One document matched: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-primer-00.txt
Network Working Group N. Sprecher
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational E. Bellagamba
Expires: January 5, 2011 Ericsson
Y. Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
July 4, 2010
MPLS-TP OAM Primer
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-primer-00.txt
Abstract
This document provides basic information on the existing MPLS
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset and
analyzes these tools relative to the set of requirements for OAM for
the Transport Profile of MPLS(MPLS-TP) as defined in [MPLS-TP OAM
Reqs]. On this basis the document tries to highlight features that
need to be extended in order to deliver the higher-quality OAM
required for transport applications.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Organization of the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Pre-existing OAM tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. MPLS BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. PW VCCV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. IETF Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. MPLS-TP OAM Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Basic OAM functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Fault detection functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification . . . . 11
3.2.2. Remote Defect Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3. Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.4. Alarm Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.5. Client Failure Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Performance Measurement Functionality . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Enhancing the existing toolset for MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1. OAM Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. BFD enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. LSP Ping enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Performance Measurement enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope
OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) plays a significant
role in carrier networks, providing methods for fault management and
performance monitoring in both the transport and the service layers
in order to improve their ability to support services with guaranteed
and strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) while reducing their
operational costs.
[MPLS-TP Reqs] in general, and [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] in particular
define a set of requirements for OAM functionality in MPLS-Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) for MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs) (network
infrastructure), Pseudowires (PWs) (services), and MPLS-TP Sections.
The purpose of this document is to evaluate whether existing OAM
tools defined for MPLS can be used to meet the requirements, identify
possible extensions to the tools to comply with the requirements.
The existing tools that are evaluated include LSP Ping (defined in
[LSP Ping]), MPLS Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) (defined
in [BASE BFD]), Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
(defined in [PW VCCV] and [VCCV BFD]), and IETF performance
measurement tools defined in [RFC4656] and [RFC5357].
1.2. Organization of the document
Section 2 provides an overview of the existing MPLS/IETF tools.
Section 3 highlights the requirements for enhanced OAM functionality
for the transport environment.
Section 4 identifies the enhancements to the existing OAM tools that
are needed to address the additional requirements.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
1.3. Acronyms
This draft uses the following acronyms:
AC Attachment Circuit
ACH Associated Channel Header
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
CC-V Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
FEC Forwarding Equivalence Class
G-ACH Generic Associated Channel Header
LDP Label Distribution Protocol
LSP Label Switched Path
MPLS-TP Transport Profile for MPLS
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OWAMP One Way Active Measurement Protocol
PDU Packet Data Unit
PW Pseudowire
RDI Remote Defect Indication
SLA Service Level Agreement
TLV Type, Length, Value
TTL Time-to-live
TWAMP Two Way Active Measurement Protocol
VCCV Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
1.4. Contributing Authors
Yaakov Stein (Rad), Annamaria Fulignoli (Ericsson), Italo Busi
(Alcatel Lucent)
2. Pre-existing OAM tools
2.1. LSP Ping
LSP Ping is a variation of ICMP Ping and traceroute [ICMP] adapted to
the needs of MPLS LSP. Forwarding, of the LSP Ping packets, is based
upon the LSP Label and label stack, in order to guarantee that the
echo messages are switched in-band (i.e. over the same data route) of
the LSP. However, it should be noted that the messages are
transmitted using IP/UDP encapsulation and IP addresses in the 127/8
(loopback) range. The use of the loopback range guarantees that the
LSP Ping messages will be terminated, by a loss of connectivity or
inability to continue on the path, without being transmitted beyond
the LSP. For a bi-directional LSP (either associated or co-routed)
the return message of the LSP Ping could be sent on the return LSP.
For unidirectional LSPs and in some case for bi-directional LSPs, the
return message may be sent using IP forwarding to the IP address of
the LSP ingress node.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
LSP Ping extends the basic ICMP Ping operation (of data-plane
connectivity and continuity check) with functionality to verify data-
plane vs. control-plane consistency for a Forwarding Equivalence
Class (FEC) and also Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) problems. The
traceroute functionality may be used to isolate and localize the MPLS
faults, using the Time-to-live (TTL) indicator to incrementally
identify the sub-path of the LSP that is successfully traversed
before the faulty link or node.
As mentioned above, LSP Ping requires the presence of the MPLS
control plane when verifying the consistency of the data-plane
against the control-plane. However, LSP Ping is not dependent on the
MPLS control-plane for its operation, i.e. even though the
propagation of the LSP label may be performed over the control-plane
via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP).
It should be noted that LSP Ping does support unique identification
of the LSP within an addressing domain. The identification is
checked using the full FEC identification. LSP Ping is easily
extensible to include additional information needed to support new
functionality, by use of Type-Length-Value (TLV) constructs.
LSP Ping can be activated both in on-demand and pro-active
(asynchronous) modes, as defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
[P2MP LSP Ping] clarifies the applicability of LSP Ping to MPLS P2MP
LSPs, and extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP Ping to the
MPLS P2MP environment.
[MPLS LSP Ping] extends LSP Ping to operate over MPLS tunnels or for
a stitched LSP.
As pointed out above, TTL exhaust is the method used to terminate
flows at intermediate LSRs. This is used as part of the traceroute
of a path and to locate a problem that was discovered previously.
Some of the drawbacks identified with LSP Ping include - LSP Ping is
considered to be computational intensive as pointed out in [MPLS
BFD]. The applicability for a pro-active mode of operation is
analyzed in the sections below. Use of the loopback address range
(to protect against leakage outside the LSP) assumes that all of the
intermediate nodes support some IP functionality. Note that ECMP is
not supported in MPLS-TP, therefore its implication on OAM
capabilities is not analyzed in this document.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
2.2. MPLS BFD
BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) [BASE BFD] is a mechanism
that is defined for fast fault detection for point-to-point
connections. BFD defines a simple packet that may be transmitted
over any protocol, dependent on the application that is employing the
mechanism. BFD is dependent upon creation of a session that is
agreed upon by both ends of the link (which may be a single link,
LSP, etc.) that is being checked. The session is assigned a separate
identifier by each end of the path being monitored. This session
identifier is by nature only unique within the context of node that
assigned it. As part of the session creation, the end-points
negotiate an agreed transmission rate for the BFD packets. BFD
supports an echo function to check the continuity, and verify the
reachability of the desired destination. BFD does not support
neither a discovery mechanism nor a traceroute capability for fault
localization, these must be provided by use of other mechanisms. The
BFD packets support authentication between the routers being checked.
BFD can be used in pro-active (asynchronous) and on-demand modes, as
defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs], of operation.
[MPLS BFD] defines the use of BFD for P2P LSP end-points and is used
to verify data-plane continuity. It uses a simple hello protocol
which can be easily implemented in hardware. The end-points of the
LSP exchange hello packets at negotiated regular intervals and an
end-point is declared down when expected hello packets do not show
up. Failures in each direction can be monitored independently using
the same BFD session. The use of the BFD echo function and on-demand
activation are outside the scope of the MPLS BFD specification.
The BFD session mechanism requires an additional (external) mechanism
to bootstrap and bind the session to a particular LSP or FEC. LSP
Ping is designated by [MPLS BFD] as the bootstrap mechanism for the
BFD session in an MPLS environment. The implication is that the
session establishment BFD messages for MPLS are transmitted using a
IP/UDP encapsulation.
In order to be able to identify certain extreme cases of mis-
connectivity, it is necessary that each managed connection have its
own unique identifiers. BFD uses Discriminator values to identify
the connection being verified, at both ends of the path. These
discriminator values are set by each end-node to be unique only in
the context of that node. This limited scope of uniqueness would not
identify a misconnection of crossing paths that could assign the same
discriminators to the different sessions.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
2.3. PW VCCV
[PW VCCV] provides end-to-end fault detection and diagnostics for PWs
(regardless of the underlying tunneling technology). The VCCV
switching function provides a control channel associated with each PW
(based on the PW Associated Channel Header (ACH) which is defined in
[PW ACH]), and allows sending OAM packets in-band with PW data (using
CC Type 1: In-band VCCV)
VCCV currently supports the following OAM mechanisms: ICMP Ping, LSP
Ping, and BFD. ICMP and LSP Ping are IP encapsulated before being
sent over the PW ACH. BFD for VCCV supports two modes of
encapsulation - either IP/UDP encapsulated (with IP/UDP header) or
PW-ACH encapsulated (with no IP/UDP header) and provides support to
signal the AC status. The use of the VCCV control channel provides
the context, based on the MPLS-PW label, required to bind and
bootstrap the BFD session to a particular pseudo wire (FEC),
eliminating the need to exchange Discriminator values.
VCCV consists of two components: (1) signaled component to
communicate VCCV capabilities as part of VC label, and (2) switching
component to cause the PW payload to be treated as a control packet.
VCCV is not directly dependent upon the presence of a control plane.
The VCCV capability negotiation may be performed as part of the PW
signaling when LDP is used. In case of manual configuration of the
PW, it is the responsibility of the operator to set consistent
options at both ends.
2.4. IETF Performance Measurement
OWAMP (One-Way Active Measurement Protocol) [RFC4656] enables
measurement of unidirectional characteristics of IP networks, such as
packet loss and one-way delay. For its proper operation OWAMP
requires accurate time of day setting at its end points.
TWAMP (Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol) [RFC5357] is a similar
protocol that enables measurement of two-way (round trip)
characteristics. TWAMP does not require accurate time of day, and,
furthermore, allows the use of a simple session reflector, making it
an attractive alternative to OWAMP.
Both OWAMP and TWAMP consist of inter-related control and test
protocols, although "TWAMP Light" eliminates the need for the control
protocol.
OWAMP and TWAMP control protocols run over TCP, while the test
protocols run over UDP. The purpose of the control protocols is to
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
initiate, start, and stop test sessions, and for OWAMP to fetch
results. The test protocols introduce test packets (which contain
sequence numbers and timestamps) along the IP path under test
according to a schedule, and record statistics of packet arrival.
Multiple sessions may be simultaneously defined, each with a session
identifier, and defining the number of packets to be sent, the amount
of padding to be added (and thus the packet size), the start time,
and the send schedule (which can be either a constant time between
test packets or exponentially distributed pseudo-random). Statistics
recorded conform to the relevant IPPM RFCs.
OWAMP defines the following logical roles: Session-Sender, Session-
Receiver, Server, Control-Client, and Fetch-Client. The Session-
Sender originates test traffic that is received by the Session-
receiver. The Server configures and manages the session, as well as
returning the results. The Control-Client initiates requests for
test sessions, triggers their start, and may trigger their
termination. The Fetch-Client requests the results of a completed
session. Multiple roles may be combined in a single host - for
example, one host may play the roles of Control-Client, Fetch-Client,
and Session-Sender, and a second playing the roles of Server and
Session-Receiver.
In a typical OWAMP session the Control-Client establishes a TCP
connection to port 861 of the Server, which responds with a server
greeting message indicating supported security/integrity modes. The
Control-Client responds with the chosen communications mode and the
Server accepts the modes. The Control-Client then requests and fully
describes a test session to which the Server responds with its
acceptance and supporting information. More than one test session
may be requested with additional messages. The Control-Client then
starts a test session and the Server acknowledges. The Session-
Sender then sends test packets with pseudorandom padding to the
Session-Receiver until the session is complete or until the Control-
Client stops the session. Once finished, the Fetch-Client sends a
fetch request to the server, which responds with an acknowledgement
and immediately thereafter the result data.
TWAMP defines the following logical roles: session-sender, session-
reflector, server, and control-client. These are similar to the
OWAMP roles, except that the Session-Reflector does not collect any
packet information, and there is no need for a Fetch-Client.
In a typical TWAMP session the Control-Client establishes a TCP
connection to port 862 of the Server, and mode is negotiated as in
OWAMP. The Control-Client then requests sessions and starts them.
The Session-Sender sends test packets with pseudorandom padding to
the Session-Reflector which returns them with insertion of
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
timestamps.
OWAMP and TWAMP test traffic is designed with security in mind. Test
packets are hard to detect because they are simply UDP streams
between negotiated port numbers, with potentially nothing static in
the packets. OWAMP and TWAMP also include optional authentication
and encryption for both control and test packets.
3. MPLS-TP OAM Functionality
The following sections discuss the required OAM functionality as
required by [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs].
3.1. Basic OAM functionality
[MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] includes a set of basic requirements for all OAM
tools to be used for MPLS-TP transport paths. This includes the
following:
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that the MPLS-TP OAM must be able to
support both an IP based and non-IP based environment. If the
network is IP based, i.e. IP routing and forwarding are
available, then the MPLS-TP OAM toolset should rely on the IP
routing and forwarding capabilities. On the other hand, in
environments where IP functionality is not available, the OAM
tools must still be able to operate without dependence on IP
forwarding and routing.
o [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] requires that all OAM protocols support
identification information, at least in the form of IP addressing
structure and be extensible to support additional identification
schemes.
o It is also required that OAM packets and the user traffic are
congruent (i.e. OAM packets are transmitted in-band) and there is
a need to differentiate OAM packets from user-plane ones.
Inherent in this requirement is the principle that MPLS-TP OAM be
independent of any existing control-plane, although it should not
preclude use of the control-plane functionality.
In addition, the requirements for specific OAM functions will be
highlighted in the following sub-sections.
3.2. Fault detection functionality
MPLS supports tools that provide basic fault detection functionality
for different forms of paths, as outlined in section 2 of this
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
document. These tools provide the basic functionality for an MPLS
environment. The transport environment requires certain additional
functionality that is outlined in the following subsections.
3.2.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-V) are OAM
operations generally used in tandem, and compliment each other.
These functions are generally run proactively, but may also be used
on-demand, either due to bandwidth considerations or for diagnoses of
a specific condition. Proactively [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] states that the
function should allow the MEPs to monitor the liveness and
connectivity of a transport path. In on-demand mode, this function
should support monitoring between the MEPs and, in addition, between
a MEP and MIP.
The [MPLS-TP OAM Frwk] highlights the need for the CC-V messages to
include unique identification of the MEG that is being monitored and
the MEP that originated the message. The function, both proactively
and in on-demand mode, need to be transmitted at regular rates pre-
configured by the operator.
3.2.2. Remote Defect Indication
Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is used proactively by a path end-
point to report to its peer end-point that a defect is detected on a
bi-directional connection between them. [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] points
out that this function may be applied to a unidirectional LSP only if
there a return path exists. [MPLS-TP OAM Frwk] points out that this
function is associated with the proactive CC-V function.
3.2.3. Route Tracing
[MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] defines that there is a need for functionality
that would allow a path end-point to identify the intermediate and
end-points of the path. This function would be used in on-demand
mode. Normally, this path will be used for bidirectional PW, LSP,
and sections, however, unidirectional paths may be supported only if
a return path exists.
3.2.4. Alarm Reporting
Alarm Reporting is a function used by an intermediate point of a
path, that becomes aware of a fault on the path, to report to the
end-points of the path. [MPLS-TP OAM Frwk] states that this may
occur as a result of a defect condition discovered at a server sub-
layer. This generates an Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) that
continues until the fault is cleared. The consequent action of this
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
function is detailed in [MPLS-TP OAM Frwk].
3.2.5. Client Failure Indication
Client Failure Indication (CFI) is defined in [MPLS-TP OAM Reqs] to
allow the propagation information from one edge of the network to the
other. The information concerns a defect to a client, in the case
that the client does not support alarm notification.
3.3. Performance Measurement Functionality
The current performance measurement tools defined in the IETF,
outlined in Section 2 of this document, do not directly address MPLS
paths. In addition, when extending MPLS to address the needs of the
transport community there is a need to support enhanced performance
measurement functionality, as detailed in the following sub-sections.
3.3.1. Packet Loss Measurement
Packet Loss Measurement is a function that is used to verify the
quality of the service. This function indicates the ratio of packets
that are not delivered out of all packets that are transmitted by the
path source.
There are two possible ways of determining this measurement -
o Using OAM packets, it is possible to compute the statistics based
on a series of OAM packets. This, however, has the disadvantage
of being artificial, and may not be representative since part of
the packet loss may be dependent upon packet sizes.
o Sending delimiting messages for the start and end of a measurement
period during which the source and sink of the path count the
packets transmitted and received. After the end delimiter, the
ratio would be calculated by the path OAM entity.
3.3.2. Packet Delay Measurement
Packet Delay Measurement is a function that is used to measure one-
way or two-way delay of a packet transmission between a pair of the
end-points of a path (PW, LSP, or Section). Where:
o One-way packet delay is the time elapsed from the start of
transmission of the first bit of the packet by a source node until
the reception of the last bit of that packet by the destination
node.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
o Two-way packet delay is the time elapsed from the start of
transmission of the first bit of the packet by a source node until
the reception of the last bit of the loop-backed packet by the
same source node, when the loopback is performed at the packet's
destination node.
Similarly to the packet loss measurement this could be performed in
one of two ways -
o Using OAM packets - checking delay (either one-way or two-way) in
transmission of OAM packets. May not fully reflect delay of
larger packets, however, gives feedback on general service level.
o Using delimited periods of transmission - may be too intrusive on
the client traffic.
4. Enhancing the existing toolset for MPLS-TP
4.1. Gap Analysis
4.1.1. OAM Infrastructure
Creating these extensions/mechanisms would fulfill the following
architectural requirements, mentioned above:
o Independence of IP forwarding and routing, when needed.
o OAM packets should be transmitted in-band.
o Support a single OAM technology for LSP, PW, and Sections.
In addition, the following additional requirements can be satisfied:
o Provide the ability to carry other types of communications (e.g.,
APS, Management Control Channel (MCC), Signaling Control Channel
(SCC)), by defining new types of communication channels for PWs,
Sections, and LSPs.
o The design of the OAM mechanisms for MPLS-TP MUST allow the
ability to support vendor specific and experimental OAM functions.
4.2. BFD enhancements
4.3. LSP Ping enhancements
4.4. Performance Measurement enhancements
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not by itself raise any particular security
considerations.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the encouragement of the MPLS WG
chairs and the area directors in directing this work.
8. Informative References
[RFC 2119]
Bradner, S., "Internet Control Message Protocol", BCP 14,
RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ICMP] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, Sept 1981.
[LSP Ping]
Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[PW ACH] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[PW VCCV] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[BASE BFD]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", ID draft-ietf-bfd-base-09.txt, February 2009.
[MPLS BFD]
Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
"BFD For MPLS LSPs", ID draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt,
June 2008.
[VCCV BFD]
Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)",
ID draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07.txt, February 2008.
[bfdMultipoint]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
for Multipoint Networks",
ID draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint-02.txt, February 2009.
[P2MP LSP Ping]
Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Detecting Data Plane Failures
in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-06.txt, June 2008.
[MPLS LSP Ping]
Bahadur, N. and K. Kompella, "Mechanism for performing
LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-00, June 2008.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol",
RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol",
RFC 5357, Oct 2008.
[MPLS-TP OAM Reqs]
Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., and D. Ward, "Requirements for
OAM in MPLS Transport Networks",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-01, April 2009.
[MPLS-TP OAM Frwk]
Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and
Overview", ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-01,
March 2009.
[MPLS-TP Reqs]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Nadeau, T., and C. Pignataro,
"Requirements for the Trasport Profile of MPLS",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-06, April 2009.
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
[MPLS G-ACH]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and M. Vigoureux, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[MPLS-TP ACH TLV]
Boutros, S., Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., Swallow, G., and
D. Ward, "Definition of ACH TLV Structure",
ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-00, June 2009.
[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813,
June 2004.
[Y.1731] International Telecommunications Union - Standardization,
"OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
networks", ITU Y.1731, May 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Nurit Sprecher
Nokia Siemens Networks
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
Hod Hasharon, 45241
Israel
Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
Elisa Bellagamba
Ericsson
6 Farogatan St
Stockholm, 164 40
Sweden
Phone: +46 761440785
Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS OAM Primer July 2010
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
Hod Hasharon, 45241
Israel
Phone: +972-9-775 1827
Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com
Sprecher, et al. Expires January 5, 2011 [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:26:20 |