PE|====LSP===|S-PE|====LSP===|S-PE|====LSP===|S-PE|---|CE2|
+---+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +---+
(PW switching) (PW switching)
(a) [ Eth ] [ Eth ] [ Eth ] [ Eth ] [ Eth ]
[PW Seg't] [PW Seg't] [PW Seg't]
[ LSP ] [-TP LSP ] [ LSP ]
|<-- MPLS ---->|<-- MPLS-TP-->|<--- MPLS --->|
Only
+---+ +----+ Non-TP +----+ MPLS-TP +----+ Non-TP +----+ +---+
|CE1|---| PE |====LSP===| PE |====LSP===| PE |====LSP===| PE |---|CE2|
+---+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +---+
(LSP stitching) (LSP stitching)
(b) [ IP ] [ IP ] [ IP ] [ IP ] [ IP ]
[ LSP ] [-TP LSP ] [ LSP ] ]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="MPLS Transport Profile Requirements">
<t>The requirements for MPLS-TP are specified in <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref>, <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements"></xref>, and <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req"></xref>. This section provides a brief
reminder to guide the reader and is therefore not normative. It is not
intended as a substitute for these documents.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP must not modify the MPLS forwarding architecture and must be
based on existing pseudowire and LSP constructs.</t>
<t>Point to point LSPs may be unidirectional or bi-directional, and it
must be possible to construct congruent Bi-directional LSPs.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP LSPs do not merge with other LSPs at an MPLS-TP LSR and it
must be possible to detect if a merged LSP has been created.</t>
<t>It must be possible to forward packets solely based on switching the
MPLS or PW label. It must also be possible to establish and maintain
LSPs and/or pseudowires both in the absence or presence of a dynamic
control plane. When static provisioning is used, there must be no
dependency on dynamic routing or signaling.</t>
<t>OAM, protection and forwarding of data packets must be able to
operate without IP forwarding support.</t>
<t>It must be possible to monitor LSPs and pseudowires through the use
of OAM in the absence of control plane or routing functions. In this
case information gained from the OAM functions is used to initiate path
recovery actions at either the PW or LSP layers.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS Transport Profile Overview">
<section anchor="pts" title="Packet Transport Services">
<t>One objective of MPLS-TP is to enable MPLS networks to provide
packet transport services with a similar degree of predictability to
that found in existing transport networks. Such packet transport
services inherit a number of characteristics, defined in <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref>:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>In an environment where an MPLS-TP layer network is supporting
a client layer network, and the MPLS-TP layer network is supported
by a server layer network then operation of the MPLS-TP layer
network must be possible without any dependencies on either the
server or client layer network.</t>
<t>The service provided by the MPLS-TP network to the client is
guaranteed not to fall below the agreed level regardless of other
client activity.</t>
<t>The control and management planes of any client network layer
that uses the service is isolated from the control and management
planes of the MPLS-TP layer network, where the client network
layer is considered to be the native service of the MPLS-TP
network.</t>
<t>Where a client network makes use of an MPLS-TP server that
provides a packet transport service, the level of co-ordination
required between the client and server layer networks is minimal
(preferably no co-ordination will be required).</t>
<t>The complete set of packets generated by a client MPLS(-TP)
layer network using the packet transport service, which may
contain packets that are not MPLS packets (e.g. IP or CNLS packets
used by the control/management plane of the client MPLS(-TP) layer
network), are transported by the MPLS-TP server layer network.</t>
<t>The packet transport service enables the MPLS-TP layer network
addressing and other information (e.g. topology) to be hidden from
any client layer networks using that service, and vice-versa.</t>
</list>These characteristics imply that a packet transport service
does not support a connectionless packet-switched forwarding mode.
However, this does not preclude it carrying client traffic associated
with a connectionless service.</t>
<t>Such packet transport services are very similar to Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks as defined by the IETF.</t>
</section>
<section title="Scope of the MPLS Transport Profile">
<t><xref target="mpls-tp-scope"></xref> illustrates the scope of
MPLS-TP. MPLS-TP solutions are primarily intended for packet transport
applications. MPLS-TP is a strict subset of MPLS, and comprises only
those functions that are necessary to meet the requirements of <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref>. This includes MPLS functions that were
defined prior to <xref target="RFC5654"></xref> but that meet the
requirements of <xref target="RFC5654"></xref>, together with
additional functions defined to meet those requirements. Some MPLS
functions defined before <xref target="RFC5654"></xref> such as Equal
Cost Multi-Path, LDP signaling used in such a way that it creates
multipoint-to-point LSPs, and IP forwarding in the data plane are
explicitly excluded from MPLS-TP by that requirements
specification.</t>
<t>Note that MPLS as a whole will continue to evolve to include
additional functions that do not conform to the MPLS Transport Profile
or its requirements, and thus fall outside the scope of MPLS-TP.</t>
<t><figure anchor="mpls-tp-scope" title="Scope of MPLS-TP">
<artwork><![CDATA[|<============================== MPLS ==============================>|
|<============= Pre-RFC5654 MPLS ================>|
{ ECMP }
{ LDP/non-TE LSPs }
{ IP fwd }
|<================ MPLS-TP ====================>|
{ Additional }
{ Transport }
{ Functions }
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t></t>
</section>
<section anchor="arch" title="Architecture">
<t>MPLS-TP comprises the following architectural elements:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Sections, LSPs and PWs that provide a packet transport service
for a client network.</t>
<t>Proactive and on-demand Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) functions to monitor and diagnose the MPLS-TP
network, such as connectivity check, connectivity verification,
performance monitoring and fault localisation.</t>
<t>Optional control planes for LSPs and PWs, as well as support
for static provisioning and configuration.</t>
<t>Optional path protection mechanisms to ensure that the packet
transport service survives anticipated failures and degradations
of the MPLS-TP network.</t>
<t>Network management functions.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The MPLS-TP architecture for LSPs and PWs includes the following
two sets of functions:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>MPLS-TP client adaptation</t>
<t>MPLS-TP forwarding</t>
</list></t>
<t>The adaptation functions interface the native service to MPLS-TP.
This includes the case where the native service is an MPLS-TP LSP.</t>
<t>The forwarding functions comprise the mechanisms required for
forwarding the encapsulated client traffic over an MPLS-TP server
layer network, for example PW and LSP labels.</t>
<section title="MPLS-TP Client Adaptation Functions" toc="default">
<t>The MPLS-TP native service adaptation functions interface the
client service to MPLS-TP. For pseudowires, these adaptation
functions are the payload encapsulation described in Section 4.4 of
<xref target="RFC3985"></xref> and Section 6 of <xref
target="RFC5659"></xref>. For network layer client services, the
adaptation function uses the MPLS encapsulation format as defined in
<xref target="RFC3032"></xref>.</t>
<t>The purpose of this encapsulation is to abstract the client
service data plane from the MPLS-TP data plane, thus contributing to
the independent operation of the MPLS-TP network.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP is itself a client of an underlying server layer. MPLS-TP
is thus also bounded by a set of adaptation functions to this server
layer network, which may itself be MPLS-TP. These adaptation
functions provide encapsulation of the MPLS-TP frames and for the
transparent transport of those frames over the server layer network.
The MPLS-TP client inherits its Quality of Service (QoS) from the
MPLS-TP network, which in turn inherits its QoS from the server
layer. The server layer must therefore provide the necessary QoS to
ensure that the MPLS-TP client QoS commitments can be satisfied.</t>
</section>
<section title="MPLS-TP Forwarding Functions">
<t>The forwarding functions comprise the mechanisms required for
forwarding the encapsulated client over an MPLS-TP server layer
network, for example PW and LSP labels.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP LSPs use the MPLS label switching operations and TTL
processing procedures defined in <xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and
<xref target="RFC3032"></xref>. These operations are highly
optimised for performance and are not modified by the MPLS-TP
profile.</t>
<t>In addition, MPLS-TP PWs use the SS-PW and MS-PW forwarding
operations defined in <xref target="RFC3985"></xref> and <xref
target="RFC5659"></xref>. The PW label is processed by a PW
forwarder and is always at the bottom of the label stack for a given
MPLS-TP layer network.</t>
<t>Per-platform label space is used for PWs. Either per-platform,
per-interface or other context-specific label space <xref
target="RFC5331"></xref> may be used for LSPs.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP forwarding is based on the label that identifies the
transport path (LSP or PW). The label value specifies the processing
operation to be performed by the next hop at that level of
encapsulation. A swap of this label is an atomic operation in which
the contents of the packet after the swapped label are opaque to the
forwarder. The only event that interrupts a swap operation is TTL
expiry. This is a fundamental architectural construct of MPLS to be
taken into account when designing protocol extensions that require
packets (e.g. OAM packets) to be sent to an intermediate LSR.</t>
<t>Further processing to determine the context of a packet occurs
when a swap operation is interrupted in this manner, or a pop
operation exposes a specific reserved label at the top of the stack.
Otherwise the packet is forwarded according to the procedures in
<xref target="RFC3032"></xref>.</t>
<t>Point-to-point MPLS-TP LSPs can be either unidirectional or
bidirectional.</t>
<t>It must be possible to configure an MPLS-TP LSP such that the
forward and backward directions of a bidirectional MPLS-TP LSP are
co-routed, i.e. follow the same path. The pairing relationship
between the forward and the backward directions must be known at
each LSR or LER on a bidirectional LSP.</t>
<t>In normal conditions, all the packets sent over a PW or an LSP
follow the same path through the network and those that belong to a
common ordered aggregate are delivered in order. For example
per-packet equal cost multi-path (ECMP) load balancing is not
applicable to MPLS-TP LSPs.</t>
<t>Penultimate hop popping (PHP) is disabled on MPLS-TP LSPs by
default.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP supports Quality of Service capabilities via the MPLS
Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture <xref
target="RFC3270"></xref>. Both E-LSP and L-LSP MPLS DiffServ modes
are supported. The Traffic Class field (formerly the EXP field) of
an MPLS label follows the definition and processing rules of <xref
target="RFC5462"></xref> and <xref target="RFC3270"></xref>. Note
that packet reordering between flows belonging to different traffic
classes may occur if more than one traffic class is supported on a
single LSP.</t>
<t>Only the Pipe and Short Pipe DiffServ tunnelling and TTL
processing models described in <xref target="RFC3270"></xref> and
<xref target="RFC3443"></xref> are supported in MPLS-TP.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="MPLS-TP Native Services">
<t>This document specifies the architecture for two types of native
service adaptation:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>A PW: PW Demultiplexer and PW encapsulation</t>
<t>An MPLS Label</t>
</list></t>
<t>A PW can carry any emulated service defined by the IETF to be
provided by a PW, for example Ethernet, Frame Relay, or PPP/HDLC. A
registry of PW types is maintained by IANA. When the client adaptation
is via a PW, the mechanisms described in <xref target="PW-sec"></xref>
are used.</t>
<t>An MPLS LSP Label can also be used as the adaptation, in which case
any network layer client supported by MPLS is allowed, for example an
MPLS LSP, PW, or IP. When the client adaptation is via an MPLS label,
the mechanisms described in <xref target="NLTS-sec"></xref> are
used.</t>
<section title="MPLS-TP Client/Server Relationship">
<t>The relationship of MPLS-TP to its clients is illustrated in
<xref target="clients"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure anchor="clients" title="MPLS-TP - Client Relationship">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PW-Based MPLS Labelled
Services Services
Emulated PW LSP IP
Service
+------------+
| PW Payload |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ (CLIENTS)
| PW Payload | |PW Lbl(S=1) | | IP |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
|PW Lbl (S=1)| | |LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=1)| | IP |
+------------+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=1)|
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
(MPLS-TP)
~~~~~~~~~~~ = Client - MPLS-TP layer boundary
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The data plane behaviour of MPLS-TP is the same as the best
current practise for MPLS. This includes the setting of the S-Bit.
In each case, the S-bit is set to indicate the bottom (i.e.
inner-most) label in the label stack that is contiguous between the
MPLS-TP server and the client layer.</t>
<t>Note that this best current practise differs slightly from
[RFC3032] which uses the S-bit to identify when MPLS label
processing stops and network layer processing starts.</t>
<t>Note that the label stacks shown above are those inside MPLS-TP
network. They illustrate the smallest number of labels possible.
These label stacks could also include more labels.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="PW-sec" title="Pseudowire Adaptation">
<t>The architecture for an MPLS-TP client adaptation that uses PWs
is based on the MPLS <xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and pseudowire
<xref target="RFC3985"></xref> architectures. If multi-segment
pseudowires are used to provide a packet transport service,
motivated by, for example, the requirements specified in <xref
target="RFC5254"></xref>, then the MS-PW architecture <xref
target="RFC5659"></xref> also applies.</t>
<t><xref target="tp-arch"></xref> shows the architecture for an
MPLS-TP network using single-segment PWs.</t>
<t><figure anchor="tp-arch"
title="MPLS-TP Architecture (Single Segment PW)">
<artwork><![CDATA[ |<--------------- Emulated Service ----------------->|
| |
| |<-------- Pseudowire -------->| |
| | encapsulated packet | |
| | transport service | |
| | | |
| | |<------ LSP ------->| | |
| V V V V |
V AC +----+ +-----+ +----+ AC V
+-----+ | | PE1|=======\ /========| PE2| | +-----+
| |----------|.......PW1.| \ / |............|----------| |
| CE1 | | | | | X | | | | | CE2 |
| |----------|.......PW2.| / \ |............|----------| |
+-----+ ^ | | |=======/ \========| | | ^ +-----+
^ | +----+ +-----+ +----+ | ^
| | Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | |
| | | | |
Customer | P Router | Customer
Edge 1 | | Edge 2
| |
| |
Native service Native service
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t><xref target="ms-pw-arch"></xref> shows the architecture for an
MPLS-TP network when multi-segment pseudowires are used. Note that
as in the SS-PW case, P-routers may also exist.</t>
<t><figure anchor="ms-pw-arch"
title="MPLS-TP Architecture (Multi-Segment PW)">
<artwork><![CDATA[ |<----------- Pseudowire encapsulated ------------->|
| packet transport service |
| |
| |
| |
AC | |<-------- LSP1 -------->| |<--LSP2-->| | AC
| V V V V V V |
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ +----+ |
+---+ | |TPE1|===============\ /=====|SPE1|==========|TPE2| | +---+
| |---|......PW.Seg't1... | \ / | ......X...PW.Seg't3.....|---| |
|CE1| | | | | X | | | | | | |CE2|
| |---|......PW.Seg't2... | / \ | ......X...PW.Seg't4.....|---| |
+---+ | | |===============/ \=====| |==========| | | +---+
^ +----+ ^ +-----+ +----+ ^ +----+ ^
| | ^ | |
| TE LSP | TE LSP |
| P-router |
| |
|<-------------------- Emulated Service ------------------->|
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The corresponding domain of the MPLS-TP protocol stack including
PWs is shown in <xref target="MPLS-TP-Defn"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure anchor="MPLS-TP-Defn"
title="MPLS-TP Layer Network using Pseudowires">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------------+
| Client Layer |
/===================\ /===================\
H PW Encap H H PW OAM H
H-------------------H H-------------------H /===================\
H PW Demux (S=1) H H PW Demux (S=1) H H LSP OAM H
H-------------------H H-------------------H H-------------------H
H LSP Demux(s) H H LSP Demux(s) H H LSP Demux(s) H
\===================/ \===================/ \===================/
| Server Layer | | Server Layer | | Server Layer |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
User Traffic PW OAM LSP OAM
Note: Transport Service Layer = PW Demux
Transport Path Layer = LSP Demux
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>When providing a Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS), Virtual
Private Local Area Network Service (VPLS), Virtual Private Multicast
Service (VPMS) or Internet Protocol Local Area Network Service
(IPLS), pseudowires must be used to carry the client service.</t>
<t>[Editors' note add references for the terms in this para].</t>
<t>PWs and their underlying labels may be configured or signaled.
See <xref target="static"></xref> for additional details related to
configured service types. See <xref target="CONTROLPLANE"></xref>
for additional details related to signaled service types.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="NLTS-sec" title="Network Layer Adaptation">
<t>MPLS-TP LSPs can be used to transport network layer clients. Any
network layer protocol can be transported between service
interfaces. Examples of network layer protocols include IP, MPLS and
MPLS-TP. Support for network layer clients follows the MPLS
architecture for support of network layer protocols as defined in
<xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and supported in <xref
target="RFC3032"></xref>.</t>
<t>With network layer adaptation, the MPLS-TP domain provides a
bidirectional point-to-point connection between two PEs in order to
deliver a packet transport service to attached customer edge (CE)
nodes. For example, a CE may be an IP, MPLS or MPLS-TP node. As
shown in <xref target="tp-ip-lsp-arch"></xref>, there is an
attachment circuit between the CE node on the left and its
corresponding provider edge (PE) node which provides the service
interface, a bidirectional LSP across the MPLS-TP network to the
corresponding PE node on the right, and an attachment circuit
between that PE node and the corresponding CE node for this
service.</t>
<t><figure anchor="tp-ip-lsp-arch"
title="MPLS-TP Architecture for Network Layer Clients">
<artwork><![CDATA[ |<------------- Client Network Layer-------------->|
| |
| |<---- Pkt Xport Service --->|
| | | |
| | |<-- PSN Tunnel -->| | |
| V V V V |
V AC +----+ +---+ +----+ AC V
+-----+ | |PE1 | | | |PE2 | | +-----+
| | |LSP | | | | | | | | |
| CE1 |----------| |========X=========| |----------| CE2 |
| | ^ |IP | | ^ | | ^ | | | ^ | |
+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+
^ | +----+ | +---+ | +----+ | | ^
| | Provider | ^ | Provider | |
| | Edge | | | Edge | |
Customer | 1 | P-router | 2 | Customer
Edge 1 | TE TE | Edge 2
| LSP LSP |
| |
Native service Native service
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>At the ingress service interface, the PE pushes one or more
labels onto the ingress packets which are label switched over the
transport network, and similarly the corresponding service interface
at the egress PE pops any labels added by the MPLS-TP networks and
delivers the packets to the attached CE. The attachment circuits may
be heterogeneous (e.g., any combination of SDH, PPP, Frame Relay,
etc.) and network layer protocol payloads arrive at the service
interface encapsulated in the Layer1/Layer2 encoding defined for
that access link type. It should be noted that the set of network
layer protocols includes MPLS and hence MPLS encoded packets with an
MPLS label stack (the client MPLS stack), may appear at the service
interface.</t>
<t><figure anchor="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"
title="Domain of MPLS-TP Layer Network for IP and LSP Clients">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------------+
| Client Layer |
/===================\ /===================\
H Encap Label H H SvcLSP OAM H
H-------------------H H-------------------H /===================\
H SvcLSP Demux H H SvcLSP Demux (S=1)H H LSP OAM H
H-------------------H H-------------------H H-------------------H
H LSP Demux(s) H H LSP Demux(s) H H LSP Demux(s) H
\===================/ \===================/ \===================/
| Server Layer | | Server Layer | | Server Layer |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
User Traffic Service LSP OAM LSP OAM
Note: Transport Service Layer = SvcLSP Demux
Transport Path Layer = LSP Demux
Note that the functions of the Encap label and the Service Label may be
represented by a single label or omitted. Additionally, the S-bit will
always be zero when the client layer is MPLS labelled. ]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Within the MPLS-TP transport network, the network layer protocols
are carried over the MPLS-TP network using a logically separate MPLS
label stack (the server stack). The server stack is entirely under
the control of the nodes within the MPLS-TP transport network and it
is not visible outside that network. <xref
target="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"></xref> shows how a client network
protocol stack (which may be an MPLS label stack and payload) is
carried over a network layer client service over an MPLS-TP
transport network.</t>
<t>A label per network layer protocol payload type that is to be
transported is required. Such labels are referred to as
"Encapsulation Labels", one of which is shown in <xref
target="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"></xref>. Encapsulation Label is either
configured or signaled.</t>
<t>A Service Label should be used when a particular packet transport
service is supporting more than one network layer protocol payload
type (and more than one Encapsulation Label is used). An example
Service Label is shown in <xref target="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"></xref>. A
Service Label may be omitted when only one encapsulation label is
used in support of a particular service. For example, if only MPLS
labelled packets are carried over a service, then a single
Encapsulation Label would be used to provide both payload type
indication and service identification. Alternatively, if both IP and
MPLS is to be carried, as shown in <xref
target="tp-ip-lsp-arch"></xref>, then two Encapsulation Labels could
be mapped on to a common Service Label.</t>
<t>Service labels are typically carried over an MPLS-TP edge-to-edge
(or transport path layer) LSP, which is also shown in <xref
target="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"></xref>. The use of an edge-to-edge LSP is
recommended when more than one service exists between two PEs. An
edge-to-edge LSP may be omitted when only one service label is used
in between two PEs. For example, if only one service is carried
between two PEs then a single Service Label could be used to
provided both service indication and the MPLS-TP edge-to-edge LSP.
Alternatively, if multiple services exist between a pair of PEs then
a per-client Service Label would be mapped on to a common MPLS-TP
edge-to-edge LSP.</t>
<t>As noted above, the layer 2 and layer 1 protocols used to carry
the network layer protocol over the attachment circuits are not
transported across the MPLS-TP network. This enables the use of
different layer 2 and layer 1 protocols on the two attachment
circuits.</t>
<t>At each service interface, Layer 2 addressing must be used to
ensure the proper delivery of a network layer packet to the adjacent
node. This is typically only an issue for LAN media technologies
(e.g., Ethernet) which have Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. In
cases where a MAC address is needed, the sending node must set the
destination MAC address to an address that ensures delivery to the
adjacent node. That is the CE sets the destination MAC address to an
address that ensures delivery to the PE, and the PE sets the
destination MAC address to an address that ensures delivery to the
CE. The specific address used is technology type specific and is not
covered in this document. In some technologies the MAC address will
need to be configured (Examples for the Ethernet case include a
configured unicast MAC address for the adjacent node, or even using
the broadcast MAC address when the CE-PE service interface is
dedicated. The configured address is then used as the MAC
destination address for all packets sent over the service
interface.)</t>
<t>Note that when the two CEs operating over the network layer
transport service are running a routing protocol such as IS-IS or
OSPF some care should be taken to configure the routing protocols to
use point-to-point adjacencies. The specifics of such configuration
is outside the scope of this document. See <xref
target="RFC5309"></xref> for additional details.</t>
<t>The CE to CE service types and corresponding labels may be
configured or signaled. See <xref target="static"></xref> for
additional details related to configured service types. See <xref
target="CONTROLPLANE"></xref> for additional details related to
signaled service types.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="addr" title="Identifiers">
<t>Identifiers are used to uniquely distinguish entities in an MPLS-TP
network. These include operators, nodes, LSPs, pseudowires, and their
associated maintenance entities. <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers"></xref> defines a set of
identifiers that are compatible with existing MPLS control plane
identifiers, as well as a set of identifiers that may be used when no
IP control plane is available.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="GENERICACH" title="Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)">
<t>For correct operation of the OAM it is important that the OAM
packets fate-share with the data packets. In addition in MPLS-TP it is
necessary to discriminate between user data payloads and other types
of payload. For example, a packet may be associated with a Signaling
Communication Channel (SCC), or a channel used for Automatic
Protection Switching (APS) data. This is achieved by carrying such
packets on a generic control channel associated to the LSP, PW or
section.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP makes use of such a generic associated channel (G-ACh) to
support Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance and Security
(FCAPS) functions by carrying packets related to OAM, APS, SCC, MCC or
other packet types in-band over LSPs or PWs. The G-ACh is defined in
<xref target="RFC5586"></xref> and is similar to the Pseudowire
Associated Channel <xref target="RFC4385"></xref>, which is used to
carry OAM packets over pseudowires. The G-ACh is indicated by a
generic associated channel header (ACH), similar to the Pseudowire
VCCV control word; this header is present for all Sections, LSPs and
PWs making use of FCAPS functions supported by the G-ACh.</t>
<t>For pseudowires, the G-ACh uses the first four bits of the
pseudowire control word to provide the initial discrimination between
data packets and packets belonging to the associated channel, as
described in <xref target="RFC4385"></xref>. When this first nibble of
a packet, immediately following the label at the bottom of stack, has
a value of '1', then this packet belongs to a G-ACh. The first 32 bits
following the bottom of stack label then have a defined format called
an associated channel header (ACH), which further defines the content
of the packet. The ACH is therefore both a demultiplexer for G-ACh
traffic on the PW, and a discriminator for the type of G-ACh
traffic.</t>
<t>When the OAM or other control message is carried over an LSP,
rather than over a pseudowire, it is necessary to provide an
indication in the packet that the payload is something other than a
user data packet. This is achieved by including a reserved label with
a value of 13 in the label stack. This reserved label is referred to
as the 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)', and is defined in <xref
target="RFC5586"></xref>. When a GAL is found, it indicates that the
payload begins with an ACH. The GAL is thus a demultiplexer for G-ACh
traffic on the LSP, and the ACH is a discriminator for the type of
traffic carried on the G-ACh. Note however that MPLS-TP forwarding
follows the normal MPLS model, and that a GAL is invisible to an LSR
unless it is the top label in the label stack. The only other
circumstance under which the label stack may be inspected for a GAL is
when the TTL has expired. Any MPLS-TP component that intentionally
performs this inspection must assume that it is asynchronous with
respect to the forwarding of other packets. All operations on the
label stack are in accordance with <xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and
<xref target="RFC3032"></xref>.</t>
<t>In MPLS-TP, the 'G-ACh Alert Label (GAL)' always appears at the
bottom of the label stack (i.e. S bit set to 1).</t>
<t>The G-ACh must only be used for channels that are an adjunct to the
data service. Examples of these are OAM, APS, MCC and SCC, but the use
is not restricted to these services. The G-ACh must not be used to
carry additional data for use in the forwarding path, i.e. it must not
be used as an alternative to a PW control word, or to define a PW
type.</t>
<t>At the server layer, bandwidth and QoS commitments apply to the
gross traffic on the LSP, PW or section. Since the G-ACh traffic is
indistinguishable from the user data traffic, protocols using the
G-ACh must take into consideration the impact they have on the user
data that they are sharing resources with. Conversely, capacity must
be made available for important G-ACh uses such as protection and OAM.
In addition, protocols using the G-ACh must conform to the security
and congestion considerations described in <xref
target="RFC5586"></xref>.</t>
<t><xref target="PWE3-stack"></xref> shows the reference model
depicting how the control channel is associated with the pseudowire
protocol stack. This is based on the reference model for VCCV shown in
Figure 2 of <xref target="RFC5085"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure anchor="PWE3-stack"
title="PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model including the G-ACh "
width="72">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Payload | < Service / FCAPS > | Payload |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Demux / | < CW / ACH for PWs > | Demux / |
|Discriminator| |Discriminator|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PW | < PW > | PW |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PSN | < LSP > | PSN |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+-----+-------+ +-----+-------+
| |
| ____ ___ ____ |
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ |
| / \__/ \_ |
| / \ |
+--------| MPLS/MPLS-TP Network |---+
\ /
\ ___ ___ __ _/
\_/ \____/ \___/ \____/
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t></t>
<t>PW associated channel messages are encapsulated using the PWE3
encapsulation, so that they are handled and processed in the same
manner (or in some cases, an analogous manner) as the PW PDUs for
which they provide a control channel.</t>
<t><xref target="MPLS-PS-inc-LSP-ACH"></xref> shows the reference
model depicting how the control channel is associated with the LSP
protocol stack.</t>
<t></t>
<figure anchor="MPLS-PS-inc-LSP-ACH"
title="MPLS Protocol Stack Reference Model including the LSP Associated Control Channel ">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Payload | < Service > | Payload |
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Discriminator| < ACH on LSP > |Discriminator|
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Demultiplexer| < GAL on LSP > |Demultiplexer|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PSN | < LSP > | PSN |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+-----+-------+ +-----+-------+
| |
| ____ ___ ____ |
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ |
| / \__/ \_ |
| / \ |
+--------| MPLS/MPLS-TP Network |---+
\ /
\ ___ ___ __ _/
\_/ \____/ \___/ \____/
]]></artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t></t>
</section>
<section anchor="OAM"
title="Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)">
<t>MPLS-TP must be able to operate in environments where IP is not
used in the forwarding plane. Therefore, the default mechanism for OAM
demultiplexing in MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs is the Generic Associated
Channel (<xref target="GENERICACH"></xref>). Forwarding based on IP
addresses for user or OAM packets is not required for MPLS-TP.</t>
<t><xref target="RFC4379"></xref> and BFD for MPLS LSPs <xref
target="I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls"></xref> have defined alert mechanisms that
enable an MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when the
OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert mechanisms
are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination address in
the range 127/8 for IPv4 and that same range embedded as IPv4 mapped
IPv6 addresses for IPv6 <xref target="RFC4379"></xref>. When the OAM
packets are encapsulated in an IP header, these mechanisms are the
default mechanisms for MPLS networks in general for identifying MPLS
OAM packets. MPLS-TP must be able to operate in an environments where
IP forwarding is not supported, and thus the GACH/GAL is the default
mechanism to demultiplex OAM packets in MPLS-TP.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP supports a comprehensive set of OAM capabilities for packet
transport applications, with equivalent capabilities to those provided
in SONET/SDH.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP defines mechanisms to differentiate specific packets (e.g.
OAM, APS, MCC or SCC) from those carrying user data packets on the
same transport path (i.e. section, LSP or PW). These mechanisms are
described in <xref target="RFC5586"></xref>.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP requires <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements"></xref> that a set of OAM
capabilities is available to perform fault management (e.g. fault
detection and localisation) and performance monitoring (e.g. packet
delay and loss measurement) of the LSP, PW or section. The framework
for OAM in MPLS-TP is specified in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework"></xref>.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP OAM packets share the same fate as their corresponding data
packets, and are identified through the Generic Associated Channel
mechanism <xref target="RFC5586"></xref>. This uses a combination of
an Associated Channel Header (ACH) and a Generic Alert Label (GAL) to
create a control channel associated to an LSP, Section or PW.</t>
<section title="OAM Architecture">
<t>OAM and monitoring in MPLS-TP is based on the concept of
maintenance entities, as described in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework"></xref>. A Maintenance
Entity can be viewed as the association of two Maintenance End
Points (MEPs) (see example in <xref target="tp-oam-ex"></xref> ).
Another OAM construct is referred to as Maintenance Entity Group
(MEG), which is a collection of one or more MEs that belongs to the
same transport path and that are maintained and monitored as a
group. The MEPs that form an ME should be configured and managed to
limit the OAM responsibilities of an OAM flow within the domain of a
transport path or segment, in the specific layer network that is
being monitored and managed.</t>
<t>Each OAM flow is associated with a single ME. Each MEP within an
ME resides at the boundaries of that ME. An ME may also include a
set of zero or more Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs), which
reside within the Maintenance Entity. Maintenance End Points (MEPs)
are capable of sourcing and sinking OAM flows, while Maintenance
Intermediate Points (MIPs) can only sink or respond to OAM flows
from within a MEG, or originate notifications as a result of
specific network conditions.</t>
<t><figure anchor="tp-oam-ex"
title="Example of MPLS-TP OAM showing end-to-end and segment OAM"
width="72">
<artwork><![CDATA[
========================== End to End LSP OAM ==========================
..... ..... ..... .....
-----|MIP|---------------------|MIP|---------|MIP|------------|MIP|-----
''''' ''''' ''''' '''''
|<-------- Carrier 1 --------->| |<--- Carrier 2 ----->|
---- --- --- ---- ---- --- ----
NNI | | | | | | | | NNI | | | | | | NNI
-----| PE |---| P |---| P |----| PE |--------| PE |---| P |---| PE |----
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---- --- --- ---- ---- --- ----
==== Segment LSP OAM ====== == Seg't == === Seg't LSP OAM ===
(Carrier 1) LSP OAM (Carrier 2)
(inter-carrier)
..... ..... ..... .......... .......... ..... .....
|MEP|---|MIP|---|MIP|--|MEP||MEP|---|MEP||MEP|--|MIP|----|MEP|
''''' ''''' ''''' '''''''''' '''''''''' ''''' '''''
<------------ ME ----------><--- ME ----><------- ME -------->
Note: MEPs for End-to-end LSP OAM exist outside of the scope
of this figure.
]]></artwork>
</figure><xref target="oam-arch"></xref> illustrates how the
concept of Maintenance Entities can be mapped to sections, LSPs and
PWs in an MPLS-TP network that uses MS-PWs.</t>
<t><figure anchor="oam-arch"
title="MPLS-TP OAM architecture showing PWs, LSPs and Sections">
<artwork><![CDATA[ Native |<-------------------- PW15 --------------------->| Native
Layer | | Layer
Service | |<-PSN13->| |<-PSN3X->| |<-PSNXZ->| | Service
(AC1) V V LSP V V LSP V V LSP V V (AC2)
+----+ +-+ +----+ +----+ +-+ +----+
+---+ |TPE1| | | |SPE3| |SPEX| | | |TPEZ| +---+
| | | |=========| |=========| |=========| | | |
|CE1|------|........PW1.....X..|...PW3...|.X......PW5........|-----|CE2|
| | | |=========| |=========| |=========| | | |
+---+ | 1 | |2| | 3 | | X | |Y| | Z | +---+
+----+ +-+ +----+ +----+ +-+ +----+
|<- Subnetwork 123->| |<- Subnetwork XYZ->|
.------------------- PW15 PME -------------------.
.---- PW1 PTCME ----. .---- PW5 PTCME ---.
.---------. .---------.
PSN13 LME PSNXZ LME
.--. .--. .--------. .--. .--.
Sec12 SME Sec23 SME Sec3X SME SecXY SME SecYZ SME
TPE1: Terminating Provider Edge 1 SPE2: Switching Provider Edge 3
TPEX: Terminating Provider Edge X SPEZ: Switching Provider Edge Z
.---. ME . MEP ==== LSP .... PW
SME: Section Maintenance Entity
LME: LSP Maintenance Entity
PME: PW Maintenance Entity
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The following MPLS-TP MEs are specified in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework"></xref>:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>A Section Maintenance Entity (SME), allowing monitoring and
management of MPLS-TP Sections (between MPLS LSRs).</t>
<t>A LSP Maintenance Entity (LME), allowing monitoring and
management of an end-to-end LSP (between LERs).</t>
<t>A PW Maintenance Entity (PME), allowing monitoring and
management of an end-to-end SS/MS-PWs (between T-PEs).</t>
<t>An LSP Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity (LTCME).</t>
</list></t>
<t>A G-ACH packet may be directed to an individual MIP along the
path of an LSP or MS-PW by setting the appropriate TTL in the label
for the G-ACH packet, as per the traceroute mode of LSP Ping <xref
target="RFC4379"></xref> and the vccv-trace mode of<xref
target="I-D.ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw"> </xref>. Note that this works
when the location of MIPs along the LSP or PW path is known by the
MEP. There may be circumstances where this is not the case, e.g.
following restoration using a facility bypass LSP. In these cases,
tools to trace the path of the LSP may be used to determine the
appropriate setting for the TTL to reach a specific MIP.</t>
<t>Within an LSR or PE, MEPs and MIPs can only be placed where MPLS
layer processing is performed on a packet. The architecture mandates
that this must occur at least once.</t>
<t>MEPs may only act as a sink of OAM packets when the label
associated with the LSP or PW for that ME is popped. MIPs can only
be placed where an exception to the normal forwarding operation
occurs. A MEP may act as a source of OAM packets wherever a label is
pushed or swapped. For example, on an MS-PW, a MEP may source OAM
within an S-PE or a T-PE, but a MIP may only be associated with a
S-PE and a sink MEP can only be associated with a T-PE.</t>
</section>
<section title="OAM Functions">
<t>The MPLS-TP OAM architecture supports a wide range of OAM
functions, including the following:<list style="symbols">
<t>Continuity Check</t>
<t>Connectivity Verification</t>
<t>Performance Monitoring (e.g. packet loss and delay
measurement)</t>
<t>Alarm Suppression</t>
<t>Remote Integrity</t>
</list></t>
<t>These functions are applicable to any layer defined within
MPLS-TP, i.e. to MPLS-TP Sections, LSPs and PWs.</t>
<t>The MPLS-TP OAM tool-set must be able to operate without relying
on a dynamic control plane or IP functionality in the datapath. In
the case of an MPLS-TP deployment in a network in which IP
functionality is available, all existing IP/MPLS OAM functions, e.g.
LSP-Ping, BFD and VCCV, may be used.</t>
<t>One use of OAM mechanisms is to detect link failures, node
failures and performance outside the required specification which
then may be used to trigger recovery actions, according to the
requirements of the service.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="CONTROLPLANE" title="Control Plane">
<t>Editors note: This section will be updated based on text supplied
by the control plane framework draft editors.</t>
<t>A distributed dynamic control plane may be used to enable dynamic
service provisioning in an MPLS-TP network. Where the requirements
specified in <xref target="RFC5654"></xref> can be met, the MPLS
Transport Profile uses existing standard control plane protocols for
LSPs and PWs.</t>
<t>Note that a dynamic control plane is not required in an MPLS-TP
network. See <xref target="static"></xref> for further details on
statically configured and provisioned MPLS-TP services.</t>
<t><xref target="cp-arch"></xref> illustrates the relationship between
the MPLS-TP control plane, the forwarding plane, the management plane,
and OAM for point-to-point MPLS-TP LSPs or PWs.</t>
<t></t>
<t><figure anchor="cp-arch"
title="MPLS-TP Control Plane Architecture Context">
<artwork><![CDATA[ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Network Management System and/or |
| |
| Control Plane for Point to Point Connections |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
.............|.....|... ....|.....|.... ....|.....|............
: +---+ | : : +---+ | : : +---+ | :
: |OAM| | : : |OAM| | : : |OAM| | :
: +---+ | : : +---+ | : : +---+ | :
: | | : : | | : : | | :
\: +----+ +--------+ : : +--------+ : : +--------+ +----+ :/
--+-|Edge|<->|Forward-|<---->|Forward-|<----->|Forward-|<->|Edge|-+--
/: +----+ |ing | : : |ing | : : |ing | +----+ :\
: +--------+ : : +--------+ : : +--------+ :
''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''
Note:
1) NMS may be centralised or distributed. Control plane is
distributed.
2) 'Edge' functions refers to those functions present at
the edge of a PSN domain, e.g. NSP or classification.
3) The control plane may be transported over the server
layer, an LSP or a G-ACh.
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The MPLS-TP control plane is based on a combination of the
LDP-based control plane for pseudowires <xref target="RFC4447"></xref>
and the RSVP-TE-based control plane for MPLS-TP LSPs <xref
target="RFC3471"></xref>. Some of the RSVP-TE functions that are
required for MPLS-TP LSP signaling are based on Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) (<xref target="RFC3945"></xref>, <xref
target="RFC3471"></xref>, <xref target="RFC3473"></xref>).</t>
<t>The distributed MPLS-TP control plane may provide the following
functions:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Signaling</t>
<t>Routing</t>
<t>Traffic engineering and constraint-based path computation</t>
</list></t>
<t>In a multi-domain environment, the MPLS-TP control plane supports
different types of interfaces at domain boundaries or within the
domains. These include the User-Network Interface (UNI), Internal
Network Node Interface (I-NNI), and External Network Node Interface
(E-NNI). Note that different policies may be defined that control the
information exchanged across these interface types.</t>
<t>The MPLS-TP control plane is capable of activating MPLS-TP OAM
functions as described in the OAM section of this document <xref
target="OAM"></xref>, e.g. for fault detection and localisation in the
event of a failure in order to efficiently restore failed transport
paths.</t>
<t>The MPLS-TP control plane supports all MPLS-TP data plane
connectivity patterns that are needed for establishing transport
paths, including protected paths as described in <xref
target="SURVIVE"></xref>. Examples of the MPLS-TP data plane
connectivity patterns are LSPs utilising the fast reroute backup
methods as defined in <xref target="RFC4090"></xref> and
ingress-to-egress 1+1 or 1:1 protected LSPs.</t>
<t>The MPLS-TP control plane provides functions to ensure its own
survivability and to enable it to recover gracefully from failures and
degradations. These include graceful restart and hot redundant
configurations. Depending on how the control plane is transported,
varying degrees of decoupling between the control plane and data plane
may be achieved.</t>
<section title="PW Control Plane">
<t>An MPLS-TP network provides many of its transport services using
single-segment or multi-segment pseudowires, in compliance with the
PWE3 architecture (<xref target="RFC3985"></xref> and <xref
target="RFC5659"></xref>). The setup and maintenance of
single-segment or multi-segment pseudowires uses the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) as per <xref target="RFC4447"></xref>
and extensions for MS-PWs (<xref
target="I-D.ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw"></xref> and <xref
target="I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw"></xref>).</t>
</section>
<section title="LSP Control Plane">
<t>MPLS-TP Provider Edge LSRs aggregate multiple pseudowires and
carry them across the MPLS-TP network through MPLS-TP tunnels
(MPLS-TP LSPs). Applicable functions from the Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) (<xref target="RFC3945"></xref>) protocol suite supporting
packet-switched capable (PSC) technologies are used as the control
plane for MPLS-TP transport paths (LSPs).</t>
<t>The LSP control plane includes:<list style="symbols">
<t>RSVP-TE for signaling</t>
<t>OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE for routing</t>
</list> RSVP-TE signaling in support of GMPLS, as defined in <xref
target="RFC3473"></xref>, is used for the setup, modification, and
release of MPLS-TP transport paths and protection paths. It supports
unidirectional and bidirectional point-to-point LSPs as well as
unidirectional point-to-multipoint LSPs. The architecture for
MPLS-TP supporting point-to-multipoint packet transport services is
out of scope of this document.</t>
<t>The route of a transport path is typically calculated in the
ingress node of a domain and the RSVP explicit route object (ERO) is
utilised for the setup of the transport path exactly following the
given route. GMPLS-based MPLS-TP LSPs must be able to inter-operate
with RSVP-TE-based MPLS-TE LSPs, as per <xref
target="RFC5146"></xref></t>
<t>OSPF and IS-IS for GMPLS (<xref target="RFC4203"></xref> and
<xref target="RFC5307"></xref>) are used for carrying link state
routing information in an MPLS-TP network.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="static" title="Static Operation of LSPs and PWs">
<t>An MPLS-TP LSP or PW may be statically configured without the
support of a dynamic control plane. This may be either by direct
configuration of the LSRs, or via a network management system. Static
operation is independent of a specific PW or LSP instance – for
example it should be possible for a PW to be statically configured,
while the LSP supporting it setup by a dynamic control plane.</t>
<t>Persistent forwarding loops can cause significant additional
resource utilisation, above that budgeted for the transport path.
Therefore, when static configuration mechanisms are used, care must be
taken to ensure that loops do not form.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="SURVIVE" title="Survivability">
<t>Editors note: This section will be updated based on text supplied
by the survivability draft editors.</t>
<t>Survivability requirements for MPLS-TP are specified in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk"></xref>.</t>
<t>A wide variety of resiliency schemes have been developed to meet
the various network and service survivability objectives. For example,
as part of the MPLS/PW paradigms, MPLS provides methods for local
repair using back-up LSP tunnels (<xref target="RFC4090"></xref>),
while pseudowire redundancy <xref
target="I-D.ietf-pwe3-redundancy"></xref> supports scenarios where the
protection for the PW cannot be fully provided by the PSN layer (i.e.
where the backup PW terminates on a different target PE node than the
working PW). Additionally, GMPLS provides a well known set of control
plane driven protection and restoration mechanisms <xref
target="RFC4872"></xref>. MPLS-TP provides additional protection
mechanisms that are optimised for both linear topologies and ring
topologies, and that operate in the absence of a dynamic control
plane. These are specified in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk"></xref>.</t>
<t>Different protection schemes apply to different deployment
topologies and operational considerations. Such protection schemes may
provide different levels of resiliency, for example:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Two concurrent traffic paths (1+1).</t>
<t>one active and one standby path with guaranteed bandwidth on
both paths (1:1).</t>
<t>one active path and a standby path the resources or which are
shared by one or more other active paths (shared protection).</t>
</list></t>
<t>The applicability of any given scheme to meet specific requirements
is outside the current scope of this document.</t>
<t>The characteristics of MPLS-TP resiliency mechanisms are as
follows:<list style="symbols">
<t>Optimised for linear, ring or meshed topologies.</t>
<t>Use OAM mechanisms to detect and localise network faults or
service degenerations.</t>
<t>Include protection mechanisms to coordinate and trigger
protection switching actions in the absence of a dynamic control
plane. This is known as an Automatic Protection Switching (APS)
mechanism.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP recovery schemes are applicable to all levels in the
MPLS-TP domain (i.e. MPLS section, LSP and PW), providing segment
and end-to-end recovery.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms support the coordination of
protection switching at multiple levels to prevent race conditions
occurring between a client and its server layer.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms can be data plane, control plane or
management plane based.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP supports revertive and non-revertive behaviour.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="NETMGT" title="Network Management">
<t>The network management architecture and requirements for MPLS-TP
are specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework"></xref>
and <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req"></xref>. These derive from
the generic specifications described in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 <xref
target="G.7710"></xref> for transport technologies. It also
incorporates the OAM requirements for MPLS Networks <xref
target="RFC4377"></xref> and MPLS-TP Networks <xref
target="I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements"></xref> and expands on
those requirements to cover the modifications necessary for fault,
configuration, performance, and security in a transport network.</t>
<t>The Equipment Management Function (EMF) of an MPLS-TP Network
Element (NE) (i.e. LSR, LER, PE, S-PE or T-PE) provides the means
through which a management system manages the NE. The Management
Communication Channel (MCC), realised by the G-ACh, provides a logical
operations channel between NEs for transferring Management
information. For the management interface from a management system to
an MPLS-TP NE, there is no restriction on which management protocol is
used. The MCC is used to provision and manage an end-to-end connection
across a network where some segments are created/managed by, for
example, Netconf or SNMP and other segments by XML or CORBA
interfaces. Maintenance operations are run on a connection (LSP or PW)
in a manner that is independent of the provisioning mechanism. An
MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management
interface. In MPLS-TP, the EMF must be capable of statically
provisioning LSPs for an LSR or LER, and PWs for a PE, as well as any
associated MEPs and MIPs, as per <xref target="static"></xref>.</t>
<t>Fault Management (FM) functions within the EMF of an MPLS-TP NE
enable the supervision, detection, validation, isolation, correction,
and alarm handling of abnormal conditions in the MPLS-TP network and
its environment. FM must provide for the supervision of transmission
(such as continuity, connectivity, etc.), software processing,
hardware, and environment. Alarm handling includes alarm severity
assignment, alarm suppression/aggregation/correlation, alarm reporting
control, and alarm reporting.</t>
<t>Configuration Management (CM) provides functions to control,
identify, collect data from, and provide data to MPLS-TP NEs. In
addition to general configuration for hardware, software protection
switching, alarm reporting control, and date/time setting, the EMF of
the MPLS-TP NE also supports the configuration of maintenance entity
identifiers (such as MEP ID and MIP ID). The EMF also supports the
configuration of OAM parameters as a part of connectivity management
to meet specific operational requirements. These may specify whether
the operational mode is one-time on-demand or is periodic at a
specified frequency.</t>
<t>The Performance Management (PM) functions within the EMF of an
MPLS-TP NE support the evaluation and reporting of the behaviour of
the NEs and the network. One particular requirement for PM is to
provide coherent and consistent interpretation of the network
behaviour in a hybrid network that uses multiple transport
technologies. Packet loss measurement and delay measurements may be
collected and used to detect performance degradation. This is reported
via fault management to enable corrective actions to be taken (e.g.
protection switching), and via performance monitoring for Service
Level Agreement (SLA) verification and billing. Collection mechanisms
for performance data should be capable of operating on-demand or
pro-actively.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that the
security considerations applicable to both MPLS and PWE3 apply to those
transport networks. Furthermore, when general MPLS networks that utilise
functionality outside of the strict MPLS Transport Profile are used to
support packet transport services, the security considerations of that
additional functionality also apply.</t>
<t>For pseudowires, the security considerations of <xref
target="RFC3985"></xref> and <xref target="RFC5659"></xref> apply.</t>
<t>Packets that arrive on an interface with a given label value should
not be forwarded unless that label value is assigned to an LSP or PW to
a peer LSR or PE that is reachable via that interface.</t>
<t>Each MPLS-TP solution must specify the additional security
considerations that apply.</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>IANA considerations resulting from specific elements of MPLS-TP
functionality will be detailed in the documents specifying that
functionality.</t>
<t>This document introduces no additional IANA considerations in
itself.</t>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The editors wish to thank the following for their contribution to
this document: <list style="symbols">
<t>Rahul Aggarwal</t>
<t>Dieter Beller</t>
<t>Malcolm Betts</t>
<t>Italo Busi</t>
<t>John E Drake</t>
<t>Hing-Kam Lam</t>
<t>Marc Lasserre</t>
<t>Vincenzo Sestito</t>
<t>Martin Vigoureux</t>
<t>The participants of ITU-T SG15</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Open Issues">
<t>This section contains a list of issues that must be resolved before
last call.</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>There is some text missing from the network layer clients
section. Text is invited covering the use of out of band signaling
associated with the AC.</t>
<t>Need text to address how the LSR next hop MAC address is
determined for Ethernet link layers when no IP (i.e. ARP) is
available. If statically configured, what is the default? 181209:
this will be addressed in the normative data plane draft</t>
<t>Need to add section (Appendix) describing stack optizations for
LSP and PWs</t>
<t>Add a section clarify what options are used for interdomain
operation e.g. inter-AS TE LSPs, MS-PW, LSP stitching, back-to-back
ACs</t>
<t>Text reduction for the OAM, survivability and NM sections.</t>
<t>Include summarised PST text</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3031'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3032'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3270'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3985'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4385'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4090'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4203'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4447'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4872'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5085'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5586'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5462'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3471'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5307'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3473'?>
<reference anchor="G.7710">
<front>
<title>ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/Y.1701 (07/07), "Common equipment
management function requirements"</title>
<author>
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2005" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="G.805">
<front>
<title>ITU-T Recommendation G.805 (11/95), "Generic Functional
Architecture of Transport Networks"</title>
<author>
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="November" year="1995" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4377'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-pwe3-redundancy'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5659'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5654'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4379'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5146'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw'?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5254'?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5309'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5331'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3945'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3443'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers'?>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 03:32:24 |