draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-16.txt 
CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba
Internet-Draft A. Takacs Internet-Draft A. Takacs
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
Expires: July 15, 2015 Ericsson Expires: July 28, 2015 Ericsson
L. Andersson L. Andersson
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
P. Skoldstrom P. Skoldstrom
Acreo AB Acreo AB
D. Ward D. Ward
Cisco Cisco
January 11, 2015 January 24, 2015
Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-16
Abstract Abstract
This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP This specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP
(MPLS-Transport Profile) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (MPLS-Transport Profile) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Functions for a given LSP using a set of TLVs that are carried (OAM) Functions for a given LSP using a set of TLVs that are carried
by the GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol based on the OAM Configuration by the GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol based on the OAM Configuration
Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE. Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted 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). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
6. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP This document describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP (MPLS-
(MPLS-Transport Profile) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Transport Profile) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
(OAM) Functions for a given LSP using TLVs using GMPLS RSVP-TE Functions for a given LSP using TLVs using GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC3473].
[RFC3473]. The use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM [RFC7260] defines use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
functions is defined in a technology agnostic way in [RFC7260]. This functions in a technology agnostic way. This document specifies the
document specifies the additional mechanisms necessary to establish additional mechanisms necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities at
MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points for monitoring and the maintenance points for monitoring and performing measurements on
performing measurements on an LSP, as well as defining information an LSP, as well as defining information elements and procedures to
elements and procedures to configure pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions configure proactive MPLS-TP OAM functions running between LERs.
running between LERs. Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS- Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS-TP OAM functions are
TP OAM functions are expected to be carried out by directly accessing expected to be carried out by directly accessing network nodes via a
network nodes via a management interface; hence configuration and management interface; hence configuration and control of on-demand
control of on-demand OAM functions are out-of-scope for this OAM functions are out-of-scope for this document.
document.
MPLS-TP, the Transport Profile of MPLS, must, by definition MPLS-TP, the Transport Profile of MPLS, must, by definition
[RFC5654], be capable of operating without a control plane. [RFC5654], be capable of operating without a control plane.
Therefore, there are several options for configuring MPLS-TP OAM, 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 without a control plane by either using an NMS or LSP Ping, or with a
control plane using signaling protocols such as RSVP-TE. control plane using signaling protocols such as RSVP-TE.
MPLS-TP describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational models MPLS-TP describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational models
typical in transport networks, while providing additional OAM, typical in transport networks, while providing additional OAM,
survivability and other maintenance functions not currently supported survivability and other maintenance functions not currently supported
by MPLS. [RFC5860] defines the requirements for the OAM by MPLS. [RFC5860] defines the requirements for the OAM
functionality of MPLS-TP. functionality of MPLS-TP.
Pro-active MPLS-TP OAM is performed by three different protocols, Bi- Proactive MPLS-TP OAM is performed by three different protocols, Bi-
directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC6428] for Continuity directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC6428] for Continuity
Check/Connectivity Verification, the delay measurement protocol (DM) Check/Connectivity Verification, the delay measurement protocol (DM)
[RFC6374] for delay and delay variation (jitter) measurements, and [RFC6374] for delay and delay variation (jitter) measurements, and
the loss measurement protocol (LM) [RFC6374] for packet loss and the loss measurement protocol (LM) [RFC6374] for packet loss and
throughput measurements. Additionally there is a number of Fault throughput measurements. Additionally, there is a number of Fault
Management Signals that can be configured. Management Signals that can be configured [RFC6427].
BFD is a protocol that provides low-overhead, fast detection of BFD is a protocol that provides low-overhead, fast detection of
failures in the path between two forwarding engines, including the failures in the path between two forwarding engines, including the
interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
engines themselves. BFD can be used to track the liveliness and engines themselves. BFD can be used to track the liveliness and
detect data plane failures of MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also detect data plane failures of MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also
be extended to support point-to-multipoint connections. be extended to support point-to-multipoint connections.
The delay and loss measurements protocols [RFC6374] use a simple The delay and loss measurements protocols [RFC6374] use a simple
query/response model for performing bidirectional measurements that query/response model for performing bidirectional measurements that
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 6, line 9
3.1. MPLS-TP OAM Configuration Operation Overview 3.1. MPLS-TP OAM Configuration Operation Overview
GMPLS RSVP-TE, or alternatively LSP Ping [LSP-PING-CONF], can be used GMPLS RSVP-TE, or alternatively LSP Ping [LSP-PING-CONF], can be used
to simply enable the different OAM functions, by setting the to simply enable the different OAM functions, by setting the
corresponding flags in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" [RFC7260]. corresponding flags in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" [RFC7260].
For a more detailed configuration one may include sub-TLVs for the For a more detailed configuration one may include sub-TLVs for the
different OAM functions in order to specify various parameters in different OAM functions in order to specify various parameters in
detail. detail.
Typically intermediate nodes should not process or modify any of the Typically intermediate nodes SHOULD NOT process or modify any of the
OAM configuration TLVs but simply forward them to the end-node. 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- 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 TLV" is present. This sub-TLV MUST be examined even by intermediate
intermediate nodes, but only acted upon by nodes capable of nodes that support these extensions, but only acted upon by nodes
transmitting FMS signals into the LSP being established. The sub-TLV capable of transmitting FMS signals into the LSP being established.
MAY be present when the FMS flag is set in the "OAM Function Flags The sub-TLV MAY be present when the FMS flag is set in the "OAM
sub-TLV". If this sub-TLV is present, then the "OAM MIP entities Function Flags sub-TLV". If this sub-TLV is present, then the "OAM
desired" and "OAM MEP entities desired" flags (described in MIP entities desired" and "OAM MEP entities desired" flags (described
[RFC7260]) in the "LSP Attributes Flags TLV" MUST be set and the in [RFC7260]) in the "LSP Attributes Flags TLV" MUST be set and the
entire OAM Configuration TLV placed either in the entire OAM Configuration TLV placed either in the
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object or in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object or in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in
order to ensure that capable intermediate nodes process the order to ensure that capable intermediate nodes process the
configuration. If placed in LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, nodes that are configuration. If placed in LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, nodes that are
not able to process the OAM Configuration TLV will forward the not able to process the OAM Configuration TLV will forward the
message without generating an error. If the ?MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV? message without generating an error. If the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV"
been placed in the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object a node that been placed in the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object a node that
supports the RFC 7260 but does not support the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" supports the RFC 7260 but does not support the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV"
MUST generate PathErr message with "OAM Problem/Configuration Error" MUST generate PathErr message with "OAM Problem/Configuration Error"
[RFC7260]. Otherwise, if the node doesn't support the RFC 7260, it [RFC7260]. Otherwise, if the node doesn't support the RFC 7260, it
will not raise any errors as described in the Section 4.1 [RFC7260]. will not raise any errors as described in the Section 4.1 [RFC7260].
Finally, if the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not included only the "OAM Finally, if the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not included only the "OAM
MEP entities desired" flag is set and the OAM Configuration TLV may MEP entities desired" flag is set and the OAM Configuration TLV may
be placed in either LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES. be placed in either LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES.
skipping to change at page 8, line 11 skipping to change at page 8, line 11
flag in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST be set and the "MPLS flag in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST be set and the "MPLS
OAM FMS sub-TLV" included. When configuring Fault Management OAM FMS sub-TLV" included. When configuring Fault Management
Signals, an implementation can enable the default configuration by Signals, an implementation can enable the default configuration by
setting the FMS flag in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV". In order setting the FMS flag in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV". In order
to modify the default configuration the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" MUST to modify the default configuration the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" MUST
be included. be included.
If an intermediate point is intended to originate fault management If an intermediate point is intended to originate fault management
signal messages, this means that such an intermediate point is signal messages, this means that such an intermediate point is
associated with a server MEP through a co-located MPLS-TP client/ associated with a server MEP through a co-located MPLS-TP client/
server adaptation function and the ?Fault Management subscription? server adaptation function and the "Fault Management subscription"
flag in the ?MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV? been set as indication of the flag in the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" been set as indication of the
request to create the association at each intermediate node of the request to create the association at each intermediate node of the
client LSP. Corresponding server MEP needs to be configured by its client LSP. Corresponding server MEP needs to be configured by its
own RSVP-TE session (or, alternatively, via an NMS or LSP-ping). own RSVP-TE session (or, alternatively, via an NMS or LSP-ping).
3.2. MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV 3.2. MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV
The "OAM Configuration TLV", defined in [RFC7260], specifies the OAM The "OAM Configuration TLV", defined in [RFC7260], specifies the OAM
functions that are used for the LSP. This document extends the "OAM functions that are used for the LSP. This document extends the "OAM
Configuration TLV" by defining a new OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (TBA1). Configuration TLV" by defining a new OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (TBA1).
The "MPLS OAM" type is set to request the establishment of OAM The "MPLS OAM" type is set to request the establishment of OAM
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA2, the "MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV". Type: TBA2, the "MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV".
Length: indicates the total length in octets, including sub-TLVs as Length: indicates the total length in octets, including sub-TLVs as
well as the Type and Length fields. well as the Type and Length fields.
The following MPLS OAM specific sub-TLVs MAY be included in the "MPLS The following MPLS OAM specific sub-TLVs MAY be included in the "MPLS
OAM Configuration sub-TLV": OAM Configuration sub-TLV":
- "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if the CC - "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if either
and/or the CV OAM Function flag is set. This sub-TLV carries the CC, the CV or both OAM Function flags being set in the OAM
additional sub-TLVs, failure to include the correct sub-TLVs MUST Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260]. This sub-TLV carries additional
result in an error being generated: "OAM Problem/Configuration sub-TLVs, failure to include the correct sub-TLVs MUST result in
Error". The sub-TLVs are: an error being generated: "OAM Problem/Configuration Error". The
sub-TLVs are:
- "BFD Identifiers sub-TLV", MUST always be included. - "BFD Identifiers sub-TLV", MUST always be included.
- "Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV", MUST be included if - "Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV", MUST be included if
the N flag is not set. the N flag is not set.
- "BFD Authentication sub-TLV", MAY be included if the I flag - "BFD Authentication sub-TLV", MAY be included if the I flag
is set. is set.
- "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV", which MUST be included if any - "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV", which MUST be included if any
of the PM/Delay, PM/Loss or PM/Throughput flags are set in the of the PM/Delay, PM/Loss or PM/Throughput flags are set in the
"OAM Function Flag sub-TLV". This sub-TLV MAY carry additional "OAM Function Flag sub-TLV" [RFC7260]. This sub-TLV MAY carry
sub-TLVs: additional sub-TLVs:
- "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" MAY be included if the PM/Loss OAM - "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" MAY be included if the PM/Loss OAM
Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" is not Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" is not
included, default configuration values are used. The same sub- included, default configuration values are used. The same sub-
TLV MAY also be included in case the PM/Throughput OAM Function TLV MAY also be included in case the PM/Throughput OAM Function
flag is set and there is the need to specify measurement flag is set and there is the need to specify measurement
interval different from the default ones. Since throughput interval different from the default ones. Since throughput
measurements use the same tool as loss measurements the same measurements use the same tool as loss measurements the same
TLV is used. TLV is used.
skipping to change at page 9, line 49 skipping to change at page 9, line 50
default configuration values are used. default configuration values are used.
Following are some additional rules of processing MPLS OAM Following are some additional rules of processing MPLS OAM
Configuration sub-TLV: Configuration sub-TLV:
- MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e. have no Value. - MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e. have no Value.
Then its Length MUST be 8. Then all OAM functions that have their Then its Length MUST be 8. Then all OAM functions that have their
corresponding flags set in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST corresponding flags set in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST
be assigned their default values or left disabled. be assigned their default values or left disabled.
- sub-TLV that doesn't have corresponding flag set MUST be - Sub-TLV that doesn't have corresponding flag set MUST be
silently ignored; silently ignored.
- if multiple copies of a sub-TLV are present, then only the first
- If multiple copies of a sub-TLV are present, then only the first
sub-TLV MUST be used and the remaining sub-TLVs MUST be silently sub-TLV MUST be used and the remaining sub-TLVs MUST be silently
ignored. ignored.
However, not all the values can be derived from the standard RSVP-TE However, not all the values can be derived from the standard RSVP-TE
objects, in particular the locally assigned Tunnel ID at the egress objects, in particular the locally assigned Tunnel ID at the egress
cannot be derived by the ingress node. Therefore, the full LSP MEP- cannot be derived by the ingress node. Therefore, the full LSP MEP-
ID used by the ingress has to be carried in the "BFD Identifiers sub- 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 TLV" in the Path message and the egress LSP MEP-ID in the same way in
the Resv message. the Resv message.
3.2.1. CV Flag Rules of Use 3.2.1. CV Flag Rules of Use
If the CV flag is set, then the CC flag MUST be set as well because If the CV flag is set in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260],
performing Connectivity Verification implies performing Continuity then the CC flag MUST be set as well because performing Connectivity
Check as well. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in Verification implies performing Continuity Check as well. The format
[RFC6428]. In order to perform Connectivity Verification the CV/CC of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [RFC6428]. In order to
message MUST contain the ?LSP MEP-ID? in addition to the BFD Control perform Connectivity Verification the CV/CC message MUST contain the
packet information. The "LSP MEP-ID" contains four identifiers: "LSP MEP-ID" in addition to the BFD Control packet information. The
"LSP MEP-ID" contains four identifiers:
MPLS-TP Global_ID MPLS-TP Global_ID
MPLS-TP Node Identifier MPLS-TP Node Identifier
Tunnel_Num Tunnel_Num
LSP_Num LSP_Num
These values need to be correctly set by both ingress and egress when These values need to be correctly set by both ingress and egress when
skipping to change at page 26, line 15 skipping to change at page 26, line 15
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The signaling of OAM related parameters and the automatic The signaling of OAM related parameters and the automatic
establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security
considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473]. In particular, a considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473]. In particular, a
network element could be overloaded if an attacker were to request network element could be overloaded if an attacker were to request
high frequency liveliness monitoring of a large number of LSPs, high frequency liveliness monitoring of a large number of LSPs,
targeting a single network element as discussed in [RFC7260] and targeting a single network element as discussed in [RFC7260] and
[RFC6060]. [RFC6060].
Additional discussion of security for MPLS and GMPLS protocols can be
found in [RFC5920].
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
skipping to change at page 27, line 23 skipping to change at page 27, line 26
6428, November 2011. 6428, November 2011.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014. (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[LSP-PING-CONF] [LSP-PING-CONF]
Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., Drake, J., and P. Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., Drake, J., and P.
Skoldstrom, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Skoldstrom, "Configuration of proactive MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions Using LSP Ping", 2014, <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp- Functions Using LSP Ping", 2014, <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-
ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf>. ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009. Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011. RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6375] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6375] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6375, September 2011. RFC 6375, September 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 58 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/