draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06.txt		draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-07.txt
	Operations and Management Area Working Group T. Mizrahi		Operations and Management Area Working Group T. Mizrahi
	Internet Draft Marvell		Internet Draft Marvell
	Intended status: Informational N. Sprecher		Intended status: Informational N. Sprecher
	Expires: September 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks		Expires: March 2013 Nokia Siemens Networks
	E. Bellagamba		E. Bellagamba
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	Y. Weingarten		Y. Weingarten
	Nokia Siemens Networks
	March 12, 2012		September 12, 2012
	An Overview of		An Overview of
	Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms		Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms
	draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06.txt		draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-07.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) is a general term		Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) is a general term
	that refers to a toolset that can be used for fault detection and		that refers to a toolset that can be used for fault detection and
	isolation, and for performance measurement. OAM mechanisms have been		isolation, and for performance measurement. OAM mechanisms have been
	defined for various layers in the protocol stack, and are used with a		defined for various layers in the protocol stack, and are used with a
	variety of protocols.		variety of protocols.
	This document presents an overview of the OAM mechanisms that have		This document presents an overview of the OAM mechanisms that have
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48		skipping to change at page 1, line 48
	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		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2012 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 29		skipping to change at page 3, line 29
	6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 24		6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 24
	7. References .................................................. 24		7. References .................................................. 24
	7.1. Normative References ................................... 24		7.1. Normative References ................................... 24
	7.2. Informative References ................................. 27		7.2. Informative References ................................. 27
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	OAM is a general term that refers to a toolset that can be used for		OAM is a general term that refers to a toolset that can be used for
	detecting, isolating and reporting connection failures or measurement		detecting, isolating and reporting connection failures or measurement
	of connection performance parameters. The term OAM has been used over		of connection performance parameters. The term OAM has been used over
	the years in several different contexts, as discussed in [OAM Def].		the years in several different contexts, as discussed in [OAM-Def].
	This term as been associated with the 3 logical abstraction layers:		This term as been associated with the 3 logical abstraction layers:
	the forwarding plane, the control plane, and the management plane. In		the forwarding plane, the control plane, and the management plane. In
	the context of this document OAM refers to Operations,		the context of this document OAM refers to Operations,
	Administration, and Maintenance. Hence, management aspects are		Administration, and Maintenance. Hence, management aspects are
	outside the scope of this document.		outside the scope of this document.
	1.1. Background		1.1. Background
	The communication of a network may be configured and maintained by		The communication of a network may be configured and maintained by
	use of various tools at different layers - these include use of a		use of various tools at different layers - these include use of a
	skipping to change at page 4, line 36		skipping to change at page 4, line 36
	ICMP Echo request, also known as Ping, as defined in [ICMPv4], and		ICMP Echo request, also known as Ping, as defined in [ICMPv4], and
	[ICMPv6]. ICMP Ping is a very simple and basic mechanism in		[ICMPv6]. ICMP Ping is a very simple and basic mechanism in
	failure diagnosis. LSP Ping is to some extent based on ICMP Ping.		failure diagnosis. LSP Ping is to some extent based on ICMP Ping.
	o IPPM:		o IPPM:
	IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) is a working group in the IETF that		IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) is a working group in the IETF that
	defined common metrics for performance measurement, as well as a		defined common metrics for performance measurement, as well as a
	protocol for measuring delay and packet loss in IP networks.		protocol for measuring delay and packet loss in IP networks.
	o MPLS:		o MPLS:
	MPLS LSP Ping, as defined in [MPLS OAM], [MPLS OAM FW] and [LSP		MPLS LSP Ping, as defined in [MPLS-OAM], [MPLS-OAM-FW] and [LSP-
	Ping], is an OAM mechanism for point to point MPLS LSPs.		Ping], is an OAM mechanism for point to point MPLS LSPs.
	o MPLS-TP:		o MPLS-TP:
	The OAM requirements for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are		The OAM requirements for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are
	defined in [MPLS-TP OAM], and the toolset is described in [TP OAM		defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], and the toolset is described in [TP-OAM-
	FW].		FW].
	o BFD:		o BFD:
	Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is defined in [BFD] as a		Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is defined in [BFD] as a
	framework for a lightweight generic OAM mechanism. The intention		framework for a lightweight generic OAM mechanism. The intention
	is to define a base mechanism that can be used with various		is to define a base mechanism that can be used with various
	encapsulation types, network environments, and in various medium		encapsulation types, network environments, and in various medium
	types.		types.
	This document summarizes the OAM mechanisms defined by the IETF. We		This document summarizes the OAM mechanisms defined by the IETF. We
	skipping to change at page 8, line 13		skipping to change at page 8, line 13
	Table 1 Summary of IETF OAM Related Standards		Table 1 Summary of IETF OAM Related Standards
	1.4. Non-IETF OAM Standards		1.4. Non-IETF OAM Standards
	In addition to the OAM mechanisms defined by the IETF, the IEEE and		In addition to the OAM mechanisms defined by the IETF, the IEEE and
	ITU-T have also defined various OAM mechanisms that focus on		ITU-T have also defined various OAM mechanisms that focus on
	Ethernet, and various other transport network environments. These		Ethernet, and various other transport network environments. These
	various mechanisms, defined by the three standard organizations, are		various mechanisms, defined by the three standard organizations, are
	often tightly coupled, and have had a mutual effect on each other.		often tightly coupled, and have had a mutual effect on each other.
	The ITU-T and IETF have both defined OAM mechanisms for MPLS LSPs,		The ITU-T and IETF have both defined OAM mechanisms for MPLS LSPs,
	[ITU-T Y.1711] and [LSP Ping]. The following OAM standards by the		[ITU-T-Y.1711] and [LSP-Ping]. The following OAM standards by the
	IEEE and ITU-T are to some extent linked to IETF OAM mechanisms		IEEE and ITU-T are to some extent linked to IETF OAM mechanisms
	listed above and are mentioned here only as reference material:		listed above and are mentioned here only as reference material:
	o OAM mechanisms for Ethernet based networks have been defined by		o OAM mechanisms for Ethernet based networks have been defined by
	both the ITU-T in [ITU-T Y.1731], and by the IEEE in [IEEE		both the ITU-T in [ITU-T-Y.1731], and by the IEEE in [IEEE-
	802.1ag]. The IEEE 802.3 standard defines OAM for one-hop Ethernet		802.1ag]. The IEEE 802.3 standard defines OAM for one-hop Ethernet
	links [IEEE 802.3ah].		links [IEEE-802.3ah].
	o The ITU-T has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs in [ITU-T Y.1711].		o The ITU-T has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs in [ITU-T-Y.1711].
	Table 2 summarizes the OAM standards mentioned in this document. This		Table 2 summarizes the OAM standards mentioned in this document. This
	document focuses on IETF OAM standards, but these non-IETF standards		document focuses on IETF OAM standards, but these non-IETF standards
	are referenced where relevant.		are referenced where relevant.
	+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+		+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
	| | Title |Standard/Draft |		| | Title |Standard/Draft |
	+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+		+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
	|ITU-T | Operation & Maintenance mechanism |[ITU-T Y.1711] |		|ITU-T | Operation & Maintenance mechanism |[ITU-T-Y.1711] |
	|MPLS OAM | for MPLS networks | |		|MPLS OAM | for MPLS networks | |
	| +--------------------------------------+---------------+		| +--------------------------------------+---------------+
	| | Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' | RFC 3429 |		| | Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' | RFC 3429 |
	| | for Multiprotocol Label Switching | |		| | for Multiprotocol Label Switching | |
	| | Architecture (MPLS) Operation and | |		| | Architecture (MPLS) Operation and | |
	| | Maintenance (OAM) Functions | |		| | Maintenance (OAM) Functions | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | Note: although this is an IETF | |		| | Note: although this is an IETF | |
	| | document, it is listed as one of the| |		| | document, it is listed as one of the| |
	| | non-IETF OAM standards, since it | |		| | non-IETF OAM standards, since it | |
	| | was defined as a complementary part | |		| | was defined as a complementary part | |
	| | of Y.1711. | |		| | of Y.1711. | |
	+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+		+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
	|ITU-T | OAM Functions and Mechanisms for |[ITU-T Y.1731] |		|ITU-T | OAM Functions and Mechanisms for |[ITU-T-Y.1731] |
	|Ethernet | Ethernet-based Networks | |		|Ethernet | Ethernet-based Networks | |
	|OAM | | |		|OAM | | |
	+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+		+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
	|IEEE | Connectivity Fault Management |[IEEE 802.1ag] |		|IEEE | Connectivity Fault Management |[IEEE-802.1ag] |
	|CFM | | |		|CFM | | |
	+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+		+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
	|IEEE | Media Access Control Parameters, |[IEEE 802.3ah] |		|IEEE | Media Access Control Parameters, |[IEEE-802.3ah] |
	|802.3 | Physical Layers, and Management | |		|802.3 | Physical Layers, and Management | |
	|link level | Parameters for Subscriber Access | |		|link level | Parameters for Subscriber Access | |
	|OAM | Networks | |		|OAM | Networks | |
	+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+		+-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
	Table 2 Non-IETF OAM Standards Mentioned in this Document		Table 2 Non-IETF OAM Standards Mentioned in this Document
	2. Basic Terminology		2. Basic Terminology
	2.1. Abbreviations		2.1. Abbreviations
	skipping to change at page 10, line 45		skipping to change at page 10, line 45
	VCCV Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification		VCCV Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
	2.2. Terminology used in OAM Standards		2.2. Terminology used in OAM Standards
	2.2.1. General Terms		2.2.1. General Terms
	A wide variety of terms is used in various OAM standards. Each of the		A wide variety of terms is used in various OAM standards. Each of the
	OAM standards listed in the reference section includes a section that		OAM standards listed in the reference section includes a section that
	defines terms relevant to that tool. A thesaurus of terminology for		defines terms relevant to that tool. A thesaurus of terminology for
	MPLS-TP terms is presented in [MPLS-TP Term], and provides a good		MPLS-TP terms is presented in [MPLS-TP-Term], and provides a good
	summary of some of the OAM related terminology.		summary of some of the OAM related terminology.
	This section presents a comparison of the terms used in various OAM		This section presents a comparison of the terms used in various OAM
	standards, without fully quoting the definition of each term. For a		standards, without fully quoting the definition of each term. For a
	formal definition of each term, refer to the references at the end of		formal definition of each term, refer to the references at the end of
	this document.		this document.
	2.2.2. OAM Maintenance Entities		2.2.2. OAM Maintenance Entities
	OAM tools are designed to monitor and manage a Maintenance Entity		OAM tools are designed to monitor and manage a Maintenance Entity
	(ME). An ME, as defined in [TP OAM FW], defines a relationship		(ME). An ME, as defined in [TP-OAM-FW], defines a relationship
	between two points of a transport path to which maintenance and		between two points of a transport path to which maintenance and
	monitoring operations apply.		monitoring operations apply.
	The following related terms are also quoted from [TP OAM FW]:		The following related terms are also quoted from [TP-OAM-FW]:
	o MEP: The two points that define a maintenance entity.		o MEP: The two points that define a maintenance entity.
	o MEG: The collection of one or more MEs that belongs to the same		o MEG: The collection of one or more MEs that belongs to the same
	transport path and that are maintained and monitored as a group		transport path and that are maintained and monitored as a group
	are known as a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG).		are known as a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG).
	o MIP: In between MEPs, there are zero or more intermediate points,		o MIP: In between MEPs, there are zero or more intermediate points,
	called Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs).		called Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs).
	A pair of MEPs engaged in an ME are connected by a communication		A pair of MEPs engaged in an ME are connected by a communication
	link, which may be one of several types of connection, e.g. a single		link, which may be one of several types of connection, e.g. a single
	physical connection, a set of physical connections, or a virtual link		physical connection, a set of physical connections, or a virtual link
	such as an MPLS LSP.		such as an MPLS LSP.
	The term Maintenance Entity (ME) is used in ITU-T Recommendations		The term Maintenance Entity (ME) is used in ITU-T Recommendations
	(e.g. [ITU-T Y.1731]), as well as in the MPLS-TP terminology ([TP OAM		(e.g. [ITU-T-Y.1731]), as well as in the MPLS-TP terminology ([TP-
	FW]). Various terms are used to refer to an ME. For example, BFD does		OAM-FW]). Various terms are used to refer to an ME. For example, BFD
	not explicitly use a term that is equivalent to ME, but rather uses		does not explicitly use a term that is equivalent to ME, but rather
	the term "session", referring to the relationship between two nodes		uses the term "session", referring to the relationship between two
	using a BFD protocol. The MPLS LSP Ping ([LSP Ping]) terminology		nodes using a BFD protocol. The MPLS LSP Ping ([LSP-Ping])
	simply uses the term "LSP" in this context.		terminology simply uses the term "LSP" in this context.
	MPLS-TP has defined the terms ME and Maintenance Entity Group (MEG)		MPLS-TP has defined the terms ME and Maintenance Entity Group (MEG)
	in [TP OAM FW], similar to the terms defined by ITU-T. A MEG allows		in [TP-OAM-FW], similar to the terms defined by ITU-T. A MEG allows
	the monitoring of a compound set of MEs, for example when monitoring		the monitoring of a compound set of MEs, for example when monitoring
	a p2mp MEG that is considered to be the set of MEs between the root		a p2mp MEG that is considered to be the set of MEs between the root
	and each individual destination MEP.		and each individual destination MEP.
	2.2.3. OAM Maintenance Points		2.2.3. OAM Maintenance Points
	A Maintenance Point (MP) is a functional entity that is defined at a		A Maintenance Point (MP) is a functional entity that is defined at a
	node in the network, and either initiates or reacts to OAM messages.		node in the network, and either initiates or reacts to OAM messages.
	A Maintenance End Point (MEP) is one of the end points of an ME, and		A Maintenance End Point (MEP) is one of the end points of an ME, and
	can initiate OAM messages and respond to them. A Maintenance		can initiate OAM messages and respond to them. A Maintenance
	skipping to change at page 12, line 18		skipping to change at page 12, line 18
	term Maintenance Point is a general term for MEPs and MIPs.		term Maintenance Point is a general term for MEPs and MIPs.
	The 802.1ag defines a finer distinction between Up MPs and Down MPs.		The 802.1ag defines a finer distinction between Up MPs and Down MPs.
	An MP is a bridge interface, that is monitored by an OAM protocol		An MP is a bridge interface, that is monitored by an OAM protocol
	either in the direction facing the network, or in the direction		either in the direction facing the network, or in the direction
	facing the bridge. A Down MP is an MP that receives OAM packets from,		facing the bridge. A Down MP is an MP that receives OAM packets from,
	and transmits them to the direction of the network. An Up MP receives		and transmits them to the direction of the network. An Up MP receives
	OAM packets from, and transmits them to the direction of the bridging		OAM packets from, and transmits them to the direction of the bridging
	entity.		entity.
	MPLS-TP ([TP OAM FW]) uses a similar distinction on the placement of		MPLS-TP ([TP-OAM-FW]) uses a similar distinction on the placement of
	the MP - either at the ingress, egress, or forwarding function of the		the MP - either at the ingress, egress, or forwarding function of the
	node (Down / Up MPs). This placement is important for localization		node (Down / Up MPs). This placement is important for localization
	of a connection failure.		of a connection failure.
	2.2.4. Proactive and On-demand activation		2.2.4. Proactive and On-demand activation
	The different OAM tools may be used in one of two basic types of		The different OAM tools may be used in one of two basic types of
	activation:		activation:
	Proactive activation - indicates that the tool is activated on		o Proactive activation - indicates that the tool is activated on a
	a continual basis periodically, where messages are sent between		continual basis periodically, where messages are sent between the
	the two MEPs, and errors are detected when a certain number of		two MEPs, and errors are detected when a certain number of
	expected messages are not received.		expected messages are not received.
	On-demand activation - indicates that the tool is activated		o On-demand activation - indicates that the tool is activated
	"manually" to detect a specific anomaly. In this activation a		"manually" to detect a specific anomaly. In this activation a
	small number of OAM messages are sent by a MEP and the reply		small number of OAM messages are sent by a MEP and the reply
	message is received.		message is received.
	2.2.5. Connectivity Verification and Continuity Checks		2.2.5. Connectivity Verification and Continuity Checks
	Two distinct classes of failure management functions are used in OAM		Two distinct classes of failure management functions are used in OAM
	protocols, connectivity verification and continuity checks. The		protocols, connectivity verification and continuity checks. The
	distinction between these terms is defined in [MPLS-TP OAM], and is		distinction between these terms is defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], and is
	used similarly in this document.		used similarly in this document.
	Continuity checks are used to verify the liveness of a connection or		Continuity checks are used to verify the liveness of a connection or
	a path between two MPs, and are typically sent proactively, though		a path between two MPs, and are typically sent proactively, though
	they can be invoked on-demand as well.		they can be invoked on-demand as well.
	A connectivity verification function allows an MP to check whether it		A connectivity verification function allows an MP to check whether it
	is connected to a peer MP or not. This function also allows the MP to		is connected to a peer MP or not. This function also allows the MP to
	verify that messages from the peer MP are received through the		verify that messages from the peer MP are received through the
	correct path, thereby verifying not only that the two MPs are		correct path, thereby verifying not only that the two MPs are
	skipping to change at page 13, line 20		skipping to change at page 13, line 20
	function can be applied proactively or on-demand.		function can be applied proactively or on-demand.
	Connectivity verification and continuity checks are considered		Connectivity verification and continuity checks are considered
	complementary mechanisms, and are often used in conjunction with each		complementary mechanisms, and are often used in conjunction with each
	other.		other.
	2.2.6. Failures		2.2.6. Failures
	The terms Failure, Fault, and Defect are used interchangeably in the		The terms Failure, Fault, and Defect are used interchangeably in the
	standards, referring to a malfunction that can be detected by a		standards, referring to a malfunction that can be detected by a
	connectivity or a continuity check. In some standards, such as [IEEE		connectivity or a continuity check. In some standards, such as [IEEE-
	802.1ag], there is no distinction between these terms, while in other		802.1ag], there is no distinction between these terms, while in other
	standards each of these terms refers to a different type of		standards each of these terms refers to a different type of
	malfunction.		malfunction.
	The terminology used in IETF MPLS-TP OAM takes after the ITU-T, which		The terminology used in IETF MPLS-TP OAM takes after the ITU-T, which
	distinguishes between these terms in [ITU-T G.806]; The term Fault		distinguishes between these terms in [ITU-T-G.806]; The term Fault
	refers to an inability to perform a required action, e.g., an		refers to an inability to perform a required action, e.g., an
	unsuccessful attempt to deliver a packet. The term Defect refers to		unsuccessful attempt to deliver a packet. The term Defect refers to
	an interruption in the normal operation, such as a consecutive period		an interruption in the normal operation, such as a consecutive period
	of time where no packets are delivered successfully. The term Failure		of time where no packets are delivered successfully. The term Failure
	refers to the termination of the required function. While a Defect		refers to the termination of the required function. While a Defect
	typically refers to a limited period of time, a failure refers to a		typically refers to a limited period of time, a failure refers to a
	long period of time.		long period of time.
	3. OAM Tools		3. OAM Tools
	3.1. ICMP Ping		3.1. ICMP Ping
	ICMP provides a connectivity verification function for the Internet		ICMP provides a connectivity verification function for the Internet
	Protocol. The originator transmits an ICMP Echo request packet, and		Protocol. The originator transmits an ICMP Echo request packet, and
	the receiver replies with an echo reply. ICMP ping is defined in two		the receiver replies with an echo reply. ICMP ping is defined in two
	variants, [ICMPv4] is used for IPv4, and [ICMPv6] is used for IPv6.		variants, [ICMPv4] is used for IPv4, and [ICMPv6] is used for IPv6.
	3.2. Traceroute		3.2. Traceroute
	Traceroute ([TCPIP Tools]) is an application that allows users to		Traceroute ([TCPIP-Tools]) is an application that allows users to
	discover the path between an IP source and an IP destination.		discover the path between an IP source and an IP destination.
	Traceroute sends a sequence of UDP packets to UDP port 33434 at the		Traceroute sends a sequence of UDP packets to UDP port 33434 at the
	destination. By default, Traceroute begins by sending three packets,		destination. By default, Traceroute begins by sending three packets,
	each with an IP Time-To-Live (TTL) value of one to the destination.		each with an IP Time-To-Live (TTL) value of one to the destination.
	These packets expire as soon as they reach the first router in the		These packets expire as soon as they reach the first router in the
	path. That router responds by sending three ICMP Time Exceeded		path. That router responds by sending three ICMP Time Exceeded
	Messages to the Traceroute application. Traceroute now sends another		Messages to the Traceroute application. Traceroute now sends another
	three UDP packets, each with the TTL value of 2. These messages cause		three UDP packets, each with the TTL value of 2. These messages cause
	the second router to return ICMP messages. This process continues,		the second router to return ICMP messages. This process continues,
	skipping to change at page 14, line 31		skipping to change at page 14, line 31
	3.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)		3.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
	3.3.1. Overview		3.3.1. Overview
	While multiple OAM mechanisms have been defined for various protocols		While multiple OAM mechanisms have been defined for various protocols
	in the protocol stack, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [BFD],		in the protocol stack, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [BFD],
	defined by the IETF BFD working group, is a generic OAM mechanism		defined by the IETF BFD working group, is a generic OAM mechanism
	that can be deployed over various encapsulating protocols, and in		that can be deployed over various encapsulating protocols, and in
	various medium types. The IETF has defined variants of the protocol		various medium types. The IETF has defined variants of the protocol
	for IP ([BFD IP], [BFD Multi]), for MPLS LSPs [BFD LSP], and for PWE3		for IP ([BFD-IP], [BFD-Multi]), for MPLS LSPs [BFD-LSP], and for PWE3
	[BFD VCCV]. The usage of BFD in MPLS-TP is defined in [MPLS-TP CC		[BFD-VCCV]. The usage of BFD in MPLS-TP is defined in [MPLS-TP-CC-
	CV].		CV].
	BFD includes two main OAM functions, using two types of BFD packets:		BFD includes two main OAM functions, using two types of BFD packets:
	BFD Control packets, and BFD Echo packets.		BFD Control packets, and BFD Echo packets.
	3.3.2. BFD Control		3.3.2. BFD Control
	BFD supports a bidirectional continuity check, using BFD control		BFD supports a bidirectional continuity check, using BFD control
	packets, that are exchanged within a BFD session. BFD sessions		packets, that are exchanged within a BFD session. BFD sessions
	operate in one of two modes:		operate in one of two modes:
	skipping to change at page 15, line 33		skipping to change at page 15, line 33
	time is a function of the negotiated transmission time, and a		time is a function of the negotiated transmission time, and a
	parameter called Detect Mult. Detect Mult determines the number of		parameter called Detect Mult. Detect Mult determines the number of
	missing BFD Control packets that cause the session to be declared as		missing BFD Control packets that cause the session to be declared as
	Down. This parameter is included in the BFD Control packet.		Down. This parameter is included in the BFD Control packet.
	3.3.3. BFD Echo		3.3.3. BFD Echo
	A BFD echo packet is sent to a peer system, and is looped back to the		A BFD echo packet is sent to a peer system, and is looped back to the
	originator. The echo function can be used proactively, or on-demand.		originator. The echo function can be used proactively, or on-demand.
	The BFD echo function has been defined in BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 ([BFD		The BFD echo function has been defined in BFD for IPv4 and IPv6
	IP]), but is not used in BFD for MPLS LSPs, PWs, or in BFD for MPLS-		([BFD-IP]), but is not used in BFD for MPLS LSPs, PWs, or in BFD for
	TP.		MPLS-TP.
	3.4. LSP Ping		3.4. LSP Ping
	The IETF MPLS working group has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs. The		The IETF MPLS working group has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs. The
	requirements and framework of this effort are defined in [MPLS OAM		requirements and framework of this effort are defined in [MPLS-OAM-
	FW] and [MPLS OAM], respectively. The corresponding OAM mechanism		FW] and [MPLS-OAM], respectively. The corresponding OAM mechanism
	defined, in this context, is LSP Ping [LSP Ping].		defined, in this context, is LSP Ping [LSP-Ping].
	LSP Ping is based on ICMP Ping and just like its predecessor may be		LSP Ping is based on ICMP Ping and just like its predecessor may be
	used in one of two modes:		used in one of two modes:
	o "Ping" mode: In this mode LSP ping is used for end-to-end		o "Ping" mode: In this mode LSP ping is used for end-to-end
	connectivity verification between two LERs.		connectivity verification between two LERs.
	o "Traceroute" mode: This mode is used for hop-by-hop fault		o "Traceroute" mode: This mode is used for hop-by-hop fault
	isolation.		isolation.
	skipping to change at page 16, line 31		skipping to change at page 16, line 31
	LSP Ping supports both asynchronous, as well as, on-demand		LSP Ping supports both asynchronous, as well as, on-demand
	activation.		activation.
	3.5. PWE3 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)		3.5. PWE3 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
	VCCV, as defined in [VCCV], provides a means for end-to-end fault		VCCV, as defined in [VCCV], provides a means for end-to-end fault
	detection and diagnostics tools to be extended for PWs (regardless of		detection and diagnostics tools to be extended for PWs (regardless of
	the underlying tunneling technology). The VCCV switching function		the underlying tunneling technology). The VCCV switching function
	provides a control channel associated with each PW (based on the PW		provides a control channel associated with each PW (based on the PW
	Associated Channel Header (ACH) which is defined in [PW ACH]), and		Associated Channel Header (ACH) which is defined in [PW-ACH]), and
	allows transmitting the OAM packets in-band with PW data (using CC		allows transmitting the OAM packets in-band with PW data (using CC
	Type 1: In-band VCCV).		Type 1: In-band VCCV).
	VCCV currently supports the following OAM mechanisms: ICMP Ping, LSP		VCCV currently supports the following OAM mechanisms: ICMP Ping, LSP
	Ping, and BFD. ICMP and LSP Ping are IP encapsulated before being		Ping, and BFD. ICMP and LSP Ping are IP encapsulated before being
	sent over the PW ACH. BFD for VCCV supports two modes of		sent over the PW ACH. BFD for VCCV supports two modes of
	encapsulation - either IP/UDP encapsulated (with IP/UDP header) or		encapsulation - either IP/UDP encapsulated (with IP/UDP header) or
	PW-ACH encapsulated (with no IP/UDP header) and provides support to		PW-ACH encapsulated (with no IP/UDP header) and provides support to
	signal the AC status. The use of the VCCV control channel provides		signal the AC status. The use of the VCCV control channel provides
	the context, based on the MPLS-PW label, required to bind and		the context, based on the MPLS-PW label, required to bind and
	skipping to change at page 17, line 12		skipping to change at page 17, line 12
	The VCCV capability negotiation may be performed as part of the PW		The VCCV capability negotiation may be performed as part of the PW
	signaling when LDP is used. In case of manual configuration of the		signaling when LDP is used. In case of manual configuration of the
	PW, it is the responsibility of the operator to set consistent		PW, it is the responsibility of the operator to set consistent
	options at both ends.		options at both ends.
	3.6. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)		3.6. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
	3.6.1. Overview		3.6.1. Overview
	The IPPM working group in the IETF defines common criteria and		The IPPM working group in the IETF defines common criteria and
	metrics for measuring performance of IP traffic ([IPPM FW]). Some of		metrics for measuring performance of IP traffic ([IPPM-FW]). Some of
	the key RFCs published by this working group have defined metrics for		the key RFCs published by this working group have defined metrics for
	measuring connectivity [IPPM Con], delay ([IPPM 1DM], [IPPM 2DM]),		measuring connectivity [IPPM-Con], delay ([IPPM-1DM], [IPPM-2DM]),
	and packet loss [IPPM 1LM].		and packet loss [IPPM-1LM].
	Alternative protocols for performance measurement are defined, for		Alternative protocols for performance measurement are defined, for
	example, in MPLS-TP OAM ([MPLS LM DM], [TP LM DM]), and in Ethernet		example, in MPLS-TP OAM ([MPLS-LM-DM], [TP-LM-DM]), and in Ethernet
	OAM [ITU-T Y.1731].		OAM [ITU-T-Y.1731].
	The IPPM working group has defined not only metrics for performance		The IPPM working group has defined not only metrics for performance
	measurement, but also protocols that define how the measurement is		measurement, but also protocols that define how the measurement is
	carried out. The One-way Active Measurement Protocol [OWAMP] and the		carried out. The One-way Active Measurement Protocol [OWAMP] and the
	Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [TWAMP] define a method and		Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [TWAMP] define a method and
	protocol for measuring delay and packet loss in IP networks.		protocol for measuring delay and packet loss in IP networks.
	OWAMP [OWAMP] enables measurement of one-way characteristics of IP		OWAMP [OWAMP] enables measurement of one-way characteristics of IP
	networks, such as one-way packet loss and one-way delay. For its		networks, such as one-way packet loss and one-way delay. For its
	proper operation OWAMP requires accurate time of day setting at its		proper operation OWAMP requires accurate time of day setting at its
	skipping to change at page 19, line 18		skipping to change at page 19, line 18
	The Session-Sender sends test packets with pseudorandom padding to		The Session-Sender sends test packets with pseudorandom padding to
	the Session-Reflector which returns them with insertion of		the Session-Reflector which returns them with insertion of
	timestamps.		timestamps.
	3.7. MPLS-TP OAM		3.7. MPLS-TP OAM
	3.7.1. Overview		3.7.1. Overview
	The MPLS working group is currently working on defining the OAM		The MPLS working group is currently working on defining the OAM
	toolset that fulfills the requirements for MPLS-TP OAM. The full set		toolset that fulfills the requirements for MPLS-TP OAM. The full set
	of requirements for MPLS-TP OAM are defined in [MPLS-TP OAM], and		of requirements for MPLS-TP OAM are defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], and
	include both general requirements for the behavior of the OAM		include both general requirements for the behavior of the OAM
	mechanisms and a set of operations that should be supported by the		mechanisms and a set of operations that should be supported by the
	OAM toolset. The set of mechanisms required are further elaborated		OAM toolset. The set of mechanisms required are further elaborated
	in [TP OAM FW], which describes the general architecture of the OAM		in [TP-OAM-FW], which describes the general architecture of the OAM
	system as well as giving overviews of the functionality of the OAM		system as well as giving overviews of the functionality of the OAM
	toolset.		toolset.
	Some of the basic requirements for the OAM toolset for MPLS-TP are:		Some of the basic requirements for the OAM toolset for MPLS-TP are:
	o MPLS-TP OAM must be able to support both an IP based and non-IP		o MPLS-TP OAM must be able to support both an IP based and non-IP
	based environment. If the network is IP based, i.e. IP routing and		based environment. If the network is IP based, i.e. IP routing and
	forwarding are available, then the MPLS-TP OAM toolset should rely		forwarding are available, then the MPLS-TP OAM toolset should rely
	on the IP routing and forwarding capabilities. On the other hand,		on the IP routing and forwarding capabilities. On the other hand,
	in environments where IP functionality is not available, the OAM		in environments where IP functionality is not available, the OAM
	skipping to change at page 20, line 18		skipping to change at page 20, line 18
	o A Generic Associated Label (GAL). The GAL is a reserved MPLS label		o A Generic Associated Label (GAL). The GAL is a reserved MPLS label
	value (13) that indicates that the packet is an ACH packet and the		value (13) that indicates that the packet is an ACH packet and the
	payload follows immediately after the label stack.		payload follows immediately after the label stack.
	3.7.3. MPLS-TP OAM Toolset		3.7.3. MPLS-TP OAM Toolset
	To address the functionality that is required of the OAM toolset, the		To address the functionality that is required of the OAM toolset, the
	MPLS WG conducted an analysis of the existing IETF and ITU-T OAM		MPLS WG conducted an analysis of the existing IETF and ITU-T OAM
	mechanisms and their ability to fulfill the required functionality.		mechanisms and their ability to fulfill the required functionality.
	The conclusions of this analysis are documented in [OAM Analysis].		The conclusions of this analysis are documented in [OAM-Analysis].
	The MPLS working group currently plans to use a mixture of OAM		The MPLS working group currently plans to use a mixture of OAM
	mechanisms that are based on various existing standards, and adapt		mechanisms that are based on various existing standards, and adapt
	them to the requirements of [MPLS-TP OAM]. Some of the main building		them to the requirements of [MPLS-TP-OAM]. Some of the main building
	blocks of this solution are based on:		blocks of this solution are based on:
	o Bidirectional Forwarding Detection ([BFD], [BFD LSP]) for		o Bidirectional Forwarding Detection ([BFD], [BFD-LSP]) for
	proactive continuity check and connectivity verification.		proactive continuity check and connectivity verification.
	o LSP Ping as defined in [LSP Ping] for on-demand connectivity		o LSP Ping as defined in [LSP-Ping] for on-demand connectivity
	verification.		verification.
	o New protocol packets, using G-ACH, to address different		o New protocol packets, using G-ACH, to address different
	functionality.		functionality.
	o Performance measurement protocols that are based on the		o Performance measurement protocols that are based on the
	functionality that is described in [ITU-T Y.1731].		functionality that is described in [ITU-T-Y.1731].
	The following sub-sections describe the OAM tools defined for MPLS-TP		The following sub-sections describe the OAM tools defined for MPLS-TP
	as described in [TP OAM FW].		as described in [TP-OAM-FW].
	3.7.3.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification		3.7.3.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
	Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification are presented in		Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification are presented in
	Section 2.2.5 of this document. As presented there, these tools may		Section 2.2.5 of this document. As presented there, these tools may
	be used either proactively or on-demand. When using these tools		be used either proactively or on-demand. When using these tools
	proactively, they are generally used in tandem.		proactively, they are generally used in tandem.
	For MPLS-TP there are two distinct tools, the proactive tool is		For MPLS-TP there are two distinct tools, the proactive tool is
	defined in [MPLS-TP CC CV] while the on-demand tool is defined in		defined in [MPLS-TP-CC-CV] while the on-demand tool is defined in
	[OnDemand CV].Proactively [MPLS-TP OAM] states that the function		[OnDemand-CV].Proactively [MPLS-TP-OAM] states that the function
	should allow the MEPs to monitor the liveness and connectivity of a		should allow the MEPs to monitor the liveness and connectivity of a
	transport path. In on-demand mode, this function should support		transport path. In on-demand mode, this function should support
	monitoring between the MEPs and, in addition, between a MEP and MIP.		monitoring between the MEPs and, in addition, between a MEP and MIP.
	[TP OAM FW] highlights, when performing Connectivity Verification,		[TP-OAM-FW] highlights, when performing Connectivity Verification,
	the need for the CC-V messages to include unique identification of		the need for the CC-V messages to include unique identification of
	the MEG that is being monitored and the MEP that originated the		the MEG that is being monitored and the MEP that originated the
	message.		message.
	The proactive tool [MPLS-TP CC CV] is based on extensions to BFD (see		The proactive tool [MPLS-TP-CC-CV] is based on extensions to BFD (see
	Section 3.3) with the additional limitation that the transmission and		Section 3.3) with the additional limitation that the transmission and
	receiving rates are based on configuration by the operator. The on-		receiving rates are based on configuration by the operator. The on-
	demand tool [OnDemand CV] is an adaptation of LSP Ping (See Section		demand tool [OnDemand-CV] is an adaptation of LSP Ping (See Section
	3.4) for the required behavior of MPLS-TP.		3.4) for the required behavior of MPLS-TP.
	3.7.3.2. Route Tracing		3.7.3.2. Route Tracing
	[MPLS-TP OAM] defines that there is a need for functionality that		[MPLS-TP-OAM] defines that there is a need for functionality that
	would allow a path end-point to identify the intermediate and end-		would allow a path end-point to identify the intermediate and end-
	points of the path. This function would be used in on-demand mode.		points of the path. This function would be used in on-demand mode.
	Normally, this path will be used for bidirectional PW, LSP, and		Normally, this path will be used for bidirectional PW, LSP, and
	sections, however, unidirectional paths may be supported only if a		sections, however, unidirectional paths may be supported only if a
	return path exists. The tool for this is based on the LSP Ping (See		return path exists. The tool for this is based on the LSP Ping (See
	Section 3.4) functionality and is described in [OnDemand CV].		Section 3.4) functionality and is described in [OnDemand-CV].
	3.7.3.3. Lock Instruct		3.7.3.3. Lock Instruct
	The Lock Instruct function is used to notify a transport path end-		The Lock Instruct function is used to notify a transport path end-
	point of an administrative need to disable the transport path. This		point of an administrative need to disable the transport path. This
	functionality will generally be used in conjunction with some		functionality will generally be used in conjunction with some
	intrusive OAM function, e.g. Performance measurement, Diagnostic		intrusive OAM function, e.g. Performance measurement, Diagnostic
	testing, to minimize the side-effect on user data traffic.		testing, to minimize the side-effect on user data traffic.
	3.7.3.4. Lock Reporting		3.7.3.4. Lock Reporting
	Lock Reporting is a function used by an end-point of a path to report		Lock Reporting is a function used by an end-point of a path to report
	to its far-end end-point that a lock condition has been affected on		to its far-end end-point that a lock condition has been affected on
	the path.		the path.
	3.7.3.5. Alarm Reporting		3.7.3.5. Alarm Reporting
	Alarm Reporting is a function used by an intermediate point of a		Alarm Reporting is a function used by an intermediate point of a
	path, that becomes aware of a fault on the path, to report to the		path, that becomes aware of a fault on the path, to report to the
	end-points of the path. [TP OAM FW] states that this may occur as a		end-points of the path. [TP-OAM-FW] states that this may occur as a
	result of a defect condition discovered at a server sub-layer. This		result of a defect condition discovered at a server sub-layer. This
	generates an Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) that continues until the		generates an Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) that continues until the
	fault is cleared. The consequent action of this function is detailed		fault is cleared. The consequent action of this function is detailed
	in [TP OAM FW].		in [TP-OAM-FW].
	3.7.3.6. Remote Defect Indication		3.7.3.6. Remote Defect Indication
	Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is used proactively by a path end-		Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is used proactively by a path end-
	point to report to its peer end-point that a defect is detected on a		point to report to its peer end-point that a defect is detected on a
	bidirectional connection between them. [MPLS-TP OAM] points out that		bidirectional connection between them. [MPLS-TP-OAM] points out that
	this function may be applied to a unidirectional LSP only if there a		this function may be applied to a unidirectional LSP only if there a
	return path exists. [TP OAM FW] points out that this function is		return path exists. [TP-OAM-FW] points out that this function is
	associated with the proactive CC-V function.		associated with the proactive CC-V function.
	3.7.3.7. Client Failure Indication		3.7.3.7. Client Failure Indication
	Client Failure Indication (CFI) is defined in [MPLS-TP OAM] to allow		Client Failure Indication (CFI) is defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM] to allow
	the propagation information from one edge of the network to the		the propagation information from one edge of the network to the
	other. The information concerns a defect to a client, in the case		other. The information concerns a defect to a client, in the case
	that the client does not support alarm notification.		that the client does not support alarm notification.
	3.7.3.8. Packet Loss Measurement		3.7.3.8. Packet Loss Measurement
	Packet Loss Measurement is a function used to verify the quality of		Packet Loss Measurement is a function used to verify the quality of
	the service. This function indicates the ratio of packets that are		the service. This function indicates the ratio of packets that are
	not delivered out of all packets that are transmitted by the path		not delivered out of all packets that are transmitted by the path
	source.		source.
	skipping to change at page 24, line 33		skipping to change at page 24, line 33
	There are no new IANA considerations implied by this document.		There are no new IANA considerations implied by this document.
	6. Acknowledgments		6. Acknowledgments
	This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.		This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative References		7.1. Normative References
	[LSP Ping] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., "Detecting Multi-Protocol		[LSP-Ping] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., "Detecting Multi-Protocol
	Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,		Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
	February 2006.		February 2006.
	[MPLS OAM] Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and		[MPLS-OAM] Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and
	Matsushima, S., "Operations and Management (OAM)		Matsushima, S., "Operations and Management (OAM)
	Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS)		Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS)
	Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006.		Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006.
	[MPLS OAM FW] Allan, D., Nadeau, T., "A Framework for Multi-Protocol		[MPLS-OAM-FW] Allan, D., Nadeau, T., "A Framework for Multi-Protocol
	Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management		Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management
	(OAM)", RFC 4378, February 2006.		(OAM)", RFC 4378, February 2006.
	[OAM Label] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for		[OAM-Label] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
	Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)		Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
	Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429,		Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429,
	November 2002.		November 2002.
	[MPLS-TP OAM] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., "Requirements for		[MPLS-TP-OAM] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., "Requirements for
	OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.		OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
	[G-ACh] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., Bryant, S., "MPLS Generic		[G-ACh] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., Bryant, S., "MPLS Generic
	Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.		Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
	[VCCV] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit		[VCCV] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
	Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel		Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel
	for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.		for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
	[PW ACH] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., McPherson, D.,		[PW-ACH] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., McPherson, D.,
	"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word		"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word
	for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.		for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
	[ICMPv4] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,		[ICMPv4] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
	RFC 792, September 1981.		RFC 792, September 1981.
	[ICMPv6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control		[ICMPv6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
	Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol		Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
	Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.		Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
	[TCPIP Tools] Kessler, G., Shepard, S., "A Primer On Internet and		[TCPIP-Tools] Kessler, G., Shepard, S., "A Primer On Internet and
	TCP/IP Tools and Utilities", RFC 2151, June 1997.		TCP/IP Tools and Utilities", RFC 2151, June 1997.
	[IPPM FW] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and Mathis, M.,		[IPPM-FW] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and Mathis, M.,
	"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May		"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
	1998.		1998.
	[IPPM Con] Mahdavi, J., Paxson, V., "IPPM Metrics for Measuring		[IPPM-Con] Mahdavi, J., Paxson, V., "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
	Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.		Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
	[IPPM 1DM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way		[IPPM-1DM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
	Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.		Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
	[IPPM 1LM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way		[IPPM-1LM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
	Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September		Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September
	1999.		1999.
	[IPPM 2DM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A Round-trip		[IPPM-2DM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A Round-trip
	Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.		Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
	[OWAMP] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and		[OWAMP] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and
	Zekauskas, M., "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol		Zekauskas, M., "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
	(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.		(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
	[TWAMP] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and		[TWAMP] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
	Babiarz, J., "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol		Babiarz, J., "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
	(TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.		(TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.
	[BFD] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		[BFD] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.		(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
	[BFD IP] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		[BFD-IP] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June		(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
	2010.		2010.
	[BFD Gen] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Generic Application of		[BFD-Gen] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Generic Application of
	Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,		Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
	June 2010.		June 2010.
	[BFD Multi] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		[BFD-Multi] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.		(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.
	[BFD LSP] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow,		[BFD-LSP] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow,
	G., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS		G., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS
	Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.		Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
	[BFD VCCV] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Bidirectional Forwarding		[BFD-VCCV] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Bidirectional Forwarding
	Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit		Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
	Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June		Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June
	2010.		2010.
	[TP OAM FW] Busi, I., Allan, D., "Operations, Administration and		[TP-OAM-FW] Busi, I., Allan, D., "Operations, Administration and
	Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Transport		Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Transport
	Networks ", RFC 6371, September 2011.		Networks ", RFC 6371, September 2011.
	[MPLS-TP CC CV] Allan, D., Swallow, G., Drake, J., "Proactive		[MPLS-TP-CC-CV] Allan, D., Swallow, G., Drake, J., "Proactive
	Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote		Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
	Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile", RFC		Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile", RFC
	6428, November 2011.		6428, November 2011.
	[OnDemand CV] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., Aggarwal, R. "MPLS		[OnDemand-CV] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., Aggarwal, R. "MPLS
	On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route		On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route
	Tracing", RFC 6426, November 2011.		Tracing", RFC 6426, November 2011.
	[MPLS LM DM] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "Packet Loss and Delay		[MPLS-LM-DM] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "Packet Loss and Delay
	Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September		Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September
	2011.		2011.
	[TP LM DM] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "A Packet Loss and Delay		[TP-LM-DM] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "A Packet Loss and Delay
	Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport		Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport
	Networks", RFC 6375, September 2011.		Networks", RFC 6375, September 2011.
	[MPLS-TP Fault] Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros,		[MPLS-TP-Fault] Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros,
	S., "MPLS Fault Management Operations, Administration,		S., "MPLS Fault Management Operations, Administration,
	and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 6427, November 2011.		and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 6427, November 2011.
	[TP Lock Loop] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux,		[TP-Lock-Loop] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux,
	M., Dai, X., "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and		M., Dai, X., "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and
	Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.		Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
	[OAM Def] Andersson, L., Van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,		[OAM-Def] Andersson, L., Van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
	D., Mansfield, S., "Guidelines for the use of the OAM		D., Mansfield, S., "Guidelines for the use of the OAM
	acronym in the IETF ", RFC 6291, June 2011.		acronym in the IETF ", RFC 6291, June 2011.
	[OAM Analysis]Sprecher, N., Fang, L., "An Overview of the OAM Tool		[OAM-Analysis]Sprecher, N., Fang, L., "An Overview of the OAM Tool
	Set for MPLS based Transport Networks", work-in-		Set for MPLS based Transport Networks", RFC 6669,
	progress, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis, March 2012.		July 2012.
	[MPLS-TP Term]Van Helvoort, H., Andersson, L., Sprecher, N., "A		[MPLS-TP-Term]Van Helvoort, H., Andersson, L., Sprecher, N., "A
	Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol		Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol
	Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)		Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
	drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network		drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network
	Recommendations", work-in-progress, draft-ietf-mpls-		Recommendations", work-in-progress, draft-ietf-mpls-
	tp-rosetta-stone, January 2012.		tp-rosetta-stone, January 2012.
	[IEEE 802.1ag]"Connectivity Fault Management", December 2007.		[IEEE-802.1ag]"Connectivity Fault Management", December 2007.
	[ITU-T Y.1731]"OAM Functions and Mechanisms for Ethernet-based		[ITU-T-Y.1731]"OAM Functions and Mechanisms for Ethernet-based
	Networks", February 2008.		Networks", February 2008.
	[ITU-T Y.1711]"Operation & Maintenance mechanism for MPLS networks",		[ITU-T-Y.1711]"Operation & Maintenance mechanism for MPLS networks",
	February 2004.		February 2004.
	[IEEE 802.3ah]"Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers, and		[IEEE-802.3ah]"Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers, and
	Management Parameters for Subscriber Access Networks",		Management Parameters for Subscriber Access Networks",
	clause 57, September 2004.		clause 57, September 2004.
	[ITU-T G.806] "Characteristics of transport equipment - Description		[ITU-T-G.806] "Characteristics of transport equipment - Description
	methodology and generic functionality", January, 2009.		methodology and generic functionality", January, 2009.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Tal Mizrahi		Tal Mizrahi
	Marvell		Marvell
	6 Hamada St.		6 Hamada St.
	Yokneam, 20692		Yokneam, 20692
	Israel		Israel
	skipping to change at page 28, line 33		skipping to change at page 28, line 33
	Elisa Bellagamba		Elisa Bellagamba
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	6 Farogatan St.		6 Farogatan St.
	Stockholm, 164 40		Stockholm, 164 40
	Sweden		Sweden
	Phone: +46 761440785		Phone: +46 761440785
	Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com		Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
	Yaacov Weingarten		Yaacov Weingarten
	Nokia Siemens Networks		34 Hagefen St.
	3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B		Karnei Shomron, 4485500
	Hod Hasharon, 45241
	Israel		Israel
	Phone: +972-9-775 1827		Email: wyaacov@gmail.com
	Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com
End of changes. 86 change blocks.
	116 lines changed or deleted		115 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/