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/