One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-10.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-10"
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" role="editor" 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 year="2010" />
<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 transport 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>G-ACh 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>AC</c>
<c>Attachment Circuit</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>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>
</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 title="Label Edge Router (LER)">
<t>An LSR that exists at the endpoints of an LSP and therefore
pushes or pops a label, i.e. does not perform a label swap on the
particular LSP under consideration.</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="Edge-to-Edge LSP">
<t>An Edge-to-Edge LSP is an LSP between a pair of PEs that may
transit zero or more provider LSRs.</t>
</section>
<section title="Service LSP">
<t>A service LSP is an LSP that carries a single client service.</t>
</section>
<section title="Layer Network">
<t>A layer network is defined in <xref target="G.805"></xref> and
described in <xref target="RFC5654"></xref>.</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 <xref target="RFC5659"></xref> or LSP stitching <xref
target="RFC5150"></xref> at the PE that terminates the MPLS-TP
server layer (<xref target="tp-client-service"></xref>).</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 ] [ PW Seg ] [ PW Seg ]
[ 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 CLNS 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>A standard MPLS data plane <xref target="RFC3031"></xref>
as profiled in <xref target="I-D.fbb-mpls-tp-data-plane"
/>.</t>
<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,
or the packet is received with the GAL (<xref
target="GENERICACH"></xref>) at the top of 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 describes the architecture for two native service
adaptation mechanisms, which provide encapsulation and
demultiplexing for native service traffic traversing an MPLS-TP
network:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>A PW</t>
<t>An MPLS Label</t>
</list></t>
<t>A PW provides any emulated service that the IETF has defined 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
native service 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 native service traffic type supported by <xref
target="RFC3031" /> and <xref target="RFC3032" /> is allowed.
Examples of such traffic types include IP, and MPLS-labeled
packets. Note that the latter case includes TE-LSPs <xref
target="RFC3209" /> and LSP based applications such as PWs, Layer
2 VPNs <xref target="RFC4664" />, and Layer 3 VPNs <xref
target="RFC4364" />. When the native service 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 MPLS-TP client server relationship is defined by the MPLS-TP
network boundary and the label context. It is not explicitly
indicated in the packet. In terms of the MPLS label stack, when the
client traffic type of the MPLS-TP network is an MPLS LSP or a PW,
then the S bits of all the labels in the MPLS-TP label stack
carrying that client traffic are zero; otherwise the bottom label of
the MPLS-TP label stack has the S bit set to 1 (i.e. there can
only one S bit set in a label stack).</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. Note that this best current
practise differs slightly from <xref target="RFC3032"></xref> which
uses the S-bit to identify when MPLS label processing stops and
network layer processing starts.</t>
<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 IP
Services Services Transport
|------------| |-----------------------------| |------------|
Emulated PW over LSP IP over LSP IP
Service
+------------+
| PW Payload |
+------------+ +------------+ (CLIENTS)
|PW Lbl(S=1) | | IP |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| PW Payload | |LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=1)| | IP |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|PW Lbl (S=1)| |LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=0)| |LSP Lbl(S=1)|
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
|LSP Lbl(S=0)|
+------------+ (MPLS-TP)
~~~~~~~~~~~ denotes Client <-> MPLS-TP layer boundary
Note that in the PW over LSP case the client may omit its LSP Label if
penultimate hop popping has been agreed with its peer
]]></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 the label stacks shown above are divided between those
inside the MPLS-TP Network and those within the client network when
the client network is MPLS(-TP). 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 network that provides PW emulated
services is based on the MPLS <xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and
pseudowire <xref target="RFC3985"></xref> architectures.
Multi-segment pseudowires may optionally be used to provide a packet
transport service, and their use is consistent with the MPLS-TP
architecture. The use of MS-PWs may be motivated by, for example,
the requirements specified in <xref target="RFC5254"></xref>. If
MS-PWs are used, 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| | +---+
| |---|......PW1-Seg1.... | \ / | ......X...PW1-Seg2......|---| |
|CE1| | | | | X | | | | | | |CE2|
| |---|......PW2-Seg1.... | / \ | ......X...PW2-Seg2......|---| |
+---+ | | |===============/ \=====| |==========| | | +---+
^ +----+ ^ +-----+ +----+ ^ +----+ ^
| | ^ | |
| TE LSP | TE LSP |
| P-router |
| |
|<-------------------- Emulated Service ------------------->|
PW1-segment1 and PW1-segment2 are segments of the same MS-PW,
while PW2-segment1 and PW2-segment2 are segments of another MS-PW
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The corresponding MPLS-TP protocol stacks including PWs are shown
in <xref target="MPLS-TP-Defn"></xref>. In this figure the
Transport Service Layer <xref target="RFC5654"></xref> is identified
by the PW demultiplexer (Demux) label and the Transport Path Layer
<xref target="RFC5654"></xref> is identified by the LSP Demux
Label.</t>
<t><figure anchor="MPLS-TP-Defn"
title="MPLS-TP Layer Network using Pseudowires">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------------+ /===================\ /===================\
| Client Layer | H OAM PDU H H OAM PDU H
/===================\ H-------------------H H-------------------H
H PW Encap H H GACh H H GACh H
H-------------------H H-------------------H H-------------------H
H PW Demux (S=1) H H PW Demux (S=1) H H GAL (S=1) 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: H(ighlighted) indicates the part of the protocol stack we are
considering in this document.
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>PWs and their associated 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 title="Pseudowire Based Services">
<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. VPWS, VLPS, and IPLS are described in <xref
target="RFC4664"></xref>. VPMS is described in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements"></xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="NLTS-sec" title="Network Layer Adaptation">
<t>MPLS-TP LSPs can be used to transport network layer clients. This
document uses the term Network Layer in the same sense as it is used
in <xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and <xref
target="RFC3032"></xref>. The network layer protocols supported by
<xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and <xref target="RFC3032"></xref>
can be transported between service interfaces. Examples are shown in
Figure 5 above. Support for network layer clients follows the MPLS
architecture for support of network layer protocols as specified in
<xref target="RFC3031"></xref> and <xref
target="RFC3032"></xref>.</t>
<t>With network layer adaptation, the MPLS-TP domain provides either
a uni-directional or 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>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="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 client packets are received
. The PE pushes one or more labels onto the client packets which are
then label switched over the transport network. Correspondingly the
egress PE pops any labels added by the MPLS-TP networks and
transmits the packet for delivery to the attached CE via the egress
service interface.</t>
<t><figure anchor="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"
title="Domain of MPLS-TP Layer Network for IP and LSP Clients">
<artwork><![CDATA[
/===================\
H OAM PDU H
+-------------------+ H-------------------H /===================\
| Client Layer | H GACh H H OAM PDU H
/===================\ H-------------------H H-------------------H
H Encap Label H H GAL (S=1) H H GACh H
H-------------------H H-------------------H H-------------------H
H SvcLSP Demux H H SvcLSP Demux (S=0)H H GAL (S=1) 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: H(ighlighted) indicates the part of the protocol stack we are
considering in this document.
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>In this figure the Transport Service Layer <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref> is identified by the Service LSP (SvcLSP)
demultiplexer (Demux) label and the Transport Path Layer <xref
target="RFC5654"></xref> is identified by the LSP Demux Label. Note
that the functions of the Encapsulation label and the Service Label
shown above as SvcLSP Demux may be represented by a single label
stack entry. Additionally, the S-bit will always be zero when the
client layer is MPLS labelled.</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. When multiple protocol payload types are to
be carried over a single service a unique label stack entry must be
present for each payload type. Such labels are referred to as
"Encapsulation Labels", one of which is shown in <xref
target="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"></xref>. Encapsulation Label may be either
configured or signaled.</t>
<t>Both an Encapsulation Label and a Service Label should be present
in the label stack when a particular packet transport service is
supporting more than one network layer protocol payload type. For
example, if both IP and MPLS are to be carried, as shown in <xref
target="tp-ip-lsp-arch"></xref>, then two Encapsulation Labels are
mapped on to a common Service Label.</t>
<t>Note: The Encapsulation Label may be omitted when the transport
service is supporting only one network layer protocol payload type.
For example, if only MPLS labeled packets are carried over a
service, then the Service Label (stack entry) provides both the
payload type indication and service identification.</t>
<t>Service labels are typically carried over an MPLS-TP LSP
edge-to-edge (or transport path layer). An MPLS-TP edge-to-edge LSP
is represented as an LSP Demux label as shown in <xref
target="MPLS-TP-NL-Stack"></xref>. An edge-to-edge LSP is commonly
used when more than one service exists between two PEs.</t>
<t>Note that the edge-to-edge LSP may be omitted when only one service
exists between two PEs. For example, if only one service is carried
between two PEs then a single Service Label could be used to provide
both the 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
specified 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 destination MAC
address for all packets sent over the service interface.)</t>
<t>Note that when two CEs, which peer with each other, operate over
a network layer transport service and run 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 'G-ACh 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 Label (GAL)' always appears at the
bottom of the label stack (i.e. its S bit is 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 showing the G-ACh "
width="72">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Payload | < FCAPS > | Payload |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Demux / | < ACH for PW > | 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 showing the LSP Associated Control Channel ">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Payload | < FCAPS > | 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 G-ACh/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 G-ACh Label (GAL) to
create a control channel associated to an LSP, Section or PW.</t>
<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).
A Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) 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 limit the OAM
responsibilities of an OAM flow to within the domain of a transport
path or segment, in the specific layer network that is being monitored
and managed.</t>
<t>An ME may also include a set of Maintenance Intermediate Points
(MIPs). 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>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 edge-to-edge LSP (between LERs).</t>
<t>A PW Maintenance Entity (PME), allowing monitoring and
management of an edge-to-edge 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>
<t>The MPLS-TP OAM architecture supports a wide range of OAM functions
to check continuity, to verify connectivity and to monitor the
preformance of the path, to generate, filter and manage local and
remote defect alarms. 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>
</section>
<section title="LSP Return Path">
<t>Management, control and OAM protocol functions may require response
packets to be delivered from the receiver back to the originator of a
message exchange. This section provides a summary of the return path
options in MPLS-TP networks.</t>
<t>In this discussion we assume that A and B are terminal LSRs (i.e.
LERs) for an MPLS-TP LSP and that Y is an intermediate LSR along the
LSP. In the unidirectional case, A is taken to be the upstream and B
the downstream LSR with respect to the LSP. We consider the following
cases for the various types of LSPs:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Packet transmission from B to A</t>
<t>Packet transmission from Y to A</t>
<t>Packet transmission from B to Y</t>
</list>Note that a return path may not always exist, and that packet
transmission in one or more of the above cases may not be possible. In
general the existence and nature of return paths for MPLS-TP LSPs is
determined by operational provisioning.</t>
<section title="Return Path Types">
<t>There are two types of return path that may be used for the
delivery of traffic from a downstream node D to an upstream node U
either:</t>
<t>
<list style="letters">
<t>D maintains an MPLS-TP LSP back to U which is specifically
designated to carry return traffic for the original LSP, or</t>
<t>D has some other unspecified means of directing traffic back
to U.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>The first option is referred to as an "in-band" return path, the
second as an "out-of-band" return path.</t>
<t>There are various possibilities for "out-of-band" return
paths. Such a path may, for example, be based on ordinary IP
routing. In this case packets would be forwarded as usual to a
destination IP address associated with U. In an MPLS-TP network
that is also an IP/MPLS network, such a forwarding path may
traverse the same physical links or logical transport paths used
by MPLS-TP. An out-of-band return path may also be indirect, via
a distinct Data Communication Network (DCN) (provided, for
example, by the method specified in <xref target="RFC5718" />);
or it may be via one or more other MPLS-TP LSPs.</t>
</section>
<section title="Point-to-Point Unidirectional LSPs">
<t>
<list counter="" hangIndent="8" style="hanging">
<t hangText="Case 1">In this situation, either an in-band or
out-of-band return path may be used to deliver traffic from B
back to A.</t>
<t>In the in-band case there is in essence an associated
bidirectional LSP between A and B, and the discussion for such
LSPs below applies. It is therefore recommended for reasons of
operational simplicity that point-to-point unidirectional LSPs
be provisioned as associated bidirectional LSPs (which may also
be co-routed) whenever return traffic from B to A is required.
Note that the two directions of such an LSP may have differing
bandwidth allocations and QoS characteristics.</t>
<t hangText="Case 2">In this case only the out-of-band return
path option is available. However, an additional out-of-band
possibility is worthy of note here: if B is known to have a
return path to A, then Y can arrange to deliver return traffic
to A by first sending it to B along the original LSP. The
mechanism by which B recognises the need for and performs this
forwarding operation is protocol-specific.</t>
<t hangText="Case 3">In this case only the out-of-band return
path option is available. However, if B has a return path to A,
then in a manner analogous to the previous case B can arrange to
deliver return traffic to Y by first sending it to A along that
return path. The mechanism by which A recognises the need for
and performs this forwarding operation is protocol-specific.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Point-to-Point Associated Bidirectional LSPs">
<t>For Case 1, B has a natural in-band return path to A, the use of
which is typically preferred for return traffic, although
out-of-band return paths are also applicable.</t>
<t>For Cases 2 and 3, the considerations are the same as those for
point-to-point unidirectional LSPs.</t>
</section>
<section title="Point-to-Point Co-Routed Bidirectional LSPs">
<t>For all of Cases 1, 2, and 3, a natural in-band return path
exists in the form of the LSP itself, and its use is typically
preferred for return traffic. Out-of-band return paths, however,
are also applicable, primarily as an alternative means of
delivery in case the in-band return path has failed.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="CONTROLPLANE" title="Control Plane">
<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><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 existing MPLS and PW control
plane protocols. MPLS-TP uses Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling
(<xref target="RFC3945"></xref>, <xref target="RFC3471"></xref>, <xref
target="RFC3473"></xref>) for LSPs and Targeted LDP (T-LDP) <xref
target="RFC4447"></xref> <xref target="I-D.ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw">
</xref><xref target="I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw"></xref> for
pseudowires.</t>
<t>MPLS-TP requires that any signaling be capable of being carried
over an out-of-band signaling network or a signaling control
channel such as the one described in <xref target="RFC5718" />.
Note that while T-LDP signaling is traditionally carried in-band
in IP/MPLS networks, this does not preclude its operation over
out-of-band channels. References to T-LDP in this document do not
preclude the definition of alternative PW control protocols for
use in MPLS-TP.</t>
<t>PW control (and maintenance) takes place separately from LSP
tunnel signaling. The main coordination between LSP and PW
control will occur within the nodes that terminate PWs. The
control planes for PWs and LSPs may be used independently, and one
may be employed without the other. This translates into the four
possible scenarios: (1) no control plane is employed; (2) a
control plane is used for both LSPs and PWs; (3) a control plane
is used for LSPs, but not PWs; (4) a control plane is used for
PWs, but not LSPs. The PW and LSP control planes, collectively,
must satisfy the MPLS-TP control plane requirements reviewed in
the MPLS-TP Control Plane Framework <xref
target="I-D.abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework" />. When client
services are provided directly via LSPs, all requirements must be
satisfied by the LSP control plane. When client services are
provided via PWs, the PW and LSP control planes operate in
combination and some functions may be satisfied via the PW control
plane while others are provided to PWs by the LSP control
plane.</t>
<t>Note that if MPLS-TP is being used in a multi-layer network, a
number of control protocol types and instances may be used. This is
consistent with the MPLS architecture which permits each label in the
label stack to be allocated and signaled by its own control
protocol.</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>
<section title="Inter-domain Connectivity">
<t>A number of methods exist to support inter-domain operation of
MPLS-TP, for example:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Inter-domain TE LSPs <xref target="RFC4216"></xref></t>
<t>Multi-segment Pseudowires <xref target="RFC5659"></xref></t>
<t>LSP stitching <xref target="RFC5150"></xref></t>
<t>back-to-back attachment circuits <xref
target="RFC5659"></xref></t>
</list></t>
<t>An important consideration in selecting an inter-domain
connectivity mechanism is the degree of layer network isolation and
types of OAM required by the operator. The selection of which
technique to use in a particular deployment scenario is outside the
scope of this document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="static" title="Static Operation of LSPs and PWs">
<t>A PW or LSP may be statically configured without the support of a
dynamic control plane. This may be either by direct configuration of
the PEs/LSRs, or via a network management system. Static operation is
independent for a specific PW or LSP instance. Thus it should be
possible for a PW to be statically configured, while the LSP
supporting it is set up by a dynamic control plane. When static
configuration mechanisms are used, care must be taken to ensure that
loops are not created.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="SURVIVE" title="Survivability">
<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 underlying LSP
(i.e. where the backup PW terminates on a different target PE node
than the working PW in dual homing scenarios, or where protection of
the S-PE is required). 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="PST" title="Path Segment Tunnels">
<t>In order to monitor, protect and manage a portion of an LSP, a
new architectural element is defined called the Path Segment
Tunnel (PST). A PST is a hierarchical LSP <xref target="RFC3031"
/> which is defined and used for the purposes of OAM monitoring,
protection or management of LSP segments or concatenated LSP
segments.</t>
<t>A PST is defined between the edges of the portion of the LSP
that needs to be monitored, protected or managed. Maintenance
messages can be initiated at the edge of the PST and sent to the
peer edge of the PST or to an intermediate point along the PST
by setting the TTL value at the PST level accordingly.</t>
<t>For example in <xref target="PST-ic"></xref>, three PSTs are
configured to allow monitoring, protection and management of the LSP
concatenated segments. One PST is defined between PE1 and PE2, the
second between PE2 and PE3 and a third PST is set up between PE3 and
PE4. Each of these three PSTs may be monitored, protected, or managed
independently.</t>
<t><figure anchor="PST-ic" title="PSTs in inter-carrier network">
<artwork><![CDATA[========================== End to End LSP =============================
|<--------- Carrier 1 --------->| |<----- Carrier 2 ----->|
---| PE1 |---| P |---| P |---| PE2 |-------| PE3 |---| P |---| PE4 |---
|============= PST =============|==PST==|========= PST =========|
(Carrier 1) (Carrier 2)
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The end-to-end traffic of the LSP, including data traffic and
control traffic (OAM, Protection Switching Control, management and
signaling messages) is tunneled within the PST by means of label
stacking as defined in <xref target="RFC3031"></xref>.</t>
<t>The mapping between an LSP and a PST can be 1:1, in which case
it is similar to the ITU-T Tandem Connection element <xref
target="G.805"></xref>. The mapping can also be 1:N to allow
aggregated monitoring, protection and management of a set of LSP
segments or concatenated LSP segments. <xref
target="PST-concat"></xref> shows a PST which is used to aggregate
a set of concatenated LSP segments for the LSP from PEx to PEt and
the LSP from PEa to PEd. Note that such a construct is useful, for
example, when the LSPs traverse a common portion of the network
and they have the same Traffic Class.</t>
<t><figure anchor="PST-concat"
title="PST for a Set of Concatenated LSP Segments">
<artwork><![CDATA[|PEx|--|PEy|-+ +-|PEz|--|PEt|
| |
| |<---------- Carrier 1 --------->| |
| +-----+ +---+ +---+ +-----+ |
+--| |---| |---| |----| |--+
| PE1 | | P | | P | | PE2 |
+--| |---| |---| |----| |--+
| +-----+ +---+ + P + +-----+ |
| |============= PST ==============| |
|PEa|--|PEb|-+ (Carrier 1) +-|PEc|--|PEd|
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<section title="Provisioning of PST">
<t>PSTs can be provisioned either statically or using control plane
signaling procedures. The make-before-break procedures which are
supported by MPLS allow the creation of a PST on existing LSPs
in-service without traffic disruption. A PST can be defined
corresponding to one or more end-to-end tunneled LSPs. New
end-to-end LSPs which are tunneled within the PST can be set up.
Traffic of the existing LSPs is switched over to the new end-to-end
tunneled LSPs. The old end-to-end LSPs can then be torn down.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Pseudowire Segment Tunnels">
<t>Pseudowire segment tunnels are for further study.</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 <xref target="RFC4741"></xref> or SNMP <xref
target="RFC3411"></xref> 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. This is discussed further in <xref
target="I-D.fang-mpls-tp-security-framework"></xref>.</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>Nurit Sprecher</t>
<t>Martin Vigoureux</t>
<t>Yaacov Weingarten</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.<list style="symbols">
<t></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.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.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.I-D.fbb-mpls-tp-data-plane'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4379'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4364'?>
<?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 include='reference.RFC.3209'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5150'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4664'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5254'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3411'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4216'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4741'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.fang-mpls-tp-security-framework'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5718'?>
<?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 08:21:48 |