draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-02.txt 
CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba, Ed. CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba, Ed.
Internet-Draft L. Andersson, Ed. Internet-Draft L. Andersson, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: September 6, 2010 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. Expires: January 10, 2011 P. Skoldstrom, Ed.
Acreo AB Acreo AB
D. Ward D. Ward
Juniper Juniper
March 5, 2010 A. Takacs
Ericsson
July 9, 2010
Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) Functions Using RSVP-TE or LSP Ping Maintenance (OAM) Functions Using RSVP-TE
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-01 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-02
Abstract Abstract
This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
given LSP using a common set of TLVs that is carried on either given LSP using a common set of TLVs that can be carried on RSVP-TE
RSVP-TE or LSP Ping. protocol.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2011.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications . . . . . . . 4
3. Theory of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Theory of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. BFD Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6. MPLS OAM FMS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.7. MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID TLV for LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . 14
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. BFD OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. BFD OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP This document describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
given LSP using a common set of TLVs carried on either RSVP-TE given LSP using a common set of TLVs carried on RSVP-TE [RFC3209] but
[RFC3209] or LSP Ping [BFD-Ping]. In particular it specifies the reusable also for LSP Ping [BFD-Ping] as defined in [LSP-PING CONF].
mechanisms necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities monitoring an In particular it specifies the mechanisms necessary to establish
LSP and defines information elements and procedures to configure pro- MPLS-TP OAM entities monitoring an LSP and defines information
active MPLS OAM functions. Initialization and control of on-demand elements and procedures to configure pro-active MPLS OAM functions.
MPLS OAM functions are expected to be carried out by directly Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS OAM functions are
accessing network nodes via a management interface; hence expected to be carried out by directly accessing network nodes via a
configuration and control of on-demand OAM functions are out-of-scope management interface; hence configuration and control of on-demand
for this document. OAM functions are out-of-scope for this document.
Because the Transport Profile of MPLS, by definition [RFC5654], must
be capable of operating without a control plane, there are two
options for in-band OAM: by using an NMS or by using LSP-Ping if a
control plane is not instantiated.
Pro-active MPLS OAM is based on the Bidirectional Forwarding Pro-active MPLS OAM is based on the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) protocol [BFD]. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Detection (BFD) protocol [RFC5880]. Bidirectional Forwarding
(BFD), as described in [BFD], defines a protocol that provides low- Detection (BFD), as described in [RFC5880], defines a protocol that
overhead, short-duration detection of failures in the path between provides low- overhead, short-duration detection of failures in the
two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data link(s), and path between two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data
to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves. BFD can be link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines
used to track the liveliness and detect data plane failures of themselves. BFD can be used to track the liveliness and detect data
MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also be extended to p2mp plane failures of MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also be extended
connections. to p2mp connections.
MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS that MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS that
enables operational models typical in transport networks, while enables operational models typical in transport networks, while
providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance
functions not currently supported by MPLS. [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ] defines functions not currently supported by MPLS. [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ] defines
the requirements for the OAM functionality of MPLS-TP. the requirements for the OAM functionality of MPLS-TP.
BFD has been chosen to be the basis of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM BFD has been chosen to be the basis of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM
functions. MPLS-TP OAM extensions for transport applications, for functions. MPLS-TP OAM extensions for transport applications, for
which this document specifies the configuration, are specified in which this document specifies the configuration, are specified in
[BFD-CCCV], [MPLS-PM], and [MPLS-FMS]. [BFD-CCCV], [MPLS-PM], and [MPLS-FMS].
1.1. Contributing Authors 1.1. Contributing Authors
The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of John Drake, This document is the result of a large team of authors and
Attila Takacs and Benoit Tremblay. contributors. The following is a list of the co-authors:
John Drake
Attila Takacs
Benoit Tremblay
1.2. Requirements Language 1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation
BFD is a simple hello protocol that in many respects is similar to BFD is a simple hello protocol that in many respects is similar to
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
MEP Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these MEP Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these
defect conditions, the following consequent actions may be defect conditions, the following consequent actions may be
configurable: 1) whether or not the LOC defect should result in configurable: 1) whether or not the LOC defect should result in
blocking the outgoing data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period blocking the outgoing data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period
Misconfiguration defect" should result a signal fail condition. Misconfiguration defect" should result a signal fail condition.
3. Theory of Operations 3. Theory of Operations
3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview
RSVP-TE or LSP Ping can be used to simply establish (i.e., bootstrap) RSVP-TE, or in alternative LSP Ping [LSP-PING CONF], can be used to
a BFD session or it can selectively enable and configure all pro- simply establish (i.e., bootstrap) a BFD session or it can
active MPLS OAM functions. For this specification, BFD MUST be run selectively enable and configure all pro-active MPLS OAM functions.
in asynchronous mode and both sides should be in active mode. For this specification, BFD MUST be run in asynchronous mode and both
sides should be in active mode.
In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE or LSP Ping is used only to In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE, or in alternative LSP Ping [LSP-
bootstrap the BFD session. In this case the initiating node includes PING CONF], is used only to bootstrap the BFD session. In this case
an 'OAM Configuration TLV' in the message it sends to the receiving the initiating node includes an 'OAM Configuration TLV' in the
node at the other end of the LSP. The OAM Type in the 'OAM message it sends to the receiving node at the other end of the LSP.
Configuration TLV' is set to 'MPLS OAM', the CC OAM Function flag is The OAM Type in the 'OAM Configuration TLV' is set to 'MPLS OAM', the
set, and a 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' is included. The sub-TLV CC OAM Function flag is set, and a 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' is
carries a 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV' with the discriminator value included. The sub-TLV carries a 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV' with
selected by the initiating node for the BFD session associated with the discriminator value selected by the initiating node for the BFD
the LSP. The N flag in the 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' MUST be set session associated with the LSP. The N flag in the 'BFD
to enable timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD Control Messages. Configuration sub-TLV' MUST be set to enable timer negotiation/
re-negotiation via BFD Control Messages.
The receiving node MUST use the Local Discriminator value it receives The receiving node MUST use the Local Discriminator value it receives
to identify the remote end of the BFD session. The receiving node to identify the remote end of the BFD session. The receiving node
must send a message to the initiating node that includes an 'OAM must send a message to the initiating node that includes an 'OAM
Configuration TLV' containing the same values as it received, except Configuration TLV' containing the same values as it received, except
for the 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV', which contains the local for the 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV', which contains the local
discriminator value selected by the receiving node for the BFD discriminator value selected by the receiving node for the BFD
session. session.
Timer negotiation is performed in subsequent BFD control messages. Timer negotiation is performed in subsequent BFD control messages.
This operation is similar to LSP Ping based bootstrapping described This operation is similar to LSP Ping based bootstrapping described
in [BFD-MPLS]. in [RFC5884].
If timer negotiation is to be done using the TLVs defined in this If timer negotiation is to be done using the TLVs defined in this
document rather than with BFD Control Messages, the N flag MUST be document rather than with BFD Control Messages, the N flag MUST be
cleared and a 'Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV' MUST be present cleared and a 'Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV' MUST be present
in the 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV'. In this case, there are two in the 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV'. In this case, there are two
configuration options, symmetric and asymmetric. If symmetric configuration options, symmetric and asymmetric. If symmetric
configuration is used, the S flag in 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' MUST configuration is used, the S flag in 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' MUST
be set. If the flag is cleared, the configuration is completed be set. If the flag is cleared, the configuration is completed
asymmetrically in the two directions. Section 3.3.2 includes a asymmetrically in the two directions. Section 3.3.2 includes a
detailed explanation of such configuration. detailed explanation of such configuration.
In the case of the "CV/CC mode" OAM [BFD-CCCV], the "CV" flag MUST be In the case of the "CV/CC mode" OAM [BFD-CCCV], the "CV" flag MUST be
set in addition to the CC flag in the "OAM Configuration TLV". The set in addition to the CC flag in the "OAM Configuration TLV". The
information required to support this functionality is defined in information required to support this functionality is defined in
[MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. If RSVP-TE is used, this information is found [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. If RSVP-TE is used, this information is found
respectively in the SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE object with no need respectively in the SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE object with no need
of further sub-TLV as described in section 3.2. In case of LSP Ping of further sub-TLV as described in section 3.2. In case of LSP Ping
configuration this information is supplied by an additional sub-TLV configuration this information is supplied by an additional sub-TLV,
as described in section 3.2. but this is defined in [LSP-PING CONF] and it is outside the scope of
this document.
Additional OAM functions can be requested by setting the PM/Loss and
PM/Delay OAM Function flags in the "OAM Configuration TLV". If these
flags are set, corresponding sub-TLVs may be included in the "OAM
Configuration TLV".
If Fault Management Signals [MPLS-FMS] are required, the Fault
Management Signals (FMS) OAM Function is set in the 'OAM
Configuration TLV'. If this flag is set, the corresponding sub-TLV
may be included in the 'OAM Configuration TLV'.
3.2. OAM Configuration TLV 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV
The "OAM Configuration TLV" is depicted in the following figure. It The "OAM Configuration TLV" is depicted in the following figure. It
specifies the OAM functions that are to be used for the subject LSP specifies the OAM functions that are to be used for the subject LSP
and it is defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. For RSVP-TE, the "OAM and it is defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. For RSVP-TE, the "OAM
Configuration TLV" is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path Configuration TLV" is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path
and Resv messages. and Resv messages.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
not included, default configuration values are used. not included, default configuration values are used.
- "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/ - "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/
Delay OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub- Delay OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-
TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used. TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used.
- "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the FMS OAM - "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the FMS OAM
Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not
included, default configuration values are used. included, default configuration values are used.
- "Unique MEP-ID of Source", which MUST be included in case the - Moreover, 'Unique MEP-ID of Source', MUST be included in case
configuration is done with LSP Ping and CV flag is set. the configuration is done with LSP Ping and CV flag is set as
defined in [LSP-PING CONF]. But this is outside the scope of this
document.
Moreover, if the CV flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set at the same Moreover, if the CV flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set at the same
time. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [BFD-CCCV] time. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [BFD-CCCV]
and it requires, together with the BFD control packet information, and it requires, together with the BFD control packet information,
the "Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet". [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] the "Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet". [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]
defines the composition of such identifier as: defines the composition of such identifier as:
<"Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet"> ::= <"Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet"> ::=
<src_node_id><src_tunnel_num><lsp_num> <src_node_id><src_tunnel_num><lsp_num>
GMPLS signaling [RFC 3473] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP GMPLS signaling [RFC3473] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP
within an operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel within an operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel
Endpoint Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender Endpoint Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender
Address and (GMPLS) LSP_ID. Address and (GMPLS) LSP_ID.
Hence, the following mapping is used without the need of redefining a Hence, the following mapping is used without the need of redefining a
new TLV for MPLS-TP proactive CV purpose. new TLV for MPLS-TP proactive CV purpose.
- Tunnel ID = src_tunnel_num - Tunnel ID = src_tunnel_num
- Tunnel Sender Address = src_node_id - Tunnel Sender Address = src_node_id
- LSP ID = LSP_Num - LSP ID = LSP_Num
"Tunnel ID" and "Tunnel Sender Address" are included in the "SESSION" "Tunnel ID" and "Tunnel Sender Address" are included in the "SESSION"
object [RFC 3209], which is mandatory in both Path and Resv messages. object [RFC3209], which is mandatory in both Path and Resv messages.
"LSP ID" will be the same on both directions and it is included in "LSP ID" will be the same on both directions and it is included in
the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" object [RFC 3209] which is mandatory in Path the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" object [RFC3209] which is mandatory in Path
messages. messages.
In case the configuration is done via LSP Ping the "Unique MEP-ID of In case the configuration is done via LSP Ping [LSP-PING CONF] the
Source" is needed to supply this information. 'Unique MEP-ID of Source' is needed to supply this information but
this is defined in [LSP-PING CONF] and it is outside the scope of
this document.
[Author's note: the same "Unique MEP-ID of source" will be likely [Author's note: the same "Unique MEP-ID of source" will be likely
required for Performance monitoring purposes. However for the moment required for Performance monitoring purposes. However for the moment
in [MPLS-PM] it is stated: "The question of ACH TLV usage and the in [MPLS-PM] it is stated: "The question of ACH TLV usage and the
manner of supporting metadata such as authentication keys and node manner of supporting metadata such as authentication keys and node
identifiers is deliberately omitted. These issues will be addressed identifiers is deliberately omitted. These issues will be addressed
in a future version of the document."] in a future version of the document."]
3.3. BFD Configuration TLV 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV
skipping to change at page 11, line 36 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
it expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at which it expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at which
edge LSRs can receive BFD periodic control packets. In case this edge LSRs can receive BFD periodic control packets. In case this
value is greater than the "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" value is greater than the "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval"
received from the other edge LSR, such edge LSR MUST adopt the received from the other edge LSR, such edge LSR MUST adopt the
interval expressed in this "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval expressed in this "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX
interval". interval".
Required Echo TX Interval: the minimum interval, in microseconds, Required Echo TX Interval: the minimum interval, in microseconds,
between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of
supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in
[BFD] sect. 6.8.9. This value is also an indication for the
[RFC5880] sect. 6.8.9. This value is also an indication for the
receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo
packets. If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not packets. If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not
support the receipt of BFD Echo packets. If the receiving system can support the receipt of BFD Echo packets. If the receiving system can
not support this value an error MUST be generated "Unsupported BFD TX not support this value an error MUST be generated "Unsupported BFD TX
rate interval". rate interval".
Detection time multiplier: The negotiated transmit interval, Detection time multiplier: The negotiated transmit interval,
multiplied by this value, provides the Detection Time for the multiplied by this value, provides the Detection Time for the
receiving system in Asynchronous mode. receiving system in Asynchronous mode.
skipping to change at page 14, line 40 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
- E: used to enable/disable explicitly clearing faults - E: used to enable/disable explicitly clearing faults
- PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault - PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault
management information management information
Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer (in microseconds) of fault Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer (in microseconds) of fault
indication messages. If the edge LSR receiving the Path message can indication messages. If the edge LSR receiving the Path message can
not support such value, it can reply back with a higher interval. not support such value, it can reply back with a higher interval.
3.7. MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID TLV for LSP Ping
The "MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID TLV for LSP Ping" depicted below is
carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV" in case LSP Ping
is used.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (6) (IANA) | Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRC NODE ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TUNNEL ID | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: indicates a new type, the "MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID" (IANA to
define).
Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets.
SRC NODE ID: 32-bit node identifier as defined in [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF].
TUNNEL ID: a 16-bit unsigned integer unique to the node as defined in
[MPLS-TP-IDENTIF].
LSP ID: a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID as
defined in [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document specifies the following new TLV types: This document specifies the following new TLV types:
- "BFD Configuration" type: 2; - "BFD Configuration" type: 2;
- "MPLS OAM PM Loss" type: 3; - "MPLS OAM PM Loss" type: 3;
- "MPLS OAM PM Delay" type: 4; - "MPLS OAM PM Delay" type: 4;
skipping to change at page 16, line 31 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high
number of LSPs, targeting a single network element. number of LSPs, targeting a single network element.
Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent
versions of this document. versions of this document.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", 2009, <draft-ietf-bfd-base>.
[MPLS-CSF] [MPLS-CSF]
He, J. and H. Li, "Indication of Client Failure in He, J. and H. Li, "Indication of Client Failure in
MPLS-TP", 2009, <draft-he-mpls-tp-csf>. MPLS-TP", 2009, <draft-he-mpls-tp-csf>.
[MPLS-FMS] [MPLS-FMS]
Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., and M. Vigoureux, "MPLS Fault Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., and M. Vigoureux, "MPLS Fault
Management OAM", 2009, <draft-sfv-mpls-tp-fault>. Management OAM", 2009, <draft-sfv-mpls-tp-fault>.
[MPLS-PM] Bryant, S. and D. Frost, "Packet Loss and Delay [MPLS-PM] Bryant, S. and D. Frost, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for the MPLS Transport Profile", 2009, Measurement for the MPLS Transport Profile", 2009,
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 16, line 38
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements>. <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements>.
[OAM-CONF-FWK] [OAM-CONF-FWK]
Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. van He, "OAM Configuration Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. van He, "OAM Configuration
Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009,
<draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk>. <draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 5654, September 2009. RFC 5654, September 2009.
[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.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[BFD-CCCV] [BFD-CCCV]
Fulignoli, A., Boutros, S., and M. Vigoreux, "MPLS-TP BFD Fulignoli, A., Boutros, S., and M. Vigoreux, "MPLS-TP BFD
for Proactive CC-CV and RDI", 2009, for Proactive CC-CV and RDI", 2009,
<draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv>. <draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv>.
[BFD-Ping] [BFD-Ping]
Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher, Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher,
N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation
skipping to change at page 17, line 51 skipping to change at page 17, line 38
[ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., Fedyk, D., Mohan, D., and D. Long, [ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., Fedyk, D., Mohan, D., and D. Long,
"GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM", 2009, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM", 2009,
<draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext>. <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext>.
[LSP Ping] [LSP Ping]
Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", 2006, <RFC Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", 2006, <RFC
3479>. 3479>.
[LSP-PING CONF]
Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., and P.
Skoelstroem, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions Using LSP Ping", 2010,
<draft-absw-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf>.
[MPLS-TP OAM Analysis] [MPLS-TP OAM Analysis]
Sprecher, N., Nadeau, T., van Helvoort, H., and Sprecher, N., Nadeau, T., van Helvoort, H., and
Weingarten, "MPLS-TP OAM Analysis", 2006, Weingarten, "MPLS-TP OAM Analysis", 2006,
<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis>. <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis>.
[MPLS-TP-FWK] [MPLS-TP-FWK]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "OAM Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "OAM
Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009,
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework>. <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework>.
skipping to change at page 19, line 4 skipping to change at page 18, line 37
Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Loa Andersson (editor) Loa Andersson (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Farogatan 6 Farogatan 6
Kista, 164 40 Kista, 164 40
Sweden Sweden
Phone: Phone:
Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
Pontus Skoldstrom (editor) Pontus Skoldstrom (editor)
Acreo AB Acreo AB
Electrum 236 Electrum 236
Kista, 164 40 Kista, 164 40
Sweden Sweden
Phone: +46 8 6327731 Phone: +46 8 6327731
Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se
Dave Ward Dave Ward
Juniper Juniper
Phone: Phone:
Email: dward@juniper.net Email: dward@juniper.net
Attila Takacs
Ericsson
1. Laborc u.
Budapest,
HUNGARY
Phone:
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
117 lines changed or deleted 101 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/