One document matched: draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-04.txt
Differences from draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-03.txt
MPLS Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft B. Wu, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: September 15, 2011 E. Bellagamba, Ed.
Ericsson
March 14, 2011
Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Proactive Operations,
Administration and Maintenance Configuration of Dynamic MPLS Transport
Profile Pseudowire
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-04
Abstract
This document specifies extensions to the Label Distribution Protocal
(LDP) to configure and control proactive Operations, Adminstration
and Maintenance (OAM) functions, suitable for dynamic Single-Segment
PseudoWire (SS-PW) and Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW).
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 September 15, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Analysis of Existing PW OAM Configuration . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. MPLS PW OAM Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. VCCV Bidirectional Forwarding Detection . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. PW Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Analysis of PW OAM Configuration Extended by MPLS-TP . . . . . 6
4.1. Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification and Remote
Defect Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Performance Monitoring Loss/Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. FMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. On-demand OAM Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. PW OAM Configurationd Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Establishment of OAM Entities and Functions . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Adjustment of OAM Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Deleting OAM Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. LDP extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.1. BFD Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.2. MPLS-TP PW PM Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.3. MPLS-TP PW PM Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.4. MPLS-TP PW FMS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
1. Introduction
MPLS Pseudowire (PW) is defined in [RFC3985] and [RFC5659], which
provide for emulated services over an MPLS Packet Switched Network
(PSN). MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS
that enables operational models typical in transport networks, while
providing additional Operations, Administration and Maintenance
(OAM), survivability and other maintenance functions not previously
supported by IP/MPLS, including PW. The corresponding requirements
are defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements].
The MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms that are operated to meet transport
requirements are described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework],
categorized into proactive and on-demand monitoring. Proactive
monitoring refers to OAM operations that are either configured to be
carried out periodically and continuously or preconfigured to act on
certain events such as alarm signals. In contract, on-demand
monitoring is initiated manually and for a limited amount of time,
usually for operations such as diagnostics to investigate into a
defect condition.
The Network Management System (NMS) or Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf] is used to configure these
OAM functionalities if a control plane is not instantiated. But if
the control plane is used, it must support the configuration and
modification of OAM maintenance points as well as the activation/
deactivation of OAM when the transport path or transport service is
established or modified [RFC5654].
This document specifies extensions to the LDP protocol to negotiate
PW OAM capabilities, configure and bootstrap proactive PW OAM
functions, suitable for SS-PW and MS-PW, and Point to Multi-Point
(P2MP) PW will be studied in the future.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.1. Acronyms
AC: Attachment Circuit
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
AIS: Alarm indication signal
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
CC: Continuity Check
CV: Connectivity Verification
DM: Delay Measurement
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
FMS: Fault Management Signal
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
LDI: Link Down Indication
LDP: Label Distribution Protocol
LKR: Lock Reporting
LM: Loss Measurement
LSP: Label Switched Path
ME: Maintenance Entity
MEG: Maintenance Entity Group
MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point
MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
MPLS-TP: MPLS Transport Profile
MS-PW: Multi-Segment PseudoWire
NMS: Network Management System
OAM: Operations, Adminstration and Maintenance
P2MP: Point to Multi-Point
PE: Provider Edge
PHB: Per-Hop Behavior
PM: Performance Monitoring
PSN: Packet Switched Network
PW: PseudoWire
S-PE: Switching Provider Edge
SPME: Sub-path Maintenance Entity
SS-PW: Single-Segment Pseudo Wire
T-PE: Terminating Provider Edge
TLV: Type Length Value
VCCV: Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
3. Analysis of Existing PW OAM Configuration
3.1. MPLS PW OAM Functions
Before MPLS-TP standards, PW OAM functions have been implemented by
[RFC5085], [RFC5885], [RFC4447] and [I-D.ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status].
[RFC5085] defines Connectivity Verification (CV), which belongs to
on-demand PW monitoring. [RFC5885] defines proactive Continuity
Check (CC), as well as PW and Attachemnt Circuit (AC) status
notification. [RFC4447] and [I-D.ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status] give
some other ways of PW/AC status notification.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
3.2. Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
The goal of Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) is to
verify and further diagnose PW forwarding path, and the extensions of
[RFC5085] to LDP are to signal VCCV capabilities to a peer Provider
Edge (PE).
3.3. VCCV Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Four CV types for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) by
combining two types of encapsulation with two types of functionality
are specified in [RFC5885]. When multiple BFD CV Types are
advertised, it also describes how to select one to use.
The extension of [RFC5885] to LDP are to signal VCCV BFD capabilities
to a peer PE, and activate BFD protocol after PW is established. If
the BFD parameters (such as sending interval) need to be modified,
BFD itself will handle it.
3.4. PW Status
PW status codes provide a mechanism to signal the status of PW and AC
failure. When PW control plane exists, the PW Status TLV is carried
in the initial Label Mapping message and Notification message to
signal all PW status messages.
The OAM related extensions of [RFC4447] to LDP are to signal PW
Status TLV to a peer PE, and activate PW status notification function
after PW is established. So when an event occurs, an update PW
status will be sent.
3.5. Conclusion
In summary, IP/MPLS PW OAM functions and relation with control plane/
NMS is described in table 1. This document will not replace or
deprecate these (e.g., VCCV capability advertisement and PW status
negotiation for MPLS networks).
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | LDP | LSP Ping | NMS |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | VCCV | Capability | | Capability |
| | LSP ping | negotiation | |configuration&|
| On-demand | | | | Bootstrapping|
| MPLS PW |-------------------------------------------------------|
| OAM | VCCV | Capability | | Capability |
| | ICMP ping | negotiation | |configuration&|
| | | | | Bootstrapping|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | VCCV BFD | Capability | | Capability |
| | | negotiation& | |configuration&|
| | | Bootstrapping| | Bootstrapping|
| Proactive |-------------------------------------------------------|
| OAM | PW status | Capability | | Capability |
| | | negotiation& | |configuration&|
| | | Bootstrapping| | Bootstrapping|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Table 1: IP/MPLS PW OAM Functions
4. Analysis of PW OAM Configuration Extended by MPLS-TP
4.1. Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification and Remote Defect
Indication
The Proactive CC, CV and Remote Defect Indication (RDI) functions of
MPLS-TP are based on the extensions to BFD,
see[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi]. Because VCCV BFD currently has no
CV function, it SHOULD evolve with [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi] to
provide this function in MPLS-TP environment. 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 PW, so
local discriminator values are not exchanged; please refer to the
analysis in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis] and [RFC5885]. However,
in order to identify certain extreme cases of mis-connectivity and
fulfill the requirements that the BFD mechanism MUST be the same for
LSP, Single Segment Pseudowire (SS-PW), Multi Segment Pseudowire
(MS-PW) and Section as well as for Sub-path Maintenance Element
(SPME), BFD might still need to use discriminator values to identify
the connection being verified at both ends of the PW. The
discriminator values can be statically configured, or signaled via
LSP Ping or LDP extensions defined in this document.
Timer negotiation, such as Transmitter (TX)/Receiver (RX) interval is
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
performed in subsequent BFD control messages [RFC5880], but it also
can be gotten by control plane signaling
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework].
The source Maintenance Entity Group End Point Identifier (MEP-ID)
does not need to be carried, for they can be deduced from the
advertised FEC (129) TLV, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers].
Per-hop Behavior (PHB), which identifies the per-hop behavior of BFD
packet, SHOULD be configured as well. This permits the verification
of correct operation of Quality of Serivce (QoS) queuing as well as
connectivity.
In conclusion, the configuration of VCCV BFD by control plane is not
necessary, but for consistent operation of transport path and
section, it SHOULD be an option.
4.2. Performance Monitoring Loss/Delay
Performance monitoring (PM) of PWs, especially for packet Loss
Measurement (LM) and packet Delay Measurement (DM), are specified in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay], [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile].
For proactive LM, the transmission rate and PHB associated with the
LM OAM packets originating from a MEP need be negotiated with the
other MEP. LM OAM packets should be transmitted with the same PHB
class that the LM is intended to measure.
Just like LM, Both one way and two way mode of proactive DM need the
two MEPs nodes of PW to negotiate the measure interval and PHB value
of OAM packets.
4.3. FMS
Fault Management Signals (FMS) are specified in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-fault], with which a server PW can notify client
PWs about various fault conditions to suppress alarms or to be used
as triggers for actions in the client PWs. The following signals are
defined: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link Down Indication (LDI)
and Lock Reporting (LKR).
For each MEP of each Maintenance Entity Group (MEG), enabling/
disabling the generation of FMS packets, the transmitted period and
PHB SHOULD be configured. This can be done independently, and the
values of configured parameters can be different, but for easy
maintenance, these setting SHOULD be consistent.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
In conclusion, the configuration of FMS by control plane is not
necessary, but for easy maintenance, it SHOULD be an option also.
4.4. On-demand OAM Functions
The extended on-demand OAM functions MAY need capability negotiation
in the LDP Initialization message [RFC5561]. However, On-demand PW
OAM functions are expected to be carried out by directly accessing
network nodes via a management interface; hence configuration and
control of on-demand PW OAM functions are out-of-scope for this
document.
4.5. Conclusion
According to the analysis above, LDP needs to be extended to
negotiate PW OAM capabilities, configure and bootstrap proactive PW
OAM functions, such as, CC-CV-RDI, PM Loss/Delay, FMS. In this way
OAM setup is bound to connection establishment signaling, avoiding
two separate management/configuration steps (connection setup
followed by OAM configuration) which would increases delay,
processing and more importantly may be prune to mis-configuration
errors.
Furthermore, LSP ping can be used to configure the proactive PW OAM
function extended by MPLS-TP also, suitable for dynamic and static
PW. For reference, the following table 2 describes the different
scope of different proactive OAM bootstrapping schemes of dynamic PW.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | LDP | LSP Ping | NMS |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | |Capability | | Capability |
| | |negotiation& | |configuration&|
| | CC/CV/RDI |Function | Function | Function |
| | |configuration&|configuration&|configuration&|
| | |Bootstrapping |Bootstrapping | Bootstrapping|
| |------------------------------------------------------------|
| Proactive | |Capability | | Capability |
| OAM | |negotiation& | |configuration&|
| | FMS |Function | Function | Function |
| | |configuration&|configuration&|configuration&|
| | |Bootstrapping |Bootstrapping | Bootstrapping|
| |------------------------------------------------------------|
| | |Capability | | Capability |
| | |negotiation& | |configuration&|
| | PM Loss/Delay |Function | Function | Function |
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
| | |configuration&|configuration&|configuration&|
| | |Bootstrapping |Bootstrapping | Bootstrapping|
|------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
Table 2: MPLS-TP PW OAM Functions
5. MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability Advertisement
When a PW is first set up, the PEs MUST attempt to negotiate the
usage of OAM functions. At the time of writing this specification,
there are PW status negotiation and VCCV capability advertisement.
For the proactive OAM functions as extended to support by MPLS-TP,
such as CC-CV-RDI, PM loss/delay and FMS, the capability negotiation
MAY be also needed, so a PE that supports the MPLS-TP PW OAM
capability MUST include MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV in the LDP
Initialization message. And if the peer has not advertised this
capability, the corresponding PW OAM configuration information will
not be sent to the peer.
6. PW OAM Configurationd Procedures
A PE may play an active or passive role in the signaling of the PW.
There exist two situations:
a) Active/active "C Both PEs of a PW are active (SS-PW), they select
PW OAM configuration parameters and send with the Label Mapping
message to each other independently.
b) Active/passive "C One PE is active and the others are passive
(MS-PW). The active/passive role election is defined in Section
7.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw] and applies here, this document
does not define any new role election procedures.
The general rules of OAM configuration procedures are mostly
identical between MS-PW and SS-PW, except that SS-PW does not need to
configure MIP function and the Mapping message are sent out
independently. This section takes MS-PW as an example to describe
the general OAM configuration procedures. As for SS-PW, there may be
some collisions of PW OAM configuration parameters, and these
specific differences would be addressed in section 6.
6.1. Establishment of OAM Entities and Functions
Assuming there is one PW that needs to be setup between T-PE1 and
T-PE2, across S-PE1 and S-PE2. OAM functions must be setup and
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
enabled in the appropriate order so that spurious alarms can be
avoided.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | | | |
| A|--------|B C|--------|D E|--------|F |
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
T-PE1 S-PE1 S-PE2 T-PE2
Figure 1: MS-PW OAM Configuration Scheme
Fist of all, T-PE1 MUST setup the OAM sink function to be prepared to
receive OAM messages but MUST suppress any OAM alarms (e.g., due to
missing or unidentified OAM messages). The Mapping message MUST be
sent with the "OAM Alarms Enabled" cleared, "OAM MEP Entities
desired" set and "OAM MIP Entities desired" set in the MPLS-TP PW OAM
Administation TLV.
When the Mapping message arrives at the downstream receivers, such as
S-PE1, S-PE2 and T-PE2, they MUST establish and configure OAM
entities according to the OAM information provided in mapping
message. If this is not possible, a Notification message SHOULD be
sent and neither the OAM entities nor the PW SHOULD be established.
If OAM entities are established successfully, the middle points
(S-PE1 and S-PE2) MUST forward the Mapping message downstream, the
endpoint (T-PE2) MUST set the OAM Source function and MUST be
prepared to Send OAM messages.
The same rules are applied to the reverse direction (from T-PE2 to
T-PE1), that is to say, T-PE2 needs to setup the OAM sink function to
be prepared to receive OAM messages but MUST suppress any OAM alarms
(e.g., due to missing or unidentified OAM messages). The Mapping
message MUST be sent with the "OAM Alarms Enabled" cleared, "OAM MEP
Entities desired" set, "OAM MIP Entities desired" set in the MPLS-TP
PW OAM Administration TLV. When T-PE1 receives the Mapping message,
it completes any pending OAM configuration and enables the OAM source
function to send OAM messages.
After this round, OAM entities are established and configured for the
PW and OAM messages MAY already be exchanged, and OAM alarms can now
be enabled. The T-PE nodes(T-PE1 and T-PE2), while still keeping OAM
alarms disabled send a Notification message with "OAM Alarms Enabled"
PW status flag set, and enable the OAM alarms after processing the
Notification message. At this point, data-plane OAM is fully
functional, and the MPLS-TP OAM PW configuration TLV MAY be omitted
in subsequent Notification messages
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
The PW MAY be setup with OAM entities right away with the first
signaling, as described above, but a PW MAY be signaled and
established without OAM configuration first, and OAM entities may be
added later. This can be done by sending a Notification message with
the related configuration parameters subsequently.
6.2. Adjustment of OAM Parameters
There may be a need to change the parameters of an already
established and configured OAM function during the lifetime of the
PW. To do so the T-PE nodes need to send a Notification message with
the updated parameters. OAM parameters that influence the content
and timing of OAM messages and identify the way OAM defects and
alarms are derived and generated. Hence, to avoid spurious alarms,
it is important that both sides, OAM sink and source, are updated in
a synchronized way. First, the alarms of the OAM sink function
should be suppressed and only then should expected OAM parameters be
adjusted. Subsequently, the parameters of the OAM source function
can be updated. Finally, the alarms of the OAM sink side can be
enabled again.
In accordance with the above operation, T-PE1 MUST send a
Notification message with "OAM Alarms Enabled" cleared and including
the updated MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV corresponding to the new
parameter settings. The initiator (T-PE1) MUST keep its OAM sink and
source functions running unmodified, but it MUST suppress OAM alarms
after the updated Notification message is sent. The receiver (T-PE2)
MUST first disable all OAM alarms, then update the OAM parameters
according to the information in the Notification message and reply
with a Notification message acknowledging the changes by including
the MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV. Note that the receiving side
has the possibility to adjust the requested OAM configuration
parameters and reply with and updated MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration
TLV in the Notification message, reflecting the actually configured
values. However, in order to avoid an extensive negotiation phase,
in the case of adjusting already configured OAM functions, the
receiving side SHOULD NOT update the parameters requested in the
Notification message to an extent that would provide lower
performance than what has been configured previously.
The initiator (T-PE1) MUST only update its OAM sink and source
functions when it has received the Notification message from the
peer. After the OAM parameters are updated and OAM is running
according the new parameter settings, OAM alarms are still disabled,
so a subsequent Notification messages exchanges with "OAM Alarms
Enabled" flag set are needed to enable OAM alarms again.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
6.3. Deleting OAM Entities
In some cases it may be useful to remove some or all OAM entities and
functions from one PW without actually tearing down the connection.
To avoid any spurious alarm, the following procedure should be
followed:
The T-PE nodes disable OAM alarms and SHOULD send Notification
message to each other with "OAM Alarms Enabled" cleared but unchanged
OAM configuration and without the MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV.
After that, T-PE1 (T-PE2) SHOULD delete OAM source functions, then
send a Notification message with "OAM MEP Entities desired" and "OAM
MIP Entities desired" cleared. While T-PE2 (T-PE1) deletes OAM sink
function when it receives the Notification message with "OAM MEP
Entities desired" cleared, S-PE1 and S-PE2 delete MIP configuration
when they receive the Notification message with "OAM MIP Entities
desired" cleared.
Alternatively, if only some OAM functions need to be removed, the
T-PE node sends the Notification message with the updated OAM
Configuration TLV. Changes between the contents of the previously
signaled OAM Configuration TLV and the currently received TLV
represent which functions SHOULD be removed/added.
7. LDP extensions
Below, LDP extensions to configure proactive MPLS-TP PW OAM functions
are defined.
7.1. MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV
A new Capability Parameter TLV called the MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability
TLV is defined, and the format is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| Type (TBD) | Length (= 4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Reserved | Reserved |F|D|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV
The value of the U-bit for the MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV MUST be
set to 1 so that a receiver MUST silently ignore this TLV if unknown
to it, and continue processing the rest of the message. Currently
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
defined specific OAM Capability Flags in the "Capability Data" field
from right to left are:
One bit "L" (0, IANA to assign) PM Loss supported
One bit "D" (1, IANA to assign) PM Delay supported
One bit "F" (2, IANA to assign) FMS supported
The above bits can be set individually to indicate more than one kind
of OAM capabilities at once, and the other reserved bits MUST be set
to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
The MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV MAY be included by a PE in an
Initialization message to signal its peer that it supports the
MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability. If the remote peer does not support the
MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV or the Initialization message sent by
the remote peer does not include the MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV,
which indicates that the negotiation results do not support MPLS-TP
PW OAM capability. If the negotiation process results support the
MPLS-TP PW OAM capability, then the subsequent LDP Mapping message
will carry the information of the MPLS-TP PW OAM configuration.
7.2. MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV
The format of the MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type (TBD) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E|I|A| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV
One bit "E" (31, IANA to assign): "OAM MEP entities desired" is
allocated. If the "OAM MEP entities desired" bit is set it is
indicating that the establishment of OAM MEP entities are required at
the endpoints of the signaled PW. If the establishment of MEPs is
not supported, a Notification message MUST be sent. If the "OAM MEP
entities desired" bit is set and additional parameters are needed to
be configured on the OAM entities, an "MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration
TLV" may be included in the Mapping or Notification message.
One bit "I" (30, IANA to assign): "OAM MIP entities desired" is
allocated. This bit can only be set if the "OAM MEP entities
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
desired" bit is set. If the "OAM MIP entities desired" bit is set,
it is indicating that the establishment of OAM MIP entities is
required at every transit node of the signaled PW. If the
establishment of a MIP is not supported, a Notification message MUST
be sent.
One bit "A" (29, IANA to assign): "OAM Alarms Enabled" is allocated.
This bit can only be set if the "OAM MEP entities desired" bit is
set. If the "OAM Alarms Enabled" bit is set, it is indicating that
the T-PE needs to enable OAM alarms. If the establishment of a MIP
is not supported, a Notification message MUST be sent.
Reserved (29bits): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt.
7.3. MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV
The "OAM Configuration TLV", defined in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk], is depicted in the following
figure. It may be carried in the Mapping and Notification messages,
just following the PW Status TLV.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type (TBD) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OAM Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ sub-TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV
OAM type: indicates a new type: the MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV
(IANA to assign). If this type is not supported, a Notification
message MUST be sent. The specific OAM functions are specified in
the "Function Flags" sub-TLV as depicted in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk], and the additional
corresponding sub-TLVs are defined in section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext].
For active/active signaling, if the flags in the "MPLS-TP PW OAM
Function Flags sub-TLV" are different in the two Mapping message, the
two PEs nodes can compare the node IDs. Label Withdraw message MUST
be sent by the PE with lower ID, then it sends the Label Mapping
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
message again with the same flags carried in the received Label
Mapping message.
7.3.1. BFD Configuration TLV
BFD Configuration TLV follows the same TLV structure defined for
Resource ReSerVation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) in
section 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext].
For active/active signaling, if the flags of "BFD Configuration TLV"
are different in the two Mapping message, similarly Label Withdraw
message MUST be sent by the PE with lower identifier. Then it sends
the Label Mapping message again with the same flags carried in the
"BFD configuration TLV" of the received Label Mapping message. If
the flags of "BFD Configuration TLV" are the same, but the values of
"Negotiation Timer parameters sub-TLV" are different, both the PE
nodes MUST adopt the bigger interval and detection time multiplier.
7.3.2. MPLS-TP PW PM Loss TLV
MPLS-TP PW PM Loss TLV follows the same TLV structure defined for
RSVP-TE in section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext].
For active/active signaling, if the flags of "MPLS-TP PW OAM PM Loss
TLV" are different in the two Mapping message, similarly Label
Withdraw message MUST be sent by the PE with lower ID. Then it sends
the Label Mapping message again with the same flags carried in the
"MPLS-TP PW OAM PM Loss TLV" of the received Label Mapping message.
If the flags of "MPLS-TP PW OAM PM Loss TLV" are the same, but the
Measurement Interval and Loss Threshold are different, both the PE
nodes MUST adopt the bigger values.
7.3.3. MPLS-TP PW PM Delay TLV
MPLS-TP PW PM Delay TLV follows the same TLV structure defined for
RSVP-TE in section 3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext].
For active/active signaling, if the flags of "MPLS-TP PW OAM PM Delay
TLV" are different in the two Mapping message, similarly Label
Withdraw message MUST be sent by the PE with lower ID. Then it sends
the Label Mapping message again with the same flags carried in the
"MPLS-TP PW OAM PM Delay TLV" of the received Label Mapping message.
If the flags of "MPLS-TP PW OAM PM Delay TLV" are the same, but the
Measurement Interval and Delay Threshold are different, both the PE
nodes MUST adopt the bigger values.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
7.3.4. MPLS-TP PW FMS TLV
MPLS-TP PW FMS TLV follows the same TLV structure defined for RSVP-TE
in section 3.6 of [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext].
For active/active signaling, if the flags of "MPLS-TP PW OAM FMS TLV"
are different in the two Mapping message, similarly Label Withdraw
message MUST be sent by the PE with lower ID. Then it sends the
Label Mapping message again with the same flags carried in the
"MPLS-TP PW OAM FMS TLV" of the received Label Mapping message.
Notes: Client Signal Fail (CSF) are overlapped with PW Status TLV,
and the field of Refresh Timer is not needed.
8. IANA Considerations
This document specifies the following new LDP TLV types:
o MPLS-TP PW OAM Capability TLV;
o MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV;
o MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration TLV;
Sub-TLV types to be carried in the "MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration
TLV":
o MPLS-TP PW OAM Function Flags sub-TLV;
o BFD Configuration sub-TLV;
o MPLS-TP PW PM Loss sub-TLV;
o MPLS-TP PW PM Delay sub-TLV;
o MPLS-TP PW FMS sub-TLV;
Sub-TLV types to be carried in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV":
o Local Discriminator sub-TLV;
o Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV.
o BFD Authentication sub-TLV
9. Security Considerations
Security considerations relating to LDP are described in section 5 of
[RFC5036] and section 11 of [RFC5561]. Security considerations
relating to use of LDP in setting up PWs is described in section 8 of
[RFC4447].
This document defines new TLV/sub-TLV types, and OAM configuration
procedures intended for use with MPLS-TP, which do not raise any
additional security issues.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
10. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Thomas Nadeau for his valuable
comments, Eric Gray for his review of this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk]
Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and H. Jia, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
extensions for OAM Configuration",
draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-04 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext]
Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Ward, D.,
and A. Takacs, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions Using RSVP-TE",
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-05 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf]
Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Ward, D.,
and J. Drake, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions Using LSP Ping",
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-01 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework]
Allan, D., Busi, I., Niven-Jenkins, B., Fulignoli, A.,
Hernandez-Valencia, E., Levrau, L., Sestito, V., Sprecher,
N., Helvoort, H., Vigoureux, M., Weingarten, Y., and R.
Winter, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance
Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-11 (work in progress),
February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements]
Vigoureux, M. and D. Ward, "Requirements for OAM in MPLS
Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-06 (work in progress),
March 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]
Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay-01 (work in progress),
February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi]
Allan, D., Drake, J., Swallow, G., Boutros, S., Sivabalan,
S., and D. Ward, "Proactive Connectivity Verification,
Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS
Transport Profile", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-03 (work
in progress), February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-fault]
Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S.,
Ward, D., Bryant, S., and S. Sivabalan, "MPLS Fault
Management OAM", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-03 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]
Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS-TP
Identifiers", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-04 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile]
Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-02 (work in
progress), February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures]
Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher,
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation
over ACH", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-01
(work in progress), August 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis]
Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y. Weingarten, "OAM
functions in MPLS based transport network",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-03 (work in progress),
January 2011.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw]
Martini, L., Bocci, M., Balus, F., Bitar, N., Shah, H.,
Aissaoui, M., Rusmisel, J., Serbest, Y., Malis, A., Metz,
C., McDysan, D., Sugimoto, J., Duckett, M., Loomis, M.,
Doolan, P., Pan, P., Pate, P., Radoaca, V., Wada, Y., and
Y. Seo, "Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires",
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-13 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-redundancy]
Muley, P., "Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy",
draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-03 (work in progress),
May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw]
Martini, L., Nadeau, T., Metz, C., Bocci, M., Aissaoui,
M., Balus, F., and M. Duckett, "Segmented Pseudowire",
draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-18 (work in progress),
September 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status]
Martini, L., Swallow, G., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
"Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires",
draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-02 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
October 2009.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Fei Zhang (editor)
ZTE Corporation
4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
Yuhuatai District,Nanjing 210012
P.R.China
Phone: +86 025 52877612
Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Bo Wu (editor)
ZTE Corporation
4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
Yuhuatai District,Nanjing 210012
P.R.China
Phone: +86 025 52877276
Email: wu.bo@zte.com.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LDP Extensions for TP PW OAM March 2011
Elisa Bellagamba (editor)
Ericsson
Farogatan 6
Kista, 164 40
Sweden
Phone: +46 761440785
Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Attila Takacs
Ericsson
Laborc u. 1.
Budapest, 1037
Hungary
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Xuehui Dai
ZTE Corporation
4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
Yuhuatai District,Nanjing 210012
P.R.China
Phone: +86 025 52877612
Email: dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn
Min Xiao
ZTE Corporation
4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
Yuhuatai District,Nanjing 210012
P.R.China
Phone: +86 025 52877612
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 21]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:34:40 |