--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-10.txt 2012-12-13 16:10:23.463707963 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-11.txt 2012-12-13 16:10:23.499708320 +0100 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba, Ed. Internet-Draft L. Andersson, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson -Expires: April 14, 2013 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. +Expires: June 15, 2013 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. Acreo AB D. Ward - Juniper + Cisco A. Takacs Ericsson - October 11, 2012 + December 12, 2012 Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE - draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-10 + draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-11 Abstract This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a given LSP using a set of TLVs that are carried by the RSVP-TE protocol. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication @@ -35,21 +35,21 @@ 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 April 14, 2013. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 15, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 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 @@ -58,65 +58,64 @@ the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications . . . . . . . 4 3. Theory of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1. MPLS-TP OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. Configuration of BFD sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. Configuration of Performance Monitoring . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3. Configuration of Fault Management Signals . . . . . . 7 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.3. BFD Configuration sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.3. BFD Configuration sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.3.1. BFD Identifiers sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.3.3. BFD Authentication sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.3.3. BFD Authentication sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4. Performance Monitoring sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.1. MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 3.4.2. MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 3.5. MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 3.4.2. MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 3.5. MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. BFD OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Introduction This document describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a - given LSP using TLVs carried by RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. In particular it + given LSP using TLVs carried by RSVP-TE [RFC3473]. In particular it specifies the mechanisms necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points for monitoring and performing measurements on an LSP, as well as defining information elements and procedures to - configure pro-active MPLS OAM functions running between LERs. - Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS OAM functions are + configure pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions running between LERs. + Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS-TP OAM functions are expected to be carried out by directly accessing network nodes via a management interface; hence configuration and control of on-demand OAM functions are out-of-scope for this document. The Transport Profile of MPLS must, by definition [RFC5654], be capable of operating without a control plane. Therefore there are several options for configuring MPLS-TP OAM, without a control plane by either using an NMS or LSP Ping, or with a control plane using - signaling protocols RSVP-TE and/or T-LDP. Use of T-LDP for - configuration of MPLS-TP OAM is outside of scope of this document. + signaling protocols such as RSVP-TE. - Pro-active MPLS OAM is performed by three different protocols, - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC6428] for Continuity + Pro-active MPLS-TP OAM is performed by four different protocols, Bi- + directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC6428] for Continuity Check/Connectivity Verification, the delay measurement protocol (DM) [RFC6374] for delay and delay variation (jitter) measurements, and the loss measurement protocol (LM) [RFC6374] for packet loss and throughput measurements. Additionally there is a number of Fault Management Signals that can be configured. BFD is a protocol that provides low-overhead, fast detection of failures in the path between two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves. BFD can be used to track the liveliness and @@ -128,21 +127,24 @@ allows the originating node to measure packet loss and delay in both directions. By timestamping and/or writing current packet counters to the measurement packets at four times (Tx and Rx in both directions) current delays and packet losses can be calculated. By performing successive delay measurements the delay variation (jitter) can be calculated. Current throughput can be calculated from the packet loss measurements by dividing the number of packets sent/ received with the time it took to perform the measurement, given by the timestamp in LM header. Combined with a packet generator the throughput measurement can be used to measure the maximum capacity of - a particular LSP. + a particular LSP. It should be noted that here we are not + configuring on-demand throughput estimates based on saturating the + connection as defined in [RFC6371]. Rather, we only enable the + estimation of the current throughput based on loss measurements. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational models typical in transport networks, while providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance functions not currently supported by MPLS. [RFC5860] defines the requirements for the OAM functionality of MPLS-TP. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport @@ -161,56 +163,53 @@ Benoit Tremblay 1.2. Requirements Language 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications - [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] describes how MPLS OAM mechanisms are operated to - meet transport requirements outlined in [RFC5860]. + [RFC6371] describes how MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms are operated to meet + transport requirements outlined in [RFC5860]. - [BFD-CCCV] specifies two BFD operation modes: 1) "CC mode", which - uses periodic BFD message exchanges with symmetric timer settings, + [RFC6428] specifies two BFD operation modes: 1) "CC mode", which uses + periodic BFD message exchanges with symmetric timer settings, supporting Continuity Check, 2) "CV/CC mode" which sends unique maintenance entity identifiers in the periodic BFD messages supporting Connectivity Verification as well as Continuity Check. [RFC6374] specifies mechanisms for performance monitoring of LSPs, in particular it specifies loss and delay measurement OAM functions. - [MPLS-FMS] specifies fault management signals with which a server LSP + [RFC6427] specifies fault management signals with which a server LSP can notify client LSPs about various fault conditions to suppress alarms or to be used as triggers for actions in the client LSPs. The following signals are defined: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link - Down Indication (LDI) and Locked Report (LKR). To indicate client - faults associated with the attachment circuits Client Signal Failure - Indication (CSF) can be used. CSF is described in [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] - and in the context of this document is for further study. + Down Indication (LDI) and Lock Report (LKR). - [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] describes the mapping of fault conditions to - consequent actions. Some of these mappings may be configured by the - operator, depending on the application of the LSP. The following - defects are identified: Loss Of Continuity (LOC), Misconnectivity, - MEP Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these - defect conditions, the following consequent actions may be - configurable: 1) whether or not the LOC defect should result in - blocking the outgoing data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period - Misconfiguration defect" should result in a signal fail condition. + [RFC6371] describes the mapping of fault conditions to consequent + actions. Some of these mappings may be configured by the operator, + depending on the application of the LSP. The following defects are + identified: Loss Of Continuity (LOC), Misconnectivity, MEP + Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these defect + conditions, the following consequent actions may be configurable: 1) + whether or not the LOC defect should result in blocking the outgoing + data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period Misconfiguration defect" + should result in a signal fail condition. 3. Theory of Operations -3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview +3.1. MPLS-TP OAM Configuration Operation Overview - RSVP-TE, or alternatively LSP Ping [LSP-PING CONF], can be used to + RSVP-TE, or alternatively LSP Ping [LSP-PING-CONF], can be used to simply enable the different OAM functions, by setting the corresponding flags in the "OAM Functions TLV". For a more detailed configuration one may include sub-TLVs for the different OAM functions in order to specify various parameters in detail. Typically intermediate nodes should not process or modify any of the OAM configuration TLVs but simply forward them to the end-node. There is one exception to this and that is if the "MPLS OAM FMS sub- TLV" is present. This sub-TLV has to be examined even by intermediate nodes. The sub-TLV MAY be present if a flag is set in @@ -219,28 +218,28 @@ 3.1.1. Configuration of BFD sessions For this specification, BFD MUST be run in either one of the two modes: - Asynchronous mode, where both sides should be in active mode - Unidirectional mode - In the simplest scenario LSP Ping, or alternatively RSVP-TE [RSVP-TE - CONF], is used only to bootstrap a BFD session for an LSP, without - any timer negotiation. + In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE, or alternatively LSP Ping [LSP- + PING-CONF], is used only to bootstrap a BFD session for an LSP, + without any timer negotiation. Timer negotiation can be performed either in subsequent BFD control messages (in this case the operation is similar to LSP Ping based - bootstrapping described in [RFC5884]) or directly in the LSP ping - configuration messages. + bootstrapping described in [RFC5884]) or directly in the RSVP-TE + signaling messages. When BFD Control packets are transported in the G-ACh they are not protected by any end-to-end checksum, only lower-layers are providing error detection/correction. A single bit error, e.g. a flipped bit in the BFD State field could cause the receiving end to wrongly conclude that the link is down and in turn trigger protection switching. To prevent this from happening the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" has an Integrity flag that when set enables BFD Authentication using Keyed SHA1 with an empty key (all 0s) [RFC5880]. This would make every BFD Control packet carry an SHA1 hash of itself @@ -250,21 +249,22 @@ (i.e. authentication and not only error detection) the "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" MUST be included in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV". The "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" is used to specify which authentication method that should be used and which pre-shared key / password that should be used for this particular session. How the key exchange is performed is out of scope of this document. 3.1.2. Configuration of Performance Monitoring It is possible to configure Performance Monitoring functionalities - such as Loss, Delay and Throughput as described in [RFC6374]. + such as Loss, Delay, Delay variation (jitter), and Throughput as + described in [RFC6374]. When configuring Performance monitoring functionalities it is possible to choose either the default configuration, by only setting the respective flags in the "OAM functions TLV", or a customized configuration. To customize the configuration one would set the respective flags in the including the respective Loss and/or Delay sub-TLVs). By setting the PM Loss flag in the "OAM Functions TLV" and including the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" one can configure the measurement @@ -289,48 +289,30 @@ associated to a server MEP through a co-located MPLS-TP client/server adaptation function. Such a server MEP needs to be configured by its own RSVP-TE session (or, alternatively, via an NMS or LSP-ping). However, by setting the "Fault Management subscription" flag in the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" a client LSP can indicate that it would like an association to be created to the server MEP(s) on any intermediate nodes. 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV - The "OAM Configuration TLV" is depicted in the following figure. It - specifies the OAM functions that are to be used for the LSP and it is - defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. The "OAM Configuration TLV" is carried in - the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path and Resv messages. - - 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 (2) (IANA) | Length | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | OAM Type | Reserved | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | | - ~ sub-TLVs ~ - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Type: indicates the "OAM Configuration TLV" (2) (IANA to assign). - - OAM Type: one octet that specifies the technology specific OAM Type. - If the requested OAM Type is not supported, an error must be - generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Type". + The "OAM Configuration TLV", defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK], specifies the + OAM functions that are used for the LSP. This TLV is carried in the + LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path and Resv messages. - This document defines a new OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (suggested value 2, - IANA to assign) from the "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry". The - "MPLS OAM" type is set to request the establishment of OAM functions - for MPLS-TP LSPs. The specific OAM functions are specified in the - "Function Flags" sub-TLV as depicted in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. + This document extends the "OAM Configuration TLV" by defining a new + OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (suggested value 2, IANA to assign) from the + "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry". The "MPLS OAM" type is set to + request the establishment of OAM functions for MPLS-TP LSPs. The + specific OAM functions are specified in the "Function Flags" sub-TLV + as depicted in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. The receiving edge LSR when the MPLS-TP OAM Type is requested should check which OAM Function Flags are set in the "Function Flags TLV" (also defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK]) and look for the corresponding technology specific configuration TLVs. Additional corresponding sub-TLVs are as follows: - "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if the CC and/or the CV OAM Function flag is set. This sub-TLV MUST carry a @@ -349,55 +331,47 @@ - "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV" within the "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/Delay OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used. - "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 included, default configuration values are used. - Moreover, if the CV or CC flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set as - well. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [BFD-CCCV] - and it requires, together with the BFD control packet information, - the "Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet". [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] - defines the composition of such identifier as: - - <"Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet"> ::= - - - Note that support of ITU IDs is out-of-scope. - - GMPLS signaling [RFC3473] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP - within an operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel - Endpoint Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender - Address and (GMPLS) LSP_ID. - - Hence, the following mapping is used without the need of redefining a - new TLV for MPLS-TP proactive CV purpose. + Moreover, if the CV Flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set as well. + The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [RFC6428] and it + requires, together with the BFD Control packet information, the "LSP + MEP-ID". The "LSP MEP-ID" contain four identifiers: - - Tunnel ID = src_tunnel_num + - MPLS-TP Global_ID - - Tunnel Sender Address = src_node_id + - MPLS-TP Node Identifier - - LSP ID = LSP_Num + - Tunnel_Num - "Tunnel ID" and "Tunnel Sender Address" are included in the "SESSION" - object [RFC3209], which is mandatory in both Path and Resv messages. + - LSP_Num - "LSP ID" will be the same on both directions and it is included in - the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" object [RFC3209] which is mandatory in Path - messages. + These values need to be correctly set by both ingress and egress when + transmitting a CV packet and both ingress and egress needs to know + what to expect when receving a CV packet. Most of these values can + be derived from the Path and Resv messages [RFC3473], which uses a + 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within an operator's network. + This tuple is composed of a Tunnel Sender Address, Tunnel Endpoint + Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and and (GMPLS) LSP_ID. - [Author's note: the same "Unique MEP-ID of source" will be likely - required for Performance monitoring purposes. This need to be agreed - with [RFC6374] authors.] + However, not all the values can be derived from the standard RSVP-TE + objects, in particular the locally assigned Tunnel ID at the egress + cannot be derived by the ingress node. Therefor the full LSP MEP-ID + used by the ingress has to be carried in the "BFD Identifiers sub- + TLV" in the Path message and the egress LSP MEP-ID in the same way in + the Resv message. 3.3. BFD Configuration sub-TLV The "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" (depicted below) is defined for BFD OAM specific configuration parameters. The "BFD Configuration sub- TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV". This TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries sub- TLVs. @@ -407,21 +381,21 @@ | BFD Conf. Type (3) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Vers.| PHB |N|S|I|G|U|B| Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: indicates a new type, the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" (IANA to - define). + define, suggested value 3). Length: indicates the total length including sub-TLVs. Version: identifies the BFD protocol version. If a node does not support a specific BFD version an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version". PHB: Identifies the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) to be used for periodic continuity monitoring messages. @@ -448,89 +422,97 @@ mode. If it is not set it configures BFD in unidirectional mode. In the second case, the source node does not expect any Discriminator values back from the destination node. Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0 on transmission and ignored when received. The "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" MUST include the following sub-TLVs in the Path message: - - "Local Discriminator sub-TLV"; + - "BFD Identifiers sub-TLV"; - "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" if the N flag is cleared. The "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" MUST include the following sub-TLVs in the Resv message: - - "Local Discriminator sub-TLV;" + - "BFD Identifiers sub-TLV;" - "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" if: - the N and S flags are cleared, or if: - the N flag is cleared and the S flag is set, and the Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV received by the egress contains unsupported values. In this case an updated Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV, containing values supported by the egress node, is returned to the ingress. -3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV +3.3.1. BFD Identifiers sub-TLV - The "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD + The "BFD Identifiers sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Lcl. Discr. Type (1) (IANA) | Length | + | BFD ident. Type (1) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Discriminator | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Type: indicates a new type, the Local Discriminator sub-TLV (1) (IANA + | MPLS-TP Global_ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MPLS-TP Node Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tunnel_Num | LSP_Num | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + Type: indicates a new type, the "BFD Identifiers sub-TLV" (1) (IANA to define). Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. (8) Local Discriminator: A unique, nonzero discriminator value generated by the transmitting system and referring to itself, used to demultiplex multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of systems. + MPLS-TP Global_ID, Node Identifier, Tunnel_Num, and LSP_Num: all set + as defined in [RFC6370]. + 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV The "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Timer Neg. Type (2) (IANA) | Length | + | Nego. Timer Type (2) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Required Echo TX Interval | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: indicates a new type, the "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub- - TLV" (IANA to define). + TLV" (IANA to define, suggested value 2). Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. (16) Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval: in case of S (symmetric) flag set in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", it expresses the desired time interval (in microseconds) at which the ingress LER intends to both transmit and receive BFD periodic control packets. If the - receiving edge LSR can not support such value, it can reply with an - interval greater than the one proposed. + receiving edge LSR can not support such value, it SHOULD reply with + an interval greater than the one proposed. In case of S (symmetric) flag cleared in the "BFD Configuration sub- TLV", this field expresses the desired time interval (in microseconds) at which a edge LSR intends to transmit BFD periodic control packets in its transmitting direction. Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval: in case of S (symmetric) flag set in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", this field MUST be equal to "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" and has no additional meaning respect to the one described for "Acceptable Min. @@ -581,26 +563,34 @@ Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0 on transmission and ignored when received. 3.4. Performance Monitoring sub-TLV If the "OAM functions TLV" has either the L (Loss), D (Delay) or T (Throughput) flag set, the "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV" MUST be present. + The "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV" provides the configuration + information mentioned in Section 7 of [RFC6374]. It includes support + for the configuration of quality thresholds and, as described in + [RFC6374], "the crossing of which will trigger warnings or alarms, + and result reporting and exception notification will be integrated + into the system-wide network management and reporting framework." + In case the values need to be different than the default ones the "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV", "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" MAY include the following sub-TLVs: - "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" if the L flag is set in the "OAM functions TLV"; + - "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV" if the D flag is set in the "OAM functions TLV"; The "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV" depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Functions 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Perf Monitoring Type(4) (IANA)| Length | @@ -605,20 +595,23 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Perf Monitoring Type(4) (IANA)| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D|L|J|Y|K|C| Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + Type: indicates a new type, the "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV" + (IANA to define, suggested value 4). + Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. Configuration Flags, for the specific function description please refer to [RFC6374]: - D: Delay inferred/direct (0=INFERRED, 1=DIRECT) - L: Loss inferred/direct (0=INFERRED, 1=DIRECT) - J: Delay variation/jitter (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE) @@ -671,50 +664,50 @@ Counter 1-4 fields represent octet counts. When set to 0, indicates that the Counter 1-4 fields represent packet counts. By default it is set to 0. Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0 on transmission and ignored when received. Measurement Interval: the time interval (in milliseconds) at which Loss Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions. If the edge LSR receiving the Path message can not support such value, - it can reply back with a higher interval. By default it is set to + it SHOULD reply with a higher interval. By default it is set to (100) as per [RFC6375]. - Test Interval: test messages interval as described in [RFC6374]. By - default it is set to (10) as per [RFC6375]. + Test Interval: test messages interval in milliseconds as described in + [RFC6374]. By default it is set to (10) as per [RFC6375]. - Loss Threshold: the threshold value of lost packets over which - protections MUST be triggered. By default it is set to (200). + Loss Threshold: the threshold value of measured lost packets per + measurement over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered. 3.4.2. MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV The "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV" depicted below is carried as a sub- - TLV of the "OAM Functions TLV". + TLV of the "Performance Monitoring sub-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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PM Delay Type (2) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OTF |T|B| Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Measurement Interval | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Test Interval | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delay Threshold | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: indicates a new type, the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" (IANA to - define, suggested value 1). + define, suggested value 2). Length: indicates the length of the parameters in octets (20). OTF: Origin Timestamp Format of the Origin Timestamp field described in [RFC6374]. By default it is set to IEEE 1588 version 1. Configuration Flags, please refer to [RFC6374] for further details: - T: Traffic-class-specific measurement indicator. Set to 1 when the measurement operation is scoped to packets of a particular @@ -726,29 +719,28 @@ Counter 1-4 fields represent octet counts. When set to 0, indicates that the Counter 1-4 fields represent packet counts. By default it is set to 0. Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0 on transmission and ignored when received. Measurement Interval: the time interval (in milliseconds) at which Delay Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions. If the edge LSR receiving the Path message can not support such value, - it can reply back with a higher interval. By default it is set to - (1) as per [RFC6375]. + it can reply with a higher interval. By default it is set to (1000) + as per [RFC6375]. Test Interval: test messages interval (in milliseconds) as described in [RFC6374]. By default it is set to (10) as per [RFC6375]. - Delay Threshold: the threshold value of measured delay (in - milliseconds) over which protections MUST be triggered. By default - it is set to (2). + Delay Threshold: the threshold value of measured two-way delay (in + milliseconds) over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered. 3.5. MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV The "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration sub-TLV". When both working and protection paths are signaled, both LSPs SHOULD be signaled with identical settings of the E flag, T flag, and the refresh timer. 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 @@ -762,59 +753,59 @@ define). Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. (8) FMS Signal Flags are used to enable the FMS signals at end point MEPs and the Server MEPs of the links over which the LSP is forwarded. In this document only the S flag pertains to Server MEPs. The following flags are defined: - - E: Enable Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) and Locked Report (LKR) - signalling as described in [MPLS-FMS]. Default value is 1 + - E: Enable Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) and Lock Report (LKR) + signalling as described in [RFC6427]. Default value is 1 (enabled). - S: Indicate to a server MEP that its should transmit AIS and LKR signals on the client LSP. Default value is 0 (disabled). - T: Set timer value, enabled the configuration of a specific timer value. Default value is 0 (disabled). - Remaining bits: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer of fault indication - messages, in seconds. The range is 1 to 20 seconds. If the edge LSR - receiving the Path message can not support the value it can reply - back with a higher interval. + messages, in seconds. The value MUST be between 1 to 20 seconds as + specified for the Refresh Timer field in [RFC6427]. If the edge LSR + receiving the Path message can not support the value it SHOULD reply + with a higher timer value. - - PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault - management information. + PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault management + information. 4. IANA Considerations This document specifies the following new TLV types: - "BFD Configuration" type: 3; - "Performance Monitoring" type: 4; - "MPLS OAM FMS" type: 5. sub-TLV types to be carried in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV": - - "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV type: 1; - + - "BFD Identifiers" sub-TLV type: 1; - "Negotiation Timer Parameters" sub-TLV type: 2. - "BFD Authentication" sub-TLV type: 3. - sub-TLV types to be carried in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV": + sub-TLV types to be carried in the "Performance monitoring sub-TLV": - "MPLS OAM PM Loss" type: 1; - "MPLS OAM PM Delay" type: 2; 5. BFD OAM configuration errors In addition to error values specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and [ETH-OAM] this document defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" Error Code: @@ -836,36 +828,23 @@ 7. Security Considerations The signaling of OAM related parameters and the automatic establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473]. In particular, a network element could be overloaded if an attacker were to request high frequency liveliness monitoring of a large number of LSPs, targeting a single network element. - Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent - versions of this document. - 8. References - 8.1. Normative References - [MPLS-FMS] - Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S., - and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management OAM", 2009, - . - - [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] - Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS-TP - Identifiers", 2010, . - [OAM-CONF-FWK] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. van He, "OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 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 @@ -890,78 +869,77 @@ 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. + [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport + Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011. + [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. - [RFC6375] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay - Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", - RFC 6375, September 2011. + [RFC6427] Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S., + and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management Operations, + Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 6427, + November 2011. [RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 6428, November 2011. 8.2. Informative References - [BFD-CCCV] - Allan, D., Swallow, G., and J. Drake, "Proactive - Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote - Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile", 2010, - . - - [BFD-Ping] - Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher, - N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP Ping and BFD encapsulation - over ACH", 2010, - . - - [ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., Fedyk, D., Mohan, D., and D. Long, - "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM", 2009, + [ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., and H. Long, "GMPLS RSVP-TE + Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration", 2012, . [LSP-PING-CONF] - Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., and P. + Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., Drake, J., and P. Skoldstrom, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) - Functions Using LSP Ping", 2010, + Functions Using LSP Ping", 2012, . - [MPLS-TP-OAM-Analysis] - Sprecher, N., Weingarten, Y., and E. Bellagamba, "MPLS-TP - OAM Analysis", 2011, . - - [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] - Bocci, M. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration and - Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks", - 2010, . - [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006. [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. [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010. + [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and + Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", + RFC 6371, September 2011. + + [RFC6375] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay + Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", + RFC 6375, September 2011. + + [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., + and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and + Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011. + + [RFC6669] Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the Operations, + Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS- + Based Transport Networks", RFC 6669, July 2012. + Authors' Addresses Elisa Bellagamba (editor) Ericsson Torshamnsgatan 48 Kista, 164 40 Sweden Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com @@ -977,23 +955,23 @@ Pontus Skoldstrom (editor) Acreo AB Electrum 236 Kista, 164 40 Sweden Phone: +46 8 6327731 Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se Dave Ward - Juniper + Cisco Phone: - Email: dward@juniper.net + Email: dward@cisco.com Attila Takacs Ericsson 1. Laborc u. Budapest, HUNGARY Phone: Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com