[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6371

MPLS Working Group                                         I. Busi (Ed)
Internet Draft                                           Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Informational                    B. Niven-Jenkins (Ed)
                                                                     BT
                                                          D. Allan (Ed)
                                                               Ericsson

Expires: June 2010                                     December 3, 2009



                           MPLS-TP OAM Framework
                  draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-03.txt


                            Status of this Memo


   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.





Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


Abstract

   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is
   based on a profile of the MPLS and pseudowire (PW) procedures as
   specified in the MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE), pseudowire (PW)
   and multi-segment PW (MS-PW) architectures complemented with
   additional Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
   procedures for fault, performance and protection-switching management
   for packet transport applications that do not rely on the presence of
   a control plane.

   This document describes a framework to support a comprehensive set of
   OAM procedures that fulfills the MPLS-TP OAM requirements [12].

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.





























Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction..................................................5
      1.1. Contributing Authors.....................................5
      1.2. Editors Issues...........................................6
   2. Conventions used in this document.............................8
      2.1. Terminology..............................................8
      2.2. Definitions..............................................9
   3. Functional Components........................................11
      3.1. Maintenance Entity and Maintenance Entity Group.........12
      3.2. MEG End Points (MEPs)...................................15
      3.3. MEG Intermediate Points (MIPs)..........................18
      3.4. Server MEPs.............................................19
      3.5. Path Segment Tunnels and Tandem Connection Monitoring...20
   4. Reference Model..............................................20
      4.1. MPLS-TP Section Monitoring..............................22
      4.2. MPLS-TP LSP End-to-End Monitoring.......................23
      4.3. MPLS-TP LSP Path Segment Tunnel Monitoring..............24
      4.4. MPLS-TP PW Monitoring...................................26
      4.5. MPLS-TP MS-PW Path Segment Tunnel Monitoring............26
   5. OAM Functions for proactive monitoring.......................27
      5.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification..........28
         5.1.1. Defects identified by CC-V.........................29
         5.1.2. Consequent action..................................30
         5.1.3. Configuration considerations.......................31
         5.1.4. Applications for proactive CC-V....................32
      5.2. Remote Defect Indication................................33
         5.2.1. Configuration considerations.......................33
         5.2.2. Applications for Remote Defect Indication..........34
      5.3. Alarm Reporting.........................................34
      5.4. Lock Reporting..........................................35
      5.5. Packet Loss Monitoring..................................35
         5.5.1. Configuration considerations.......................36
         5.5.2. Applications for Packet Loss Monitoring............36
      5.6. Client Signal Failure Indication........................37
         5.6.1. Configuration considerations.......................37
         5.6.2. Applications for Client Signal Failure Indication..37
      5.7. Delay Measurement.......................................38
         5.7.1. Configuration considerations.......................38
         5.7.2. Applications for Delay Measurement.................39
   6. OAM Functions for on-demand monitoring.......................39
      6.1. Connectivity Verification...............................39
         6.1.1. Configuration considerations.......................40
      6.2. Packet Loss Monitoring..................................41
         6.2.1. Configuration considerations.......................41
         6.2.2. Applications for On-demand Packet Loss Monitoring..41
      6.3. Diagnostic..............................................41


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


      6.4. Route Tracing...........................................42
      6.5. Delay Measurement.......................................43
         6.5.1. Configuration considerations.......................43
         6.5.2. Applications for Delay Measurement.................44
      6.6. Lock Instruct...........................................44
   7. Security Considerations......................................44
   8. IANA Considerations..........................................44
   9. Acknowledgments..............................................45
   10. References..................................................46
      10.1. Normative References...................................46
      10.2. Informative References.................................46





































Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


Editors' Note:

   This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF
   Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF
   Last Call.

   [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and
   insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published
   RFC has IETF Consensus.]

1. Introduction

   As noted in [8], MPLS-TP defines a profile of the MPLS-TE and (MS-)PW
   architectures defined in RFC 3031 [2], RFC 3985 [5] and [7] which is
   complemented with additional OAM mechanisms and procedures for alarm,
   fault, performance and protection-switching management for packet
   transport applications.

   In line with [13], existing MPLS OAM mechanisms will be used wherever
   possible and extensions or new OAM mechanisms will be defined only
   where existing mechanisms are not sufficient to meet the
   requirements.

   The MPLS-TP OAM framework defined in this document provides a
   comprehensive set of OAM procedures that satisfy the MPLS-TP OAM
   requirements [12]. In this regard, it defines similar OAM
   functionality as for existing SONET/SDH and OTN OAM mechanisms (e.g.
   [16]).

   The MPLS-TP OAM framework is applicable to both LSPs and (MS-)PWs and
   supports co-routed and bidirectional p2p transport paths as well as
   unidirectional p2p and p2mp transport paths.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

1.1. Contributing Authors

   Dave Allan, Italo Busi, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Annamaria Fulignoli,
   Enrique Hernandez-Valencia, Lieven Levrau, Dinesh Mohan, Vincenzo
   Sestito, Nurit Sprecher, Huub van Helvoort, Martin Vigoureux, Yaacov
   Weingarten, Rolf Winter




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


1.2. Editors Issues

Editor's Note:

   This section is to be removed prior to submission to the RFC editor.

   1) ME architecture needs further discussion/clarification

   Agreement (call 24 November):

      o Co-routed bidirectional p2p transport entity: one bidirectional
        ME

      o Associated bidirectional p2p transport entity: two
        unidirectional MEs

      o Unidirectional p2p transport entity: one unidirectional ME

      o Unidirectional p2mp (with N leaves) transport entity: N
        unidirectional ME

   Clarify that in a p2mp transport entity all the traffic (including
   OAM packets) is sent (multicast) from the root to all the leaves. As
   a consequence:

      o To send an OAM packet to all leaves, it is required to send a
        single OAM packet that will be delivered by the forwarding plane
        to all the leaves and processed by all the leaves.

      o To send an OAM packet to a single leaf, it is required to send a
        single OAM packet that will be delivered by the forwarding plane
        to all the leaves and processed only by the target leaf and
        ignored by the other leaves.

      o In order to send an OAM packet to M leaves (i.e., a subset of
        all the leaves), the current working assumption is to send M
        different (multicast) OAM packets targeted to each individual
        leaf in the group of M leaves. Better mechanisms are under
        investigation and might be added in future versions of this
        draft.

   2) Use of terms LTCME and PTCME, should these be genericised for
      PSTs.

   Agreement (call 24 November): the editors of the framework document
   will make sure that the framework document is aligned with the



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   decision to use the term PST. This document will be aligned with this
   decision.

   3) CV refers to using an ME ID for misbranching detection. This does
      not align with p2mp LSPs where a CV would then be required to
      carry all the MEs in the MEG.

   Agreement (call 24 November): we are going to use the term MEG ID in
   the document. ME ID has been used in older versions of the document
   and its use is legacy.

   For pro-active CC-V (both p2p and p2mp), the globally unique MEP ID
   information needs to be carried: section on pro-active CC-V needs to
   be updated accordingly.

   4) Discussions of PW monitoring and PW tandem connection monitoring
      seem to be rendered out of scope by the layering decision at
      Hiroshima.

   Discussion points (call 24 November) - No agreement reached on this
   issue

   PW OAM architecture: based on the architecture defined in this
   document using MEP and MIPs

   PW TCM concept: just a specific application of the architecture of
   the TP-LSP (1:1 mapped with the monitored PW) carrying a PW segment
   in the MS-PW architecture.

   Generic clarifications (to be added) [terminology based on RFC 5654]:

        o before a TCM is setup, we can have a concatenated LSP
           segment. After the TCM (that is a TP-LSP) is setup, we have a
           single LSP segment between the TCM end-points;

        o before a TCM is setup, we can have a concatenated PW segment.
           After the TCM (that is a TP-LSP) is setup, we have a single
           PW segment between the TCM end-points.

   Problems with PW TCM are the implications of removing S-PEs from the
   PW path. Need further discussion. It is not obvious to Dave that
   removing an LSR from a path can be done hitlessly either ... by
   slipping a PST under it ...

   Action (Italo): check which requirements cannot be met if PW TCM
   between non-adjacent PEs cannot be supported and whether this is a
   showstopper issue or not.


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Action (Italo): describe the PW TCM as an LSP and circulate the
   description to the mailing list for review. If needed, another call
   will be setup to finalize the discussion.

   5) Concerns have been raised against the idea of having MIPs capable
      to generate spontaneous messages. AIS/Lock Indication packets are
      generated by the adaptation functions. This point needs
      clarifying.

   6) Presence or absence of MIPs is a bizarre point. At least one MIP
      in every node is addressed by TTL, and gaps in the enablement of
      MIPs would produce spurious test results. A convention of "MIPs
      exist at any node on a transport path that has a return path to a
      source MEP" would make sense vs. discussing manual
      enable/disable/configuration of MIPs.

   Note - the annotated text ("If the set of MIPs is actually sparse
   (i.e. not every hop is a MIP), then it has to be intermediate nodes
   to do some operations") needs further clarification.

   7) Discussions in Hiroshima and subsequent calls have suggested use
      of alternative return paths "if available", not all of which will
      be GAL/GACH encapsulated? This point needs clarifying.

   8) Data plane loopback

   Action (17 November): check on the mailing list (both ITU-T and IETF
   to get inputs from both types of operators).

   9) Review the draft to check that all the known implications related
      to the support of p2mp transport paths have been described.

   10)Given layering discussion in Hiroshima, it is not very clear
      whether MPLS TP is a sub layer network within the MPLS layer
      network or a layer network by its own. This issue should be
      resolved in the context of the MPLS TP Framework draft but has
      impacts on this draft as well.

2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1].

2.1. Terminology

   AC   Attachment Circuit


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   DBN  Domain Border Node

   FDI  Forward Defect Indication

   LER  Label Edge Router

   LME  LSP Maintenance Entity

   LSP  Label Switched Path

   LSR  Label Switch Router

   LPSTME LSP packet segment tunnel ME

   ME   Maintenance Entity

   MEG  Maintenance Entity Group

   MEP  Maintenance Entity Group End Point

   MIP  Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point

   PHB  Per-hop Behavior

   PME  PW Maintenance Entity

   PPSTME PW path segment tunnel ME

   PST  Path Segment Tunnel

   PSN  Packet Switched Network

   PW   Pseudowire

   SLA  Service Level Agreement

   SME  Section Maintenance Entity

2.2. Definitions

   Note - the definitions in this section are intended to be in line
   with ITU-T recommendation Y.1731 in order to have a common,
   unambiguous terminology. They do not however intend to imply a
   certain implementation but rather serve as a framework to describe
   the necessary OAM functions for MPLS-TP.




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Domain Border Node (DBN): An LSP intermediate MPLS-TP node (LSR) that
   is at the boundary of an MPLS-TP OAM domain. Such a node may be
   present on the edge of two domains or may be connected by a link to
   an MPLS-TP node in another OAM domain.

   Maintenance Entity (ME): Some portion of a transport path that
   requires management bounded by two points, and the relationship
   between those points to which maintenance and monitoring operations
   apply (details in section 3.1).

   Maintenance Entity Group (MEG): The set of one or more maintenance
   entities that maintain and monitor a transport path in an OAM domain.

   MEP: A MEG end point (MEP) is capable of initiating (MEP Source) and
   terminating (MEP Sink) OAM messages for fault management and
   performance monitoring. MEPs reside at the boundaries of an ME
   (details in section 3.2).

   MEP Source: A MEP acts as MEP source for an OAM message when it
   originates and inserts the message into the transport path for its
   associated MEG.

   MEP Sink: A MEP acts as a MEP sink for an OAM message when it
   terminates and processes the messages received from its associated
   MEG.

   MIP: A MEG intermediate point (MIP) terminates and processes OAM
   messages and may generate OAM messages in reaction to received OAM
   messages. It never generates unsolicited OAM messages itself. A MIP
   resides within an MEG between MEPs (details in section 3.2).

   OAM domain: A domain, as defined in [11], whose entities are grouped
   for the purpose of keeping the OAM confined within that domain.

   Note - within the rest of this document the term "domain" is used to
   indicate an "OAM domain"

   OAM flow: Is the set of all OAM messages originating with a specific
   MEP that instrument one direction of a MEG.

   OAM information element: An atomic piece of information exchanged
   between MEPs in MEG used by an OAM application.

   OAM Message: One or more OAM information elements that when exchanged
   between MEPs or between MEPs and MIPs performs some OAM functionality
   (e.g. connectivity verification)



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   OAM Packet: A packet that carries one or more OAM messages (i.e. OAM
   information elements).

   Path: See Transport Path

   Signal Fail: A condition declared by a MEP when the data forwarding
   capability associated with a transport path has failed, e.g. loss of
   continuity.

   Tandem Connection: A tandem connection is an arbitrary part of a
   transport path that can be monitored (via OAM) independent of the
   end-to-end monitoring (OAM). The tandem connection may also include
   the forwarding engine(s) of the node(s) at the boundaries of the
   tandem connection.

   This document uses the terms defined in RFC 5654 [11].

   This document uses the term 'Per-hop Behavior' as defined in [14].

3. Functional Components

   MPLS-TP defines a profile of the MPLS and PW architectures ([2], [5]
   and [7]) that is designed to transport service traffic where the
   characteristics of information transfer between the transport path
   endpoints can be demonstrated to comply with certain performance and
   quality guarantees. In order to verify and maintain these performance
   and quality guarantees, there is a need to not only apply OAM
   functionality on a transport path granularity (e.g. LSP or MS-PW),
   but also on arbitrary parts of transport paths, defined as Tandem
   Connections, between any two arbitrary points along a path.

   In order to describe the required OAM functionality, this document
   introduces a set of high-level functional components. [Note -
   discussion in Munich -tues concluded that TCM not possible with PWs -
   can monitor a single PW segment - but attempting to monitor more than
   one segment converts the PW into an LSP and therefore the intervening
   SPEs are unable to see the PW as a PW due to the differences in how
   OAM flows are disambiguated.] [editors: if true this IMO is a huge
   problem as the one place I would really want TCM is a multi-domain
   MS-PW, else I have to control plane peer at two layers, pending
   resolution of discussion item 4 in section 1.2]

   When a control plane is not present, the management plane configures
   these functional components. Otherwise they can be configured either
   by the management plane or by the control plane.




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   These functional components should be instantiated when the path is
   created by either the management plane or by the control plane (if
   present). Some components may be instantiated after the path is
   initially created (e.g. PST).

   [Dave: are we discussing the same issue for LSP PSTs as for PWs, an
   S-PE cannot easily be removed, certainly not hitlessly, how is an LSP
   different?]

3.1. Maintenance Entity and Maintenance Entity Group

   MPLS-TP OAM operates in the context of Maintenance Entities (MEs)
   that are a relationship between two points of a point to point
   transport path or a root and a leaf of a point to multipoint
   transport path to which maintenance and monitoring operations apply.
   These two points are called Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) End Points
   (MEPs). In between these two points zero or more intermediate points,
   called Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs), MAY exist
   and can be shared by more than one ME in a MEG.

   The MEPs that form an MEG are configured and managed to limit the
   scope of an OAM flow within the MEG that the MEPs belong to (i.e.
   within the domain of the transport path or segment, in the specific
   sub-layer of the MPLS layer network, that is being monitored and
   managed). A misbranching fault may cause OAM packets to be delivered
   to a MEP that is not in the MEG of origin.

   The abstract reference model for an ME with MEPs and MIPs is
   described in Figure 1 below:


                            +-+    +-+    +-+    +-+
                            |A|----|B|----|C|----|D|
                            +-+    +-+    +-+    +-+

                   Figure 1 ME Abstract Reference Model

   The instantiation of this abstract model to different MPLS-TP
   entities is described in section 4. In this model, nodes A, B, C and
   D can be LER/LSR for an LSP or the {S|T}-PEs for a MS-PW. MEPs reside
   in nodes A and D while MIPs reside in nodes B and C. The links
   connecting adjacent nodes can be physical links, or sub-layer
   LSPs/PSTs.

   This functional model defines the relationships between all OAM
   entities from a maintenance perspective, to allow each Maintenance



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Entity to monitor and manage the layer network under its
   responsibility and to localize problems efficiently.

   [Editor's note - MEG are sub-layers. Need to check the document for
   consistency with this agreement]

   An MPLS-TP maintenance entity group can cover either the whole end-
   to-end path or a path segment tunnel supporting some portion of the
   transport path. A Maintenance Entity Group may be defined to monitor
   the transport path for fault and/or performance management.

   In case of associated bi-directional paths, two independent
   Maintenance Entities are defined to independently monitor each
   direction. This has implications for transactions that terminate at
   or query a MIP as a return path from MIP to source MEP does not exist
   in a unidirectional ME.

   The following properties apply to all MPLS-TP MEGs:

   o They can be nested but not overlapped, e.g. an MEG may cover a
      segment or a concatenated segment of another MEG, and may also
      include the forwarding engine(s) of the node(s) at the edge(s) of
      the segment or concatenated segment, but all its MEPs and MIPs are
      no longer part of the encompassing MEG. It is possible that MEPs
      of nested MEGs reside on a single node.

   o Each OAM flow is associated with a single Maintenance Entity
      Group.

   o OAM packets that instrument a particular direction of an LSP are
      subject to the same forwarding treatment (i.e. fate share) as the
      data traffic and in some cases may be required to have common
      queuing discipline E2E with the class of traffic monitored. OAM
      packets can be distinguished from the data traffic using the GAL
      and ACH constructs [9] for LSP and Section or the ACH construct
      [6]and [9] for (MS-)PW.

   [Editor's note: A key point in the definition of an ME is the end-
   points are defined by location of the logical function MEP

   Later in the framework we will discuss the precision with which we
   can identify the location of a MEP/MIP i.e, ingress i/f, egress i/f
   or node.

   We need to distinguish between the point of interception of an OAM
   msg and the point where the action takes place.



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Action: look at the text in the framework document regarding the
   location of the functional components (MEPs and MIPs).]

   [Editors' note: Somewhere we need to distinguish between the OAM
   control function and the OAM measurement function. i.e. we set up a
   loop back (a control function, in which case the OAM message may be
   intercepted and actioned anywhere convenient), and the measurement
   function (i.e. looping the packet to determine that it reached a
   particular part of the network) which needs to be actioned at a
   precisely know and stipulated point in the network/equipment.

   Action (Dave) - add some text on the subject.]

   Note that not all functionality / processing of an OAM pkt needs to
   take place at the point of measurement. [editors: this comment is not
   clear. For discussion during revision call]

   [Editors' note - Address this comment while addressing the control
   and measurement issue above.

   We considered that an OAM function can be decomposed into the
   following components

   - Instruction or command

   - Execution

   - Addressing (node, interface etc) is ttl/LSP enough - do we need
      sub-addressing to cause execution on a specific component in the
      node - i.e. egress interface

   - Response via OAM

   - Reporting to mgt interface]

   [Editor's note: the MPLS-TP framework will describe how it is
   possible to inject OAM packets on intermediate nodes. We need to
   describe how this capability is used within the OAM framework and to
   reference to the MPLS-TP framework for the description of this
   capability]

   Another OAM construct is referred to as Maintenance Entity Group,
   which is a collection of one or more MEs that belongs to the same
   transport path and that are maintained and monitored as a group.

   A use case for an MEG with more than one ME is point-to-multipoint
   OAM. The reference model for the p2mp MEG is represented in Figure 2.


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009



                                                 +-+
                                              /--|D|
                                             /   +-+
                                          +-+
                                       /--|C|
                            +-+    +-+/   +-+\   +-+
                            |A|----|B|        \--|E|
                            +-+    +-+\   +-+    +-+
                                       \--|F|
                                          +-+

                   Figure 2 Reference Model for p2mp MEG

   In case of p2mp transport paths, the OAM operations are independent
   for each ME (A-D, A-E and A-F):

   o Fault conditions - some faults may impact more than one ME
      depending from where the failure is located

   o Packet loss - packet dropping may impact more than one ME
      depending from where the packets are lost

   o Packet delay - depending on different paths

   Each leaf (i.e. D, E and F) terminates OAM flows to monitor the ME
   from itself and the root while the root (i.e. A) generates OAM
   messages common to all the MEs of the p2mp MEG. Nodes B and C MAY
   implement a MIP in the corresponding MEG.

3.2. MEG End Points (MEPs)

   MEG End Points (MEPs) are the source and sink points of an MEG. In
   the context of an MPLS-TP LSP, only LERs can implement MEPs while in
   the context of a path segment tunnel (PST) both LERs and LSRs can
   implement MEPs that contribute to the overall monitoring
   infrastructure for the transport path. Regarding MPLS-TP PW, only T-
   PEs can implement MEPs while for PSTs supporting a PW both T-PEs and
   S-PEs can implement MEPs. In the context of MPLS-TP Section, any
   MPLS-TP NE can implement a MEP.

   [Munich: See note about PW Tandem monitoring earlier, and whether a
   PW can be a tandem connection - for further discussion (discussion
   point 4 in section 1.2)]

   MEPs are responsible for activating and controlling all of the OAM
   functionality for the MEG. A MEP is capable of originating and


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   terminating OAM messages for fault management and performance
   monitoring. These OAM messages are encapsulated into an OAM packet
   using the G-ACh as defined in RFC 5586 [9]: in this case the G-ACh
   message is an OAM message and the channel type indicates an OAM
   message. A MEP terminates all the OAM packets it receives from the
   MEG it belongs to. The MEG the OAM packet belongs to is inferred from
   the MPLS or PW label.[Editors: given the discussion about alternative
   return paths, is a GAL/GaCH always present ...?. For discussion on
   the IETF review calls]

   Once an MEG is configured, the operator can configure which OAM
   functions to use on the MEG but the MEPs are always enabled. A node
   at the edge of an MEG always supports a MEP.

   MEPs terminate all OAM packets received from the associated transport
   path or path segment tunnel [Editors: the PST definition in the
   framework should be augmented to clarity that the clients of a PST
   should always be LSPs or PWs]. As the MEP corresponds to the
   termination of the forwarding path for an MEG at the given sub-level,
   OAM packets never "leaks" outside of a MEG in a fault free
   implementation.

   A MEP of an MPLS-TP transport path (Section, LSP or PW) coincides
   with transport path termination and monitors it for failures or
   performance degradation (e.g. based on packet counts) in an end-to-
   end scope. Note that both MEP source and MEP sink coincide with
   transport paths' source and sink terminations.

   The MEPs of a path segment tunnel are not necessarily coincident with
   the termination of the MPLS-TP transport path (LSP or PW) and monitor
   some portion of the transport path for failures or performance
   degradation (e.g. based on packet counts) only within the boundary of
   the MEG for the path segment tunnel.

   An MPLS-TP MEP sink passes a fault indication to its client
   (sub-)layer network as a consequent action of fault detection.

   It may occur that the MEPs of a path segment tunnel are set on both
   sides of the forwarding engine such that the MEG is entirely internal
   to the node.

   Note that a MEP can only exist at the beginning and end of a
   sub-layer i.e. an LSP or PW. If we need to monitor some portion of
   that LSP or PW [editor: mention of PW in this context needs to be
   revised after agreement on discussion point 4 in section 1.2], a new
   sub-layer in the form of a path segment tunnel MUST be created which
   permits MEPs and an associated MEG to be created.


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   [Editor: We need to describe the migration process for adding a path
   segment tunnel.]

   [Editor's note: Update the draft to capture the agreements below
   after the discussion points 5, 6 and 7 in section 1.2 are resolved
   (to maintain consistency):

   We have the case of a MIP sending msg to a MEP. To do this it uses
   the LSP label - i.e. the top label of the stack at that point.
   [editors: move and clarify in section 3.3 - for further discuss.

   If the set of MIPs is actually sparse (i.e. not every hop is a MIP),
   then it has to be intermediate nodes to do some operations.]

   Agreement (10 November): An intermediate node can send an OAM packet.

   Clarify that we need to provide enough bandwidth on the transport
   paths to support OAM traffic (throughout the framework document).

   From IETF point of view no distinction between MIPs and adaptation
   functions.

   Lou question about how triggered response OAM packets are sent by
   MIPs/MEPs.

   Agreement (call 17 November):

        o bidirectional co-routed: MUST support and SHOULD use the
          reverse path. It MAY use any other available return path if
          requested by the OAM message triggering the reply. Clarify
          that using the reverse path checks both forward and backward
          directions while other return paths check only the forward
          direction.

        o unidirectional p2p and p2mp: no ability to support triggered
          response OAM message unless other return paths are available

        o associated bidirectional: MEPs like co-routed; MIPs like
          unidirectional

   Agreement (call 17 November) to use as a working assumption the same
   MEP/MIP model in MS-PW OAM architecture. In order to validate this
   working assumption we need to understand how to describe the PW
   Status information: this information is propagated on a hop-by-hop
   basis between adjacent PEs using LDP (dynamic PW segments) or ACH
   Status PW (static PW segments).]



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


3.3. MEG Intermediate Points (MIPs)

   A MEG Intermediate Point (MIP) is a point between the MEPs of an MEG.

   A MIP is capable of reacting to some OAM packets and forwarding all
   the other OAM packets while ensuring fate sharing with data plane
   packets. However, a MIP does not initiate [unsolicited OAM - editors:
   this text was removed in the commented .rtf document from Munich but
   not tracked as a revision, validate this change after MIP/MEP
   discussion (discussion point 5 in section 1.2)] packets, but may be
   addressed by OAM packets initiated by one of the MEPs of the MEG. A
   MIP can generate OAM packets only in response to OAM packets that are
   sent on the MEG it belongs to.

   An intermediate node within a point-to-point MEG can either:

   o not support MPLS-TP OAM (i.e. no MIPs per node)

   o support per-node MIP (i.e. a single MIP per node)

   o support per-interface MIP (i.e. two MIPs per node on both sides of
      the forwarding engine)

   [Editor's note - Need to describe MIPs for p2mp MEGs]

   [Editor's note - Add a Figure to describe how the two options can be
   support]

   A node at the edge of an MEG can also support a MEP and a
   per-interface MIP at the two sides of the forwarding engine.

   When sending an OAM packet to a MIP, the source MEP should set the
   TTL field to indicate the number of hops necessary to reach the node
   where the MIP resides. It is always assumed that the "pipe"/"short
   pipe" model of TTL handling is used by the MPLS transport profile.

   The source MEP should also include Target MIP information in the OAM
   packets sent to a MIP to allow proper identification of the MIP
   within the node. The MEG the OAM packet is associated with is
   inferred from the MPLS label.

   Once an MEG is configured, the operator can enable/disable the MIPs
   on the nodes within the MEG. [Editors': review this paragraph after
   discussion point 6 in section 1.2 is resolved]





Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


3.4.  Server MEPs

   A server MEP is a MEP of an MEG that is either:

   o defined in a layer network that is "below", which is to say
      encapsulates and transports the MPLS-TP layer network being
      referenced, or

   o defined in a sub-layer of the MPLS-TP layer network that is
      "below" which is to say encapsulates and transports the sub-layer
      being referenced.

   A server MEP can coincide with a MIP or a MEP in the client (MPLS-TP)
   layer network.

   [Editors' note: review the text above pending discussion of whether
   MPLS-TP is a sub-layer network within the MPLS layer network or a
   layer network by its own (discussion point 10 in section 1.2)]

   A server MEP also interacts with the client/server adaptation
   function between the client (MPLS-TP) (sub-)layer network and the
   server (sub-)layer network. The adaptation function maintains state
   on the mapping of MPLS-TP transport paths that are setup over that
   server layer's transport path.

   For example, a server MEP can be either:

   o A termination point of a physical link (e.g. 802.3), an SDH VC or
      OTN ODU, for the MPLS-TP Section layer network, defined in section
      4.1;

   o An MPLS-TP Section MEP for MPLS-TP LSPs, defined in section 4.2;

   o An MPLS-TP LSP MEP for MPLS-TP PWs, defined in section 4.4;

   o An MPLS-TP PST MEP for higher-level PSTs, defined in section 4.3;

   o An MPLS-TP PW Tandem Connection MEP for higher-level PTCMEs,
      defined in section 4.5. [Editor: update this bullet after the
      discussion on PW TCM (discussion point 4 in section 1.2)]

   The server MEP can run appropriate OAM functions for fault detection
   within the server (sub-)layer network, and provides a fault
   indication to its client MPLS-TP layer network. Server MEP OAM
   functions are outside the scope of this document.




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


3.5. Path Segment Tunnels and Tandem Connection Monitoring

   Path segment tunnels (PSTs) are instantiated to provide monitoring of
   a portion of a set of co-routed transport paths. Path segment tunnels
   can also be employed to meet the requirement to provide tandem
   connection monitoring (TCM).

   TCM for a given portion of a transport path is implemented by first
   creating a path segment tunnel that that has a 1:1 association with
   portion of the transport path that is to be uniquely monitored. This
   means there is direct correlation between all FM and PM information
   gathered for the PST AND the monitored portion of the E2E path. The
   PST is monitored using normal LSP monitoring.

   There are a number of implications to this approach:

   1) The PST would use the uniform model of EXP code point copying
      between sub-layers for diffserv such that the E2E markings and
      PHB treatment for the transport path was preserved by the PST.

   2) The PST would use the pipe model for TTL handling such that MIP
      addressing for the E2E entity would be not be impacted by the
      presence of the PST.

   3) PM statistics need to be adjusted for the encapsulation overhead
      of the additional PST sub-layer.

4. Reference Model

   The reference model for the MPLS-TP framework builds upon the concept
   of an MEG, and its associated MEPs and MIPs, to support the
   functional requirements specified in [12].

   The following MPLS-TP MEGs are specified in this document:

   o A Section Maintenance Entity Group (SME), allowing monitoring and
      management of MPLS-TP Sections (between MPLS LSRs).

   o A LSP Maintenance Entity Group (LME), allowing monitoring and
      management of an end-to-end LSP (between LERs).

   o A PW Maintenance Entity Group (PME), allowing monitoring and
      management of an end-to-end SS/MS-PWs (between T-PEs).

   o A PST Maintenance Entity Group (PSTME), allowing monitoring and
      management of a path segment tunnel (between any LERs/LSRs along
      an LSP).


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   o A MS-PW Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity (PTCME), allowing
      monitoring and management of a PW Tandem Connection (between any
      T-PEs/S-PEs along the (MS-)PW) [Editors': update this bullet after
      resolution of PW TCM discussion (discussion point 4 in section
      1.2]

   The MEGs specified in this MPLS-TP framework are compliant with the
   architecture framework for MPLS-TP MS-PWs [7] and LSPs [2].

   Hierarchical LSPs are also supported in the form of path segment
   tunnels. In this case, each LSP Tunnel in the hierarchy is a
   different sub-layer network that can be monitored, independently from
   higher and lower level LSP tunnels in the hierarchy, on an end-to-end
   basis (from LER to LER) by a PSTME. It is possible to monitor a
   portion of a hierarchical LSP by instantiating a hierarchical PSTME
   between any LERs/LSRs along the hierarchical LSP.


    Native  |<------------------- MS-PW1Z ------------------->|  Native
    Layer   |                                                 |   Layer
   Service  |    |<-PSN13->|    |<-PSN3X->|    |<-PSNXZ->|    |  Service
    (AC1)   V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V   (AC2)
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
   +----+   |TPE1|   | |   |SPE3|         |SPEX|   | |   |TPEZ|   +----+
   |    |   |    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |   |    |
   | CE1|---|........PW13.......|...PW3X..|........PWXZ.......|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |   |    |
   +----+   | 1  |   |2|   | 3  |         | X  |   |Y|   | Z  |   +----+
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
            .                   .         .                   .
            |                   |         |                   |
            |<---- Domain 1 --->|         |<---- Domain Z --->|
            ^------------------- PW1Z  PME -------------------^
            ^---- PW13 PPSTME---^         ^---- PWXZ PPSTME---^
                 ^---------^                   ^---------^
                  PSN13 LME                     PSNXZ LME

                 ^---^ ^---^    ^---------^    ^---^ ^---^
                 Sec12 Sec23       Sec3X       SecXY SecYZ
                  SME   SME         SME         SME   SME

   TPE1: Terminating Provider Edge 1    SPE2: Switching Provider Edge 3
   TPEX: Terminating Provider Edge X    SPEZ: Switching Provider Edge Z

   ^---^ ME   ^     MEP  ====   LSP      .... PW

           Figure 3 Reference Model for the MPLS-TP OAM Framework


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Figure 3 depicts a high-level reference model for the MPLS-TP OAM
   framework. The figure depicts portions of two MPLS-TP enabled network
   domains, Domain 1 and Domain Z. In Domain 1, LSR1 is adjacent to LSR2
   via the MPLS Section Sec12 and LSR2 is adjacent to LSR3 via the MPLS
   Section Sec23. Similarly, in Domain Z, LSRX is adjacent to LSRY via
   the MPLS Section SecXY and LSRY is adjacent to LSRZ via the MPLS
   Section SecYZ. In addition, LSR3 is adjacent to LSRX via the MPLS
   Section 3X.

   Figure 3 also shows a bi-directional MS-PW (PW1Z) between AC1 on TPE1
   and AC2 on TPEZ. The MS-PW consists of three bi-directional PW
   Segments: 1) PW13 segment between T-PE1 and S-PE3 via the bi-
   directional PSN13 LSP, 2) PW3X segment between S-PE3 and S-PEX, via
   the bi-directional PSN3X LSP, and 3) PWXZ segment between S-PEX and
   T-PEZ via the bi-directional PSNXZ LSP.

   The MPLS-TP OAM procedures that apply to an MEG of a given transport
   path are expected to operate independently from procedures on other
   MEGs of the same transport path and certainly MEGs of other transport
   paths. Yet, this does not preclude that multiple MEGs may be affected
   simultaneously by the same network condition, for example, a fiber
   cut event.

   Note that there are no constrains imposed by this OAM framework on
   the number, or type (p2p, p2mp, LSP or PW), of MEGs that may be
   instantiated on a particular node. In particular, when looking at
   Figure 3, it should be possible to configure one or more MEPs on the
   same node if that node is the endpoint of one or more MEGs.

   Figure 3 does not describe a PW3X PPSTME because typically PSTs are
   used to monitor an OAM domain (like PW13 and PWXZ PPSTMEs) rather
   than the segment between two OAM domains. However the OAM framework
   does not pose any constraints on the way PSTs are instantiated as
   long as they are not overlapping.

   The subsections below define the MEGs specified in this MPLS-TP OAM
   architecture framework document. Unless otherwise stated, all
   references to domains, LSRs, MPLS Sections, LSPs, pseudowires and
   MEGs in this section are made in relation to those shown in Figure 3.

4.1. MPLS-TP Section Monitoring

   An MPLS-TP Section ME (SME) is an MPLS-TP maintenance entity intended
   to an MPLS Section as defined in [11]. An SME may be configured on
   any MPLS section. SME OAM packets must fate share with the user data
   packets sent over the monitored MPLS Section.



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   An SME is intended to be deployed for applications where it is
   preferable to monitor the link between topologically adjacent (next
   hop in this layer network) MPLS (and MPLS-TP enabled) LSRs rather
   than monitoring the individual LSP or PW segments traversing the MPLS
   Section and the server layer technology does not provide adequate OAM
   capabilities.


            |<------------------- MS-PW1Z ------------------->|
            |                                                 |
            |    |<-PSN13->|    |<-PSN3X->|    |<-PSNXZ->|    |
            V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
   +----+   |TPE1|   | |   |SPE3|         |SPEX|   | |   |TPEZ|   +----+
   |    |AC1|    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |AC2|    |
   | CE1|---|........PW13.......|...PW3X..|.......PWXZ........|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |   |    |
   +----+   | 1  |   |2|   | 3  |         | X  |   |Y|   | Z  |   +----+
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
                 ^--^  ^--^     ^---------^    ^---^ ^---^
                 Sec12 Sec23       Sec3X       SecXY SecYZ
                 SME   SME         SME         SME   SME

          Figure 4 Reference Example of MPLS-TP Section MEs (SME)

   Figure 4 shows 5 Section MEs configured in the path between AC1 and
   AC2:

   1. Sec12 ME associated with the MPLS Section between LSR 1 and LSR 2,

   2. Sec23 ME associated with the MPLS Section between LSR 2 and LSR 3,

   3. Sec3X ME associated with the MPLS Section between LSR 3 and LSR X,

   4. SecXY ME associated with the MPLS Section between LSR X and LSR Y,
      and

   5. SecYZ ME associated with the MPLS Section between LSR Y and LSR Z.

4.2. MPLS-TP LSP End-to-End Monitoring

   An MPLS-TP LSP ME (LME) is an MPLS-TP maintenance entity intended to
   monitor an end-to-end LSP between two LERs. An LME may be configured
   on any MPLS LSP. LME OAM packets must fate share with user data
   packets sent over the monitored MPLS-TP LSP.




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   An LME is intended to be deployed in scenarios where it is desirable
   to monitor an entire LSP between its LERs, rather than, say,
   monitoring individual PWs.

            |<------------------- MS-PW1Z ------------------->|
            |                                                 |
            |    |<-PSN13->|    |<-PSN3X->|    |<-PSNXZ->|    |
            V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
   +----+   |TPE1|   | |   |SPE3|         |SPEX|   | |   |TPEZ|   +----+
   |    |AC1|    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |AC2|    |
   | CE1|---|........PW13.......|...PW3X..|........PWXZ.......|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |   |    |
   +----+   | 1  |   |2|   | 3  |         | X  |   |Y|   | Z  |   +----+
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
                 ^---------^                   ^---------^
                  PSN13 LME                     PSNXZ LME

                Figure 5 Examples of MPLS-TP LSP MEs (LME)

   Figure 5 depicts 2 LMEs configured in the path between AC1 and AC2:
   1) the PSN13 LME between LER 1 and LER 3, and 2) the PSNXZ LME
   between LER X and LER Y. Note that the presence of a PSN3X LME in
   such a configuration is optional, hence, not precluded by this
   framework. For instance, the SPs may prefer to monitor the MPLS-TP
   Section between the two LSRs rather than the individual LSPs.

4.3. MPLS-TP LSP Path Segment Tunnel Monitoring

   An MPLS-TP LSP Path Segment Tunnel ME (LPSTME) is an MPLS-TP
   maintenance entity intended to monitor an arbitrary part of an LSP
   between a given pair of LSRs independently from the end-to-end
   monitoring (LME). An LPSTMEE can monitor an LSP segment or
   concatenated segment and it may also include the forwarding engine(s)
   of the node(s) at the edge(s) of the segment or concatenated segment.

   Multiple LPSTMEs MAY be configured on any LSP. The LSRs that
   terminate the LPSTME may or may not be immediately adjacent at the
   MPLS-TP layer. LPSTME OAM packets must fate share with the user data
   packets sent over the monitored LSP segment.

   A LPSTME can be defined between the following entities:

   o LER and any LSR of a given LSP.

   o Any two LSRs of a given LSP.



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   An LPSTME is intended to be deployed in scenarios where it is
   preferable to monitor the behaviour of a part of an LSP or set of
   LSPs rather than the entire LSP itself, for example when there is a
   need to monitor a part of an LSP that extends beyond the
   administrative boundaries of an MPLS-TP enabled administrative
   domain.


            |<--------------------- PW1Z -------------------->|
            |                                                 |
            |    |<--------------PSN1Z LSP-------------->|    |
            |    |<-PSN13->|    |<-PSN3X->|    |<-PSNXZ->|    |
            V    V  S-LSP  V    V  S-LSP  V    V  S-LSP  V    V
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
   +----+   | PE1|   | |   |DBN3|         |DBNX|   | |   | PEZ|   +----+
   |    |AC1|    |=======================================|    |AC2|    |
   | CE1|---|......................PW1Z.......................|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=======================================|    |   |    |
   +----+   | 1  |   |2|   | 3  |         | X  |   |Y|   | Z  |   +----+
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
            .                   .         .                   .
            |                   |         |                   |
            |<---- Domain 1 --->|         |<---- Domain Z --->|

                 ^---------^                   ^---------^
                 PSN13 LPSTME                   PSNXZ LPSTME
                 ^---------------------------------------^
                                 PSN1Z LME

   DBN: Domain Border Node

            Figure 6 MPLS-TP LSP Path Segment Tunnel ME (LPSTME)

   Figure 6 depicts a variation of the reference model in Figure 3 where
   there is an end-to-end PSN LSP (PSN1Z LSP) between PE1 and PEZ. PSN1Z
   LSP consists of, at least, three LSP Concatenated Segments: PSN13,
   PSN3X and PSNXZ. In this scenario there are two separate LTCMEs
   configured to monitor the PSN1Z LSP: 1) a LPSTME monitoring the PSN13
   LSP Concatenated Segment on Domain 1 (PSN13 LPSTME), and 2) a LPSTME
   monitoring the PSNXZ LSP Concatenated Segment on Domain Z (PSNXZ
   LPSTME).

   It is worth noticing that LPSTMEs can coexist with the LME monitoring
   the end-to-end LSP and that LPSTME MEPs and LME MEPs can be
   coincident in the same node (e.g. PE1 node supports both the PSN1Z
   LME MEP and the PSN13 LPSTME MEP).



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


4.4. MPLS-TP PW Monitoring

   An MPLS-TP PW ME (PME) is an MPLS-TP maintenance entity intended to
   monitor a SS-PW or MS-PW between a pair of T-PEs. A PME MAY be
   configured on any SS-PW or MS-PW. PME OAM packets must fate share
   with the user data packets sent over the monitored PW.

   A PME is intended to be deployed in scenarios where it is desirable
   to monitor an entire PW between a pair of MPLS-TP enabled T-PEs
   rather than monitoring the LSP aggregating multiple PWs between PEs.

            |<------------------- MS-PW1Z ------------------->|
            |                                                 |
            |    |<-PSN13->|    |<-PSN3X->|    |<-PSNXZ->|    |
            V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
   +----+   |TPE1|   | |   |SPE3|         |SPEX|   | |   |TPEZ|   +----+
   |    |AC1|    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |AC2|    |
   | CE1|---|........PW13.......|...PW3X..|........PWXZ.......|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |   |    |
   +----+   | 1  |   |2|   | 3  |         | X  |   |Y|   | Z  |   +----+
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+

            ^---------------------PW1Z PME--------------------^

                       Figure 7 MPLS-TP PW ME (PME)

   Figure 7 depicts a MS-PW (MS-PW1Z) consisting of three segments:
   PW13, PW3X and PWXZ and its associated end-to-end PME (PW1Z PME).

4.5. MPLS-TP MS-PW Path Segment Tunnel Monitoring

   [Editors' note: revise this section after the discussion on PW TCM is
   closed (discussion item 4 in section 1.2)]

   An MPLS-TP MS-PW Path Segment Tunnel Monitoring ME (PPSTME) is an
   MPLS-TP maintenance entity intended to monitor an arbitrary part of
   an MS-PW between a given pair of PEs independently from the end-to-
   end monitoring (PME). A PPSTME can monitor a PW segment or
   concatenated segment and it may also include the forwarding engine(s)
   of the node(s) at the edge(s) of the segment or concatenated segment.

   Multiple PPSTMEs MAY be configured on any MS-PW. The PEs may or may
   not be immediately adjacent at the MS-PW layer. PPSTME OAM packets
   fate share with the user data packets sent over the monitored PW
   Segment.



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   A PPSTME can be defined between the following entities:

   o T-PE and any S-PE of a given MS-PW

   o Any two S-PEs of a given MS-PW. It can span several PW segments.

   A PPSTME is intended to be deployed in scenarios where it is
   preferable to monitor the behaviour of a part of a MS-PW rather than
   the entire end-to-end PW itself, for example to monitor an MS-PW
   Segment within a given network domain of an inter-domain MS-PW.

            |<------------------- MS-PW1Z ------------------->|
            |                                                 |
            |    |<-PSN13->|    |<-PSN3X->|    |<-PSNXZ->|    |
            V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V   LSP   V    V
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+
   +----+   |TPE1|   | |   |SPE3|         |SPEX|   | |   |TPEZ|   +----+
   |    |AC1|    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |AC2|    |
   | CE1|---|........PW13.......|...PW3X..|........PWXZ.......|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=========|    |=========|    |=========|    |   |    |
   +----+   | 1  |   |2|   | 3  |         | X  |   |Y|   | Z  |   +----+
            +----+   +-+   +----+         +----+   +-+   +----+

            ^---- PW1 PPSTME----^         ^---- PW5 PPSTME----^
            ^---------------------PW1Z PME--------------------^

       Figure 8 MPLS-TP MS-PW Path Segment Tunnel Monitoring (PPSTME)

   Figure 8 depicts the same MS-PW (MS-PW1Z) between AC1 and AC2 as in
   Figure 7. In this scenario there are two separate PPSTMEs configured
   to monitor MS-PW1Z: 1) a PPSTME monitoring the PW13 MS-PW Segment on
   Domain 1 (PW13 PPSTME), and 2) a PTCME monitoring the PWXZ MS-PW
   Segment on Domain Z with (PWXZ PPSTME).

   It is worth noticing that PPSTMEs can coexist with the PME monitoring
   the end-to-end MS-PW and that PPSTME MEPs and PME MEPs can be
   coincident in the same node (e.g. TPE1 node supports both the PW1Z
   PME MEP and the PW13 PPSTME MEP).

5. OAM Functions for proactive monitoring

   [Editors' note: at the beginning of each section, reference the
   section in the OAM Requirements document and explicitly list
   additional detailed requirements wrt the OAM Requirements document]





Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   In this document, proactive monitoring refers to OAM operations that
   are either configured to be carried out periodically and continuously
   or preconfigured to act on certain events such as alarm signals.

5.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

   Proactive Continuity Check functions are used to detect a loss of
   continuity defect (LOC) between two MEPs in an MEG.

   Proactive Connectivity Verification functions are used to detect an
   unexpected connectivity defect between two MEGs (e.g. mismerging or
   misconnection), as well as unexpected connectivity within the MEG
   with an unexpected MEP.

   Both functions are based on the (proactive) generation of OAM packets
   by the source MEP that are processed by the sink MEP. As a
   consequence these two functions are grouped together into Continuity
   Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-V) OAM packets.

   In order to perform pro-active Connectivity Verification function,
   each CC-V OAM packet MUST also include a globally unique Source MEP
   identifier. When used to perform only pro-active Continuity Check
   function, the CC-V OAM packet MAY not include any globally unique
   Source MEP identifier identifier. Different formats of MEP
   identifiers are defined in [10] to address different environments.
   When MPLS-TP is deployed in transport network environments where IP
   addressing is not used in the forwarding plane, the ICC-based format
   for MEP identification is used. When MPLS-TP is deployed in IP-based
   environment, the IP-based MEP identification is used.

   As a consequence, it is not possible to detect misconnections between
   two MEGs monitored only for Continuity while it is possible to detect
   any misconnection between two MEGs monitored for Continuity and
   Connectivity or between an MEG monitored for Continuity and
   Connectivity and one MEG monitored only for Continuity.

   [Editor's note - Rephrase the previous paragraph: describe the four
   cases.]

   CC-V OAM packets MUST be transmitted at a regular, operator's
   configurable, rate. The default CC-V transmission periods are
   application dependent (see section 5.1.4).

   Proactive CC-V OAM packets are transmitted with the "minimum loss
   probability PHB" within a single network operator. This PHB is
   configurable on network operator's basis. PHBs can be translated at



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   the network borders by the same function that translates it for user
   data traffic.

   [Editor's note - Describe the relation between the previous paragraph
   and the fate sharing requirement. Need to clarify also in the
   requirement document that for proactive CC-V the fate sharing is
   related to the forwarding behavior and not to the QoS behavior]

   In a bidirectional point-to-point transport path, when a MEP is
   enabled to generate pro-active CC-V OAM packets with a configured
   transmission rate, it also expects to receive pro-active CC-V OAM
   packets from its peer MEP at the same transmission rate as a common
   SLA applies to all components of the transport path. In a
   unidirectional transport path (either point-to-point or point-to-
   multipoint), only the source MEP is enabled to generate CC-V OAM
   packets and only the sink MEP is configured to expect these packets
   at the configured rate.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes not supporting MPLS-TP OAM, are
   transparent to the pro-active CC-V information and forward these pro-
   active CC-V OAM packets as regular data packets.

   It is desirable to not generate spurious alarms during initialization
   or tear down; hence the following procedures are recommended. At
   initialization, the MEP source function (generating pro-active CC-V
   packets) should be enabled prior to the corresponding MEP sink
   function (detecting continuity and connectivity defects).  When
   disabling the CC-V proactive functionality, the MEP sink function
   should be disabled prior to the corresponding MEP source function.

5.1.1. Defects identified by CC-V

   Pro-active CC-V functions allow a sink MEP to detect the defect
   conditions described in the following sub-sections. For all of the
   described defect cases, the sink MEP SHOULD notify the equipment
   fault management process of the detected defect.

5.1.1.1. Loss Of Continuity defect

   When proactive CC-V is enabled, a sink MEP detects a loss of
   continuity (LOC) defect when it fails to receive pro-active CC-V OAM
   packets from the peer MEP.

   o Entry criteria:  if no pro-active CC-V OAM packets from the peer
      MEP (i.e. with the correct globally unique Source MEP identifier)
      are received within the interval equal to 3.5 times the receiving
      MEP's configured CC-V reception period.


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   o Exit criteria: a pro-active CC-V OAM packet from the peer MEP
      (i.e. with the correct globally unique Source MEP identifier) is
      received.

5.1.1.2. Mis-connectivity defect

   When a pro-active CC-V OAM packet is received, a sink MEP identifies
   a mis-connectivity defect (e.g. mismerge, misconnection or unintended
   looping) with its peer source MEP when the received packet carries an
   incorrect globally unique Source MEP identifier.

   o Entry criteria: the sink MEP receives a pro-active CC-V OAM packet
      with an incorrect globally unique Source MEP identifier.

   o Exit criteria: the sink MEP does not receive any pro-active CC-V
      OAM packet with an incorrect globally unique Source MEP identifier
      for an interval equal at least to 3.5 times the longest
      transmission period of the pro-active CC-V OAM packets received
      with an incorrect globally unique Source MEP identifier since this
      defect has been raised. This requires the OAM message to self
      identify the CC-V periodicity as not all MEPs can be expected to
      have knowledge of all MEGs.

5.1.1.3. Period Misconfiguration defect

   If pro-active CC-V OAM packets are received with a correct globally
   unique Source MEP identifier but with a transmission period different
   than the locally configured reception period, then a CV period mis-
   configuration defect is detected.

   o Entry criteria: a MEP receives a CC-V pro-active packet with
      correct globally unique Source MEP identifier but with a Period
      field value different than its own CC-V configured transmission
      period.

   o Exit criteria: the sink MEP does not receive any pro-active CC-V
      OAM packet with a correct globally unique Source MEP identifier
      and an incorrect transmission period for an interval equal at
      least to 3.5 times the longest transmission period of the pro-
      active CC-V OAM packets received with a correct globally unique
      Source MEP identifier and an incorrect transmission period since
      this defect has been raised.

5.1.2. Consequent action

   [editors: IMO this would be better folded into the specific defect
   types, If agreed I will edit accordingly]


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   A sink MEP that detects one of the defect conditions defined in
   section 5.1.1 MUST perform the following consequent actions. Some of
   these consequent actions SHOULD be enabled/disabled by the operator
   depending upon the application used (see section 5.1.4).

   If a MEP detects an unexpected globally unique Source MEP Identifier,
   it MUST block all the traffic (including also the user data packets)
   that it receives from the misconnected transport path.

   If a MEP detects LOC defect that is not caused by a period
   mis-configuration, it SHOULD block all the traffic (including also
   the user data packets) that it receives from the transport path, if
   this consequent action has been enabled by the operator.

   It is worth noticing that the OAM requirements document [12]
   recommends that CC-V proactive monitoring is enabled on every MEG in
   order to reliably detect connectivity defects. However, CC-V
   proactive monitoring MAY be disabled by an operator on an MEG. In the
   event of a misconnection between a transport path that is pro-
   actively monitored for CC-V and a transport path which is not, the
   MEP of the former transport path will detect a LOC defect
   representing a connectivity problem (e.g. a misconnection with a
   transport path where CC-V proactive monitoring is not enabled)
   instead of a continuity problem, with a consequent wrong traffic
   delivering. For these reasons, the traffic block consequent action is
   applied even when a LOC condition occurs. This block consequent
   action MAY be disabled through configuration. This deactivation of
   the block action may be used for activating or deactivating the
   monitoring when it is not possible to synchronize the function
   activation of the two peer MEPs.

   If a MEP detects a LOC defect (section 5.1.1.1),  a mis-connectivity
   defect (section 5.1.1.2) or a period misconfiguration defect (section
   5.1.1.3), it MUST declare a signal fail condition at the transport
   path level.

   [Editor's note - Transport equipment also performs defect correlation
   (as defined in G.806) in order to properly report failures to the
   transport NMS]. The current working assumption, to be further
   investigated, is that defect correlations are outside the scope of
   this document and to be defined in ITU-T documents.]

5.1.3. Configuration considerations

   At all MEPs inside a MEG, the following configuration information
   needs to be configured when a proactive CC-V function is enabled:



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   o MEG ID; the MEG identifier to which the MEP belongs;

   o MEP-ID; the MEP's own identity inside the MEG;

   o list of peer MEPs inside the MEG. For a point-to-point MEG the
      list would consist of the single peer MEP ID from which the OAM
      packets are expected. In case of the root MEP of a p2mp MEG, the
      list is composed by all the leaf MEP IDs inside the MEG. In case
      of the leaf MEP of a p2mp MEG, the list is composed by the root
      MEP ID (i.e. each leaf MUST know the root MEP ID from which it
      expect to receive the CC-V OAM packets).

   o transmission rate; the default CC-V transmission periods are
      application dependent (see section 5.1.4)

   Note that the reception period is the same as the configured
   transmission rate.

   o PHB; it identifies the per-hop behaviour of CC-V packet. Proactive
      CC-V packets are transmitted with the "minimum loss probability
      PHB" previously configured within a single network operator. This
      PHB is configurable on network operator's basis. PHBs can be
      translated at the network borders.

   For statically provisioned transport paths the above information are
   statically configured; for dynamically established transport paths
   the configuration information are signaled via the control plane.

5.1.4. Applications for proactive CC-V

   CC-V is applicable for fault management, performance monitoring, or
   protection switching applications.

   o Fault Management: default transmission period is 1s (i.e.
      transmission rate of 1 packet/second).

   o Performance Monitoring: default transmission period is 100ms (i.e.
      transmission rate of 10 packets/second). Performance monitoring is
      only relevant when the transport path is defect free. CC-V
      contributes to the accuracy of PM statistics by permitting the
      defect free periods to be properly distinguished.

   o Protection Switching: default transmission period is 3.33ms (i.e.
      transmission rate of 300 packets/second), in order to achieve sub-
      50ms the CC-V defect entry criteria should resolve in less than
      10msec, and complete a protection switch within a subsequent
      period of 50 msec.


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   It SHOULD be possible for the operator to configure these
   transmission rates for all applications, to satisfy his internal
   requirements.

   In addition, the operator should be able to define the consequent
   action to be performed for each of these applications.

5.2. Remote Defect Indication

   The Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is an indicator that is
   transmitted by a MEP to communicate to its peer MEPs that a signal
   fail condition exists.  RDI is only used for bidirectional
   connections and is associated with proactive CC-V activation. The RDI
   indicator is piggy-backed onto the CC-V packet.

   When a MEP detects a signal fail condition (e.g. in case of a
   continuity or connectivity defect), it should begin transmitting an
   RDI indicator to its peer MEP.  The RDI information will be included
   in all pro-active CC-V packets that it generates for the duration of
   the signal fail condition's existence.

   [Editor's note - Add some forward compatibility information to cover
   the case where future OAM mechanisms that contributes to the signal
   fail detection (and RDI generation) are defined.]

   A MEP that receives the packets with the RDI information should
   determine that its peer MEP has encountered a defect condition
   associated with a signal fail.

   MIPs as well as intermediate nodes not supporting MPLS-TP OAM are
   transparent to the RDI indicator and forward these proactive CC-V
   packets that include the RDI indicator as regular data packets, i.e.
   the MIP should not perform any actions nor examine the indicator.

   When the signal fail defect condition clears, the MEP should clear
   the RDI indicator from subsequent transmission of pro-active CC-V
   packets.  A MEP should clear the RDI defect upon reception of a pro-
   active CC-V packet from the source MEP with the RDI indicator
   cleared.

5.2.1. Configuration considerations

   In order to support RDI indication, this may be a unique OAM message
   or an OAM information element embedded in a CV message. In this case
   the RDI transmission rate and PHB of the OAM packets carrying RDI
   should be the same as that configured for  CC-V.



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


5.2.2. Applications for Remote Defect Indication

   RDI is applicable for the following applications:

   o Single-ended fault management - A MEP that receives an RDI
      indication from its peer MEP, can report a far-end defect
      condition (i.e. the peer MEP has detected a signal fail condition
      in the traffic direction from the MEP that receives the RDI
      indication to the peer MEP that has sent the RDI information).

   o Contribution to far-end performance monitoring - The indication of
      the far-end defect condition is used as a contribution to the
      bidirectional performance monitoring process.

5.3. Alarm Reporting

   The Alarm Reporting function relies upon an Alarm Indication Signal
   (AIS) message used to suppress alarms following detection of defect
   conditions at the server (sub-)layer.

   o A server MEP that detects a signal fail conditions in the server
      (sub-)layer, will notify the MPLS-TP client (sub-)layer adaptation
      function, which can generate packets with AIS information in a
      direction opposite to its peers MEPs to allow the suppression of
      secondary alarms at the MEP in the client (sub-)layer.

   A server MEP is responsible for notifying the MPLS-TP layer network
   adaptation function upon fault detection in the server layer network
   to which the server MEP is associated.

   Only the client layer adaptation function at an intermediate node
   will issue MPLS-TP packets with AIS information. Upon receiving
   notification of a signal fail condition the adaptation function
   SHOULD immediately start transmitting periodic packets with AIS
   information. These periodic packets, with AIS information, continue
   to be transmitted until the signal fail condition is cleared.

   Upon receiving a packet with AIS information an MPLS-TP MEP enters an
   AIS defect condition and suppresses loss of continuity alarms
   associated with its peer MEP. A MEP resumes loss of continuity alarm
   generation upon detecting loss of continuity defect conditions in the
   absence of AIS condition.

   For example, let's consider a fiber cut between LSR 1 and LSR 2 in
   the reference network of Figure 3. Assuming that all the MEGs
   described in Figure 3 have pro-active CC-V enabled, a LOC defect is
   detected by the MEPs of Sec12 SME, PSN13 LME, PW1 PTCME and PW1Z PME,


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   however in transport network only the alarm associate to the fiber
   cut needs to be reported to NMS while all these secondary alarms
   should be suppressed (i.e. not reported to the NMS or reported as
   secondary alarms).

   If the fiber cut is detected by the MEP in the physical layer (in
   LSR2), LSR2 can generate the proper alarm in the physical layer and
   suppress the secondary alarm associated with the LOC defect detected
   on Sec12 SME. As both MEPs reside within the same node, this process
   does not involve any external protocol exchange. Otherwise, if the
   physical layer has not enough OAM capabilities to detect the fiber
   cut, the MEP of Sec12 SME in LSR2 will report a LOC alarm.

   In both cases, the MEP of Sec12 SME in LSR 2 notifies the adaptation
   function for PSN13 LME that then generates AIS packets on the PSN13
   LME in order to allow its MEP in LSR3 to suppress the LOC alarm. LSR3
   can also suppress the secondary alarm on PW13 PPSTME because the MEP
   of PW13 PPSTME resides within the same node as the MEP of PSN13 LME.
   The MEP of PW13 PPSTME in LSR3 also notifies the adaptation function
   for PW1Z PME that then generates AIS packets on PW1Z PME in order to
   allow its MEP in LSRZ to suppress the LOC alarm.

   The generation of AIS packets for each MEG in the client (sub-)layer
   is configurable (i.e. the operator can enable/disable the AIS
   generation).

   AIS packets are transmitted with the "minimum loss probability PHB"
   within a single network operator. This PHB is configurable on network
   operator's basis.

   A MIP is transparent to packets with AIS information and therefore
   does not require any information to support AIS functionality.

5.4. Lock Reporting

   To be incorporated in a future revision of this document

5.5. Packet Loss Monitoring

   Packet Loss Monitoring (LM) is one of the capabilities supported by
   the MPLS-TP Performance Monitoring (PM) function in order to
   facilitate reporting of QoS information for a transport path. LM is
   used to exchange counter values for the number of ingress and egress
   packets transmitted and received by the transport path monitored by a
   pair of MEPs.




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 35]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Proactive LM is performed by periodically sending LM OAM packets from
   a MEP to a peer MEP and by receiving LM OAM packets from the peer MEP
   (if a bidirectional transport path) during the life time of the
   transport path. Each MEP performs measurements of its transmitted and
   received packets. These measurements are then transactionally
   correlated with the peer MEP in the ME to derive the impact of packet
   loss on a number of performance metrics for the ME in the MEG. The LM
   transactions are issued such that the OAM packets will experience the
   same queuing discipline as the measured traffic while transiting
   between the MEPs in the ME.

   For a MEP, near-end packet loss refers to packet loss associated with
   incoming data packets (from the far-end MEP) while far-end packet
   loss refers to packet loss associated with egress data packets
   (towards the far-end MEP).

5.5.1. Configuration considerations

   In order to support proactive LM, the transmission rate and PHB
   associated with the LM OAM packets originating from a MEP need be
   configured as part of the LM provisioning procedures. LM OAM packets
   should be transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest packet loss
   performance among the PHB Scheduling Classes or Ordered Aggregates
   (see RFC 3260 [15]) in the monitored transport path for the relevant
   network domain(s).

5.5.2. Applications for Packet Loss Monitoring

   LM is relevant for the following applications:

   o Single or double-end performance monitoring: determination of the
      packet loss performance of a transport path for Service Level
      Agreement (SLA) verification purposes.

   o Single or double-end performance monitoring: determination of the
      packet loss performance of a PHB Scheduling Class or Ordered
      Aggregate within a transport path.

   o Contribution to service unable time. Both near-end and far-end
      packet loss measurements contribute to performance metrics such as
      near-end severely errored seconds (Near-End SES) and far-end
      severely errored seconds (Far-End SES) respectively, which
      together contribute to unavailable time, in a manner similar to
      Recommendation G.826 [19] and Recommendation G.7710 [20].





Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


5.6. Client Signal Failure Indication

   The Client Signal Failure Indication (CSF) function is used to help
   process client defects and propagate a client signal defect condition
   from the process associated with the local attachment circuit where
   the defect was detected (typically the source adaptation function for
   the local client interface) to the process associated with the far-
   end attachment circuit (typically the source adaptation function for
   the far-end client interface) for the same transmission path in case
   the client of the transmission path does not support a native
   defect/alarm indication mechanism, e.g. FDI/AIS.

   [Editor's note - The need to support this function on the LSP layer
   (and not only at the PW layer) needs to be further investigated.
   Pending discussion on MPLS-TP clients in the main framework
   document.]

   A source MEP starts transmitting a CSF indication to its peer MEP
   when it receives a local client signal defect notification via its
   local CSF function. Mechanisms to detect local client signal fail
   defects are technology specific.

   A sink MEP that has received a CSF indication report this condition
   to its associated client process via its local CSF function.
   Consequent actions toward the client attachment circuit are
   technology specific.

   Either there needs to be a 1:1 correspondence between the client and
   the MEG, or when multiple clients are multiplexed over a transport
   path, the CSF message requires additional information to permit the
   client instance to be identified.

5.6.1. Configuration considerations

   In order to support CSF indication, the CSF transmission rate and PHB
   of the CSF OAM message/information element should be configured as
   part of the CSF configuration.

5.6.2. Applications for Client Signal Failure Indication

   CSF is applicable for the following applications:

   o Single-ended fault management - A MEP that receives a CSF
      indication from its peer MEP, can report a far-end client defect
      condition (i.e. the peer MEP has been informed of local client
      signal fail condition in the traffic direction from the client to
      the peer MEP that transmitted the CSF).


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 37]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   o Contribution to far-end performance monitoring - The indication of
      the far-end defect condition may be used to account on network
      operator contribution to the bidirectional performance monitoring
      process.

   CSF supports the application described in Appendix VIII of ITU-T
   G.806 [18].

5.7. Delay Measurement

   Delay Measurement (DM) is one of the capabilities supported by the
   MPLS-TP PM function in order to facilitate reporting of QoS
   information for a transport path. Specifically, pro-active DM is used
   to measure the long-term packet delay and packet delay variation in
   the transport path monitored by a pair of MEPs.

   Proactive DM is performed by sending periodic DM OAM packets from a
   MEP to a peer MEP and by receiving DM OAM packets from the peer MEP
   (if a bidirectional transport path) during a configurable time
   interval.

   Pro-active DM can be operated in two ways:

   o One-way: a MEP sends DM OAM packet to its peer MEP containing all
      the required information to facilitate one-way packet delay and/or
      one-way packet delay variation measurements at the peer MEP. Note
      that this requires synchronized precision time at either MEP by
      means outside the scope of this framework.

   o Two-way: a MEP sends DM OAM packet with a DM request to its peer
      MEP, which replies with a DM OAM packet as a DM response. The
      request/response DM OAM packets containing all the required
      information to facilitate two-way packet delay and/or two-way
      packet delay variation measurements from the viewpoint of the
      source MEP.

5.7.1. Configuration considerations

   In order to support pro-active DM, the transmission rate and PHB
   associated with the DM OAM packets originating from a MEP need be
   configured as part of the DM provisioning procedures. DM OAM packets
   should be transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest packet loss
   performance among the PHB Scheduling Classes or Ordered Aggregates
   (see RFC 3260 [15]) in the monitored transport path for the relevant
   network domain(s).




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 38]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


5.7.2. Applications for Delay Measurement

   DM is relevant for the following applications:

   o Single or double-end performance monitoring: determination of the
      delay performance of a transport path for SLA verification
      purposes.

   o Single or double-end performance monitoring: determination of the
      delay performance of a PHB Scheduling Class or Ordered Aggregate
      within a transport path

6. OAM Functions for on-demand monitoring

   [Editors' note: at the beginning of each section, reference the
   section in the OAM Requirements document and explicitly list
   additional detailed requirements wrt the OAM Requirements document]

   In contrast to proactive monitoring, on-demand monitoring is
   initiated manually and for a limited amount of time, usually for
   operations such as e.g. diagnostics to investigate into a defect
   condition.

6.1. Connectivity Verification

   In order to preserve network resources, e.g. bandwidth, processing
   time at switches, it may be preferable to not use proactive CC-V. In
   order to perform fault management functions, network management may
   invoke periodic on-demand bursts of on-demand CV packets.

   Use of on-demand CV is dependent on the existence of a bi-directional
   MEG, because it requires the presence of a return path in the data
   plane.[Editors': needs to be revised on the basis of the return path
   discussion (discussion item 7 in section 1.2]

   [Editor's note - Clarify in the sentence above and within the
   paragraph that on-demand CV requires a return path to send back the
   reply to on-demand CV packets]

   An additional use of on-demand CV would be to detect and locate a
   problem of connectivity when a problem is suspected or known based on
   other tools.  In this case the functionality will be triggered by the
   network management in response to a status signal or alarm
   indication.

   On-demand CV is based upon generation of on-demand CV packets that
   should uniquely identify the MEG that is being checked.  The on-


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 39]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   demand functionality may be used to check either an entire MEG (end-
   to-end) or between a MEP to a specific MIP. This functionality may
   not be available for associated bidirectional paths as the MIP may
   not have a return path to the source MEP for the on-demand CV
   transaction.

   On-demand CV may generate a one-time burst of on-demand CV packets,
   or be used to invoke periodic, non-continuous, bursts of on-demand CV
   packets.  The number of packets generated in each burst is
   configurable at the MEPs, and should take into account normal packet-
   loss conditions.

   When invoking a periodic check of the MEG, the source MEP should
   issue a burst of on-demand CV packets that uniquely identifies the
   MEG being verified.  The number of packets and their transmission
   rate should be pre-configured and known to both the source MEP and
   the target MEP or MIP.  The source MEP should use the TTL field to
   indicate the number of hops necessary, when targeting a MIP and use
   the default value when performing an end-to-end check [IB => This is
   quite generic for addressing packets to MIPs and MEPs so it is better
   to move this text in section 2].  The target MEP/MIP shall return a
   reply on-demand CV packet for each packet received.  If the expected
   number of on-demand CV reply packets is not received at source MEP,
   the LOC defect state is entered.

   [Editor's note - We need to add some text for the usage of on-demand
   CV with different packet sizes, e.g. to discover MTU problems.]

6.1.1. Configuration considerations

   For on-demand CV the MEP should support the configuration of the
   number of packets to be transmitted/received in each burst of
   transmissions and their packet size. The transmission rate should be
   configured between the different nodes.

   In addition, when the CV packet is used to check connectivity toward
   a target MIP, the number of hops to reach the target MIP should be
   configured.

   The PHB of the on-demand CV packets should be configured as well.

   [Editor's note - We need to be better define the reason for such
   configuration]






Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 40]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


6.2. Packet Loss Monitoring

   On-demand Packet Loss (LM) is one of the capabilities supported by
   the MPLS-TP Performance Monitoring function in order to facilitate
   diagnostic of QoS performance for a transport path. As proactive LM,
   on-demand LM is used to exchange counter values for the number of
   ingress and egress packets transmitted and received by the transport
   path monitored by a pair of MEPs.

   On-demand LM is performed by periodically sending LM OAM packets from
   a MEP to a peer MEP and by receiving LM OAM packets from the peer MEP
   (if a bidirectional transport path) during a pre-defined monitoring
   period. Each MEP performs measurements of its transmitted and
   received packets. These measurements are then correlated evaluate the
   packet loss performance metrics of the transport path.

6.2.1. Configuration considerations

   In order to support on-demand LM, the beginning and duration of the
   LM procedures, the transmission rate and PHB associated with the LM
   OAM packets originating from a MEP must be configured as part of the
   on-demand LM provisioning procedures. LM OAM packets should be
   transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest packet loss
   performance among the PHB Scheduling Classes or Ordered Aggregates
   (see RFC 3260 [15]) in the monitored transport path for the relevant
   network domain(s).

6.2.2. Applications for On-demand Packet Loss Monitoring

   On-demand LM is relevant for the following applications:

   o Single-end performance monitoring: diagnostic of the packet loss
      performance of a transport path for SLA trouble shooting purposes.

   o Single-end performance monitoring: diagnostic of the packet loss
      performance of a PHB Scheduling Class or Ordering Aggregate within
      a transport path for QoS trouble shooting purposes.

6.3. Diagnostic

   To be incorporated in a future revision of this document

   [Editors' note: describe an OAM tool for throughput estimation (out-
   of-service): works in one-way and two-way modes]

   [Editors' note: Need further investigation about the need to support
   a data-plane loopback. If needed, which layer does have to support


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 41]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   this function (i.e. the MPLS-TP layer or its server layer?) It is
   also needed to understand whether it is needed to specify where this
   data-plane loopback takes place within the equipment]

   [Munich: Need to describe the two types of loopback - LBM/LBR and
   traffic loopback enhanced with variable sized packets in the on
   demand cases.

   One objective of diags is fault location, we need to make clear how
   we apply the tools to fault location.

   At the top of each section we need to describe the detailed
   requirements and then in the rest of the section describe how it is
   met.]

6.4. Route Tracing

   [Editors' note: The framework needs to say what you need to trace and
   not how you do it (remove the description of the solution).]

   [Editors' note: Need to investigate if we need both tracing options:
   describe why and a sketch of the two options and their properties.

   Possible reasons for both options:

   o TTL incremental tells whether the CP is correct or not

   o the second one (path discovery) is ...

   Action: check on the mailing list the need to support both modes of
   operations.]

   After e.g. provisioning an MPLS-TP LSP or for trouble shooting
   purposes, it is often necessary to trace a route covered by an ME
   from a source MEP to the sink MEP including all the MIPs in-between.
   The route tracing function is providing this functionality. Based on
   the fate sharing requirement of OAM flows, i.e. OAM packets receive
   the same forwarding treatment as data packet, route tracing is a
   basic means to perform CV and, to a much lesser degree, CC. For this
   function to work properly, a return path must be present.

   Route tracing might be implemented in different ways and this
   document does not preclude any of them. Route trace could be
   implemented e.g. by an MPLS traceroute-like function [RFC4379].
   However, route tracing should always return the full list of MIPs and
   the peer MEP in it answer(s). In case a defect exist, the route trace
   function needs to be able to detect it and stop automatically


Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 42]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   returning the incomplete list of OAM entities that it was able to
   trace.

   The configuration of the route trace function must at least support
   the setting of the trace depth (number of hops)_and the number of
   trace attempts before it gives up. Default setting need to be
   configurable by the operator, too.

6.5. Delay Measurement

   Delay Measurement (DM) is one of the capabilities supported by the
   MPLS-TP PM function in order to facilitate reporting of QoS
   information for a transport path. Specifically, on-demand DM is used
   to measure packet delay and packet delay variation in the transport
   path monitored by a pair of MEPs during a pre-defined monitoring
   period.

   On-Demand DM is performed by sending periodic DM OAM packets from a
   MEP to a peer MEP and by receiving DM OAM packets from the peer MEP
   (if a bidirectional transport path) during a configurable time
   interval.

   On-demand DM can be operated in two ways:

   o One-way: a MEP sends DM OAM packet to its peer MEP containing all
      the required information to facilitate one-way packet delay and/or
      one-way packet delay variation measurements at the peer MEP.

   o Two-way: a MEP sends DM OAM packet with a DM request to its peer
      MEP, which replies with an DM OAM packet as a DM response. The
      request/response DM OAM packets containing all the required
      information to facilitate two-way packet delay and/or two-way
      packet delay variation measurements from the viewpoint of the
      source MEP.

6.5.1. Configuration considerations

   In order to support on-demand DM, the beginning and duration of the
   DM procedures, the transmission rate and PHB associated with the DM
   OAM packets originating from a MEP need be configured as part of the
   LM provisioning procedures. DM OAM packets should be transmitted with
   the PHB that yields the lowest packet delay performance among the PHB
   Scheduling Classes or Ordering Aggregates (see RFC 3260 [15]) in the
   monitored transport path for the relevant network domain(s).





Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 43]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   In order to verify different performances between long and short
   packets (e.g., due to the processing time), it SHOULD be possible for
   the operator to configure of the on-demand OAM DM packet.

6.5.2. Applications for Delay Measurement

   DM is relevant for the following applications:

   o Single or double-end performance monitoring: determination of the
      packet delay and/or delay variation performance of a transport
      path for SLA verification purposes.

   o Single or double-end performance monitoring: determination of the
      packet delay and/or delay variation a PHB Scheduling Class or
      Ordering Aggregate within a transport path

   o Contribution to service unable time. Packet delay measurements may
      contribute to performance metrics such as near-end severely
      errored seconds (Near-End SES) and far-end severely errored
      seconds (Far-End SES), which together contribute to unavailable
      time.

6.6. Lock Instruct

   To be incorporated in a future revision of this document

7. Security Considerations

   A number of security considerations are important in the context of
   OAM applications.

   OAM traffic can reveal sensitive information such as passwords,
   performance data and details about e.g. the network topology. The
   nature of OAM data therefore suggests to have some form of
   authentication, authorization and encryption in place. This will
   prevent unauthorized access to vital equipment and it will prevent
   third parties from learning about sensitive information about the
   transport network.

   Mechanisms that the framework does not specify might be subject to
   additional security considerations.

8. IANA Considerations

   No new IANA considerations.




Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 44]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


9. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
   Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
   T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
   specification of MPLS Transport Profile.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.








































Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 45]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


10. References

10.1. Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997

   [2]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
         Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001

   [3]  Rosen, E., et al., "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
         January 2001

   [4]  Agarwal, P., Akyol, B., "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in
         Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443,
         January 2003

   [5]  Bryant, S., Pate, P., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
         (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005

   [6]  Nadeau, T., Pignataro, S., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
         Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
         Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007

   [7]  Bocci, M., Bryant, S., "An Architecture for Multi-Segment
         Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-
         arch-05 (work in progress), September 2008

   [8]  Bocci, M., et al., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
         Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06 (work in progress),
         October 2009

   [9]  Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Swallow, G., Ward, D., Aggarwal, R.,
         "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009

   [10] Swallow, G., Bocci, M., "MPLS-TP Identifiers", draft-ietf-mpls-
         tp-identifiers-00 (work in progress), November 2009

10.2. Informative References

   [11] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., sprecher, N., Ueno,
         S., "MPLS-TP Requirements", RFC 5654, September 2009

   [12] Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., Ward, D., "Requirements for OAM in
         MPLS Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-
         03 (work in progress), August 2009



Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 46]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   [13] Sprecher, N., Nadeau, T., van Helvoort, H., Weingarten, Y.,
         "MPLS-TP OAM Analysis", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00
         (work in progress), November 2009

   [14] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., Black, D., "Definition of
         the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and
         IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998

   [15] Grossman, D., "New terminology and clarifications for
         Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.

   [16] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (01/07), "Network node
         interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)", January
         2007

   [17] ITU-T Recommendation G.805 (03/00), "Generic functional
         architecture of transport networks", March 2000

   [18] ITU-T Recommendation G.806 (01/09), "Characteristics of
         transport equipment - Description methodology and generic
         functionality ", January 2009

   [19] ITU-T Recommendation G.826 (12/02), "End-to-end error
         performance parameters and objectives for international,
         constant bit-rate digital paths and connections", December 2002

   [20] ITU-T Recommendation G.7710 (07/07), "Common equipment
         management function requirements", July 2007

   [21] ITU-T Recommendation Y.2611 (06/12), " High-level architecture
         of future packet-based networks", 2006

Authors' Addresses

   Dave Allan (Editor)
   Ericsson

   Email: david.i.allan@ericsson.com


   Italo Busi (Editor)
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.com





Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 47]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Ben Niven-Jenkins (Editor)
   BT

   Email: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com


Contributing Authors' Addresses

   Annamaria Fulignoli
   Ericsson

   Email: annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com


   Enrique Hernandez-Valencia
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Enrique.Hernandez@alcatel-lucent.com


   Lieven Levrau
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Lieven.Levrau@alcatel-lucent.com


   Dinesh Mohan
   Nortel

   Email: mohand@nortel.com


   Vincenzo Sestito
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Vincenzo.Sestito@alcatel-lucent.com


   Nurit Sprecher
   Nokia Siemens Networks

   Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com







Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 48]

Internet-Draft          MPLS-TP OAM Framework            December 2009


   Huub van Helvoort
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: hhelvoort@huawei.com


   Martin Vigoureux
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Martin.Vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com


   Yaacov Weingarten
   Nokia Siemens Networks

   Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com


   Rolf Winter
   NEC

   Email: Rolf.Winter@nw.neclab.eu


























Busi et al.             Expires June 3, 2010                 [Page 49]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/