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

Versions: (draft-mizrahi-opsawg-oam-overview) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 7276

Operations and Management Area Working Group                 T. Mizrahi
Internet Draft                                                 Marvell
Intended status: Informational                           July 12, 2010
Expires: January 2011


                              An Overview of
        Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms
                   draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-01.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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010






Abstract

   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) is a general term
   that refers to detecting and reporting link failures. OAM mechanisms
   have been defined for various layers in the protocol stack, and are
   used with a variety of protocols.

   This document presents an overview of the OAM mechanisms that have
   been defined and are currently being defined by the IETF, as well as
   a comparison to other OAM mechanisms that have been defined by the
   IEEE and ITU-T.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction................................................4
   2. Conventions used in this document............................8
   3. Basic Terminology...........................................8
      3.1. Abbreviations..........................................8
      3.2. Terminology used in OAM Standards.......................9
         3.2.1. General Terms......................................9
         3.2.2. OAM Maintenance Entities...........................9
         3.2.3. OAM Maintenance Points............................10
         3.2.4. OAM Link Failures.................................10
         3.2.5. Summary of OAM Terms used in the Standards.........10
   4. OAM Functions..............................................12
      4.1. ICMP Ping.............................................12
      4.2. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)...............12
         4.2.1. Overview.........................................12
         4.2.2. BFD Control.......................................12
         4.2.3. BFD Echo.........................................13
      4.3. LSP Ping..............................................13
      4.4. PWE3 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)...13
      4.5. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)..........................14
         4.5.1. Overview.........................................14
         4.5.2. OWAMP/TWAMP Control...............................14
         4.5.3. OWAMP/TWAMP Test..................................14
      4.6. ITU-T Y.1711..........................................14
         4.6.1. Overview.........................................14
         4.6.2. Connectivity Verification (CV)....................15
         4.6.3. Fast Failure Detection (FFD)......................15
         4.6.4. Forward Defect Indication (FDI)...................15
         4.6.5. Backward Defect Indication (BDI)..................15


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


      4.7. ITU-T Y.1731..........................................16
         4.7.1. Overview.........................................16
         4.7.2. ETH-CC...........................................16
         4.7.3. ETH-LB...........................................17
         4.7.4. ETH-TST..........................................17
         4.7.5. ETH-LT...........................................17
         4.7.6. ETH-AIS..........................................17
         4.7.7. ETH-LCK..........................................17
         4.7.8. ETH-RDI..........................................18
         4.7.9. ETH-APS..........................................18
         4.7.10. ETH-LM..........................................18
         4.7.11. ETH-DM..........................................18
      4.8. IEEE 802.1ag..........................................19
         4.8.1. Overview.........................................19
         4.8.2. Continuity Check..................................19
         4.8.3. Loopback.........................................19
         4.8.4. Linktrace........................................20
      4.9. IEEE 802.3ah..........................................20
         4.9.1. Overview.........................................20
         4.9.2. Remote Failure Indication.........................20
         4.9.3. Remote Loopback...................................20
         4.9.4. Link Monitoring...................................20
      4.10. MPLS-TP OAM..........................................20
         4.10.1. Overview........................................20
         4.10.2. Continuity Checks................................21
         4.10.3. Connectivity Verification........................21
         4.10.4. Diagnostic Tests.................................21
         4.10.5. Route Tracing....................................22
         4.10.6. Lock Instruct....................................22
         4.10.7. Lock Reporting...................................22
         4.10.8. Alarm Reporting..................................22
         4.10.9. Remote Defect Indication.........................22
         4.10.10. Client Failure Indication.......................22
         4.10.11. Packet Loss Measurement.........................22
         4.10.12. Packet Delay Measurement........................22
      4.11. Summary of OAM Functions..............................22
      4.12. Summary of Unidirectional Connectivity Check Mechanisms24
   5. Security Considerations.....................................25
   6. IANA Considerations........................................25
   7. Acknowledgments............................................25
   8. References.................................................25
      8.1. Normative References...................................25
      8.2. Informative References.................................28






Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


1. Introduction

   OAM is a general term that refers to detecting and reporting link
   failures and defects. The term OAM has been used over the years in
   several different contexts, as discussed in [OAM Soup]. In the
   context of this document OAM refers to Operations, Administration,
   and Maintenance, i.e., this document refers to OAM in the context of
   monitoring communication links. Other aspects associated with the OAM
   acronym, such as management, are not described in this document.

   OAM was originally used in the world of telephony, and has been
   adopted in packet based networks. OAM mechanisms are used in various
   layers in the protocol stack, and are applied to a variety of
   different protocols.

   The IETF has defined OAM for several protocols, and is currently
   working on defining several new OAM protocols. A summary of these
   protocols, old and new, is listed below:

   o MPLS LSP Ping, as defined in [LSP Ping] is an OAM mechanism for
      point to point MPLS LSPs. The IETF is currently working on an
      extension to the LSP Ping for point to multipoint MPLS - [P2MP
      Ping].

   o Virtual Circuit Connectivity Check (VCCV) for Pseudowires, as
      defined in [VCCV].

   o ICMP Echo request, also known as Ping, as defined in [ICMPv4], and
      [ICMPv6]. ICMP Ping is a very simple and basic mechanism in
      failure diagnosis, and is not traditionally associated with OAM,
      but it is presented in this document for the sake of completeness,
      since both LSP Ping and VCCV are to some extent based on ICMP
      Ping.

   o Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is a family of standards
      that are currently being defined by the IETF. BFD is intended to
      be a generic OAM mechanism that can be used with various
      encapsulation types, and in various medium types.

   o OAM for MPLS-TP is currently being defined in the MPLS working
      group.








Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   o IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) is a working group in the IETF that
      defined common metrics for performance measurement, as well as a
      protocol for measuring delay and packet loss in IP networks.
      While performance measurement is not directly related to link
      failures, it is often associated with OAM. Alternative protocols
      for performance measurement are defined, for example, in MPLS-TP
      OAM [MPLS-TP OAM], and in Ethernet OAM [ITU-T Y.1731].

   In addition to the OAM mechanisms defined by the IETF, the IEEE and
   ITU-T have also defined various OAM mechanisms. These various
   mechanisms defined by the three standard organizations are often
   tightly coupled, and have had a mutual effect on each other. For
   example, the emerging MPLS-TP OAM is in many ways based on [ITU-T
   Y.1731]. The ITU-T and IETF have both defined OAM mechanisms for MPLS
   LSPs, [ITU-T Y.1711] and [LSP Ping]. The following OAM standards by
   the IEEE and ITU-T are to some extent linked to IETF OAM mechanisms
   listed above, and are also discussed in this document:

   o OAM mechanisms for Ethernet based networks have been defined by
      both the ITU-T in [ITU-T Y.1731], and by the IEEE in [IEEE
      802.1ag]. The IEEE 802.3 standard defines OAM for one-hop Ethernet
      links [IEEE 802.3ah].

   o The ITU-T has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs in [ITU-T Y.1711].

   This document summarizes the OAM mechanisms defined in the standards
   above. The focus is on OAM mechanisms defined by the IETF, compared
   with the relevant OAM mechanisms defined by the ITU-T and IEEE. We
   first present a comparison of the terminology used in various OAM
   standards, and then summarize the OAM functions that each OAM
   standard provides.

   Table 1 summarizes the OAM standards discussed in this document.

   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Title                                |Standard       |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ICMPv4 Ping| Internet Control Message Protocol    | RFC 792       |
   |           |                                      |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ICMPv6 Ping| Internet Control Message Protocol    | RFC 4443      |
   |           | (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol   |               |
   |           | Version 6 (IPv6) Specification       |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |BFD        | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5880      |


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5881      |
   |           | (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop) |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Generic Application of Bidirectional | RFC 5882      |
   |           | Forwarding Detection                 |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5883      |
   |           | (BFD) for Multihop Paths             |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5884      |
   |           | for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5885      |
   |           | for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit   |               |
   |           | Connectivity Verification (VCCV)     |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |IETF MPLS  | Operations and Management (OAM)      | RFC 4377      |
   |OAM        | Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label|               |
   |(LSP Ping) | Switched (MPLS) Networks             |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | A Framework for Multi-Protocol       | RFC 4378      |
   |           | Label Switching (MPLS) Operations    |               |
   |           | and Management (OAM)                 |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Detecting Multi-Protocol Label       | RFC 4379      |
   |           | Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures  |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Operations and Management (OAM)      | RFC 4687      |
   |           | Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint |               |
   |           | MPLS Networks                        |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |PW VCCV    | Pseudowire Virtual Circuit           | RFC 5085      |
   |           | Connectivity Verification (VCCV):    |               |
   |           | A Control Channel for Pseudowires    |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |IPPM       | Framework for IP Performance Metrics | RFC 2330      |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | IPPM Metrics for Measuring           | RFC 2678      |
   |           | Connectivity                         |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   |           | A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM      | RFC 2679      |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM| RFC 2680      |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM   | RFC 2681      |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | A One-way Active Measurement Protocol| RFC 4656      |
   |           | (OWAMP)                              |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol| RFC 5357      |
   |           | (TWAMP)                              |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ITU-T      | Operation & Maintenance mechanism    |[ITU-T Y.1711] |
   |MPLS OAM   | for MPLS networks                    |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label'  | RFC 3429      |
   |           | for Multiprotocol Label Switching    |               |
   |           | Architecture (MPLS) Operation and    |               |
   |           | Maintenance (OAM) Functions          |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ITU-T      | OAM Functions and Mechanisms for     |[ITU-T Y.1731] |
   |Ethernet   | Ethernet-based Networks              |               |
   |OAM        |                                      |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |MPLS-TP    | Requirements for OAM in MPLS         | RFC 5860      |
   |OAM        +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | MPLS Generic Associated Channel      | RFC 5586      |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |IEEE       | Connectivity Fault Management        |[IEEE 802.1ag] |
   |CFM        |                                      |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |IEEE       | Media Access Control Parameters,     |[IEEE 802.3ah] |
   |802.3      | Physical Layers, and Management      |               |
   |link level | Parameters for Subscriber Access     |               |
   |OAM        | Networks                             |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
                     Table 1 Summary of OAM Standards







Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


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 [KEYWORDS].

3. Basic Terminology

3.1. Abbreviations

   AIS    Alarm Indication Signal

   APS    Automatic Protection Switching

   BDI    Backward Defect Indication

   BFD    Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   CC     Continuity Check

   CCM    Continuity Check Message

   CV     Connectivity Verification

   DM     Delay Measurement

   DTE    Data Terminal Equipment

   FDI    Forward Defect Indication

   FFD    Fast Failure Detection

   ICMP   Internet Control Message Protocol

   L2TP   Layer Two Tunneling Protocol

   LCCE   L2TP Control Connection Endpoint

   LM     Loss Measurement

   LSP    Label Switching Path

   LSR    Label Switching Router

   MA     Maintenance Association

   ME     Maintenance Entity


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   MEG    Maintenance Entity Group

   MEP    Maintenance End Point

   MIP    Maintenance Intermediate Point

   MP     Maintenance Point

   MPLS   Multiprotocol Label Switching

   MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile

   OAM    Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   PE     Provider Edge

   PW     Pseudowire

   PWE3   Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge

   RDI    Remote Defect Indication

   TTSI   Trail Termination Source Identifier

   VCCV   Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification

3.2. Terminology used in OAM Standards

3.2.1. General Terms

   A wide variety of terms is used in various OAM standards. Each of the
   OAM standards listed in the reference section includes a section that
   defines the relevant terms. A thesaurus of terminology for MPLS-TP
   terms is presented in [MPLS-TP Term], and provides a good summary of
   some of the OAM related terminology.

   This section presents a comparison of the terms used in various OAM
   standards, without fully quoting the definition of each term. For a
   formal definition of each term, refer to the references at the end of
   this document. The comparison focuses on three basic terms, and is
   summarized in section 3                             ..2.5.

3.2.2. OAM Maintenance Entities

   A Maintenance Entity (ME) can be either a point-to-point or a point-
   to-multipoint relationship between two or more Maintenance Points.



Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   The connectivity between these Maintenance Points is mangaged and
   monitored by the OAM protocol.

   The term Maintenance Entity (ME) is defined in ITU-T standards (e.g.
   [ITU-T Y.1731]). Various terms are used to refer to an ME. For
   example, in MPLS terminology, an ME is simply referred to as an LSP.
   BFD does not explicitly use a term that is equivalent to ME, but
   rather uses the term "session", referring to the relationship between
   two nodes using a BFD protocol.

3.2.3. OAM Maintenance Points

   A Maintenance Point (MP) is a node that uses an OAM protocol. A
   Maintenance End Point (MEP) is one of the end points of an ME. A
   Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP) is a point between two MEPs,
   that is able to respond to OAM frames, but does not initiate them.

   The terms MEP and MIP are defined in ITU-T standards (e.g. [ITU-T
   Y.1731]). The term Maintenance Point is a general term for MEPs and
   MIPs, and is used in [IEEE 802.1ag].

3.2.4. OAM Link Failures

   The terms Failure, Fault, and Defect are intermittently used in the
   standards. In some standards, such as [IEEE 802.1ag], there is no
   distinction between these terms, while in other standards each of
   these terms refers to a different type of malfunction.

   The ITU-T distinguishes between these terms in [ITU-T G.806]. The
   term Fault refers to an inability to perform a required action, e.g.,
   an unsuccessful attempt to deliver a packet. The term Defect refers
   to an interruption in the normal operation, such as a consecutive
   period of time where no packets are delivered successfully. The term
   Failure refers to the termination of the required function. While a
   Defect typically refers to a limited period of time, a failure refers
   to a long period of time.

3.2.5. Summary of OAM Terms used in the Standards

   Table 2 provides a comparison of the terminology used in different
   OAM standards.

   +-----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
   |           |Maintenance  |Maintenance|Link Failure Terminology    |
   |           |Point        |Entity     |                            |
   |           |Terminology  |Terminology|                            |


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   +-----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
   |ICMPv4 Ping|-Host        |           |                            |
   |           |-Gateway     |           |                            |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |ICMPv6 Ping| Node        |           |                            |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |BFD        | System      | Session   |-Failure                    |
   |           |             |           |-Session is declared down   |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |LSP Ping   | LSR         | LSP       |-Failure                    |
   |           |             |           |-Fault = typically a local  |
   |           |             |           | isolated failure           |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |PW VCCV    |-PE          | PW        |-Failure                    |
   |           |-LCCE        |           |-Fault                      |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |IPPM       |-Host        |-Path      | Connectivity is indicated  |
   |           |-End system  |-Measuremen| by a Boolean value. Thus,  |
   |           |             | t session | a failure is referred to as|
   |           |             |           | a path with a measurement  |
   |           |             |           | value "false".             |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |ITU-T      | LSR         | LSP       |-Fault, Defect, Failure: as |
   |Y.1711     |             |           | defined in [ITU-T G.806]   |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |ITU-T      |-MEP         | ME        |-Fault, Defect, Failure: as |
   |Y.1731     |-MIP         |           | defined in [ITU-T G.806]   |
   |           |             |           |                            |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |MPLS-TP    |-End Point   |-LSP       |-Fault, Defect, Failure: as |
   |OAM        |-Intermediate|-PW        | defined in [ITU-T G.806]   |
   |           |Point        |-Section   |                            |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |IEEE       |-MEP         | ME        |-Failure                    |
   |802.1ag    |-MIP         |           |-Fault                      |
   |           |-MP          |           |-Defect                     |
   + --------- + ----------- + --------- + -------------------------- +
   |IEEE       | DTE         | Link      |-Failure                    |
   |802.3ah    |             |           |-Fault                      |
   +-----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
                       Table 2 Summary of OAM Terms


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4. OAM Functions

4.1. ICMP Ping

   ICMP provides a bidirectional connectivity check for the Internet
   Protocol. The originator transmits an echo request packet, and the
   receiver replies with an echo reply. ICMP ping is defined in two
   variants, [ICMPv4] is used for IPv4, and [ICMPv6] is used for IPv6.

4.2. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)

4.2.1. Overview

   While multiple OAM mechanisms have been defined for various protocols
   in the protocol stack, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [BFD],
   defined by the IETF BFD working group, is a generic OAM mechanism
   that can be deployed over various encapsulating protocols, and in
   various medium types. The IETF has defined variants of the protocol
   for IP ([BFD IP], [BFD Multi]), for MPLS LSPs [BFD LSP], and for PWE3
   [BFD VCCV]. BFD for MPLS-TP is currently evolving in the MPLS working
   group (e.g. [MPLS-TP Ping BFD]).

   BFD includes two main OAM functions, using two types of BFD packets:
   BFD Control packets, and BFD Echo packets.

4.2.2. BFD Control

   BFD supports a unidirectional connectivity check, using BFD control
   packets. BFD control packets are be sent in one of two modes:

   o Asynchronous mode: in this mode BFD control packets are sent
      periodically. When the receiver detects that no BFD control packet
      have been received during a predetermined period of time, a
      failure is detected.

   o Demand mode: in this mode, BFD control packets are sent on-demand.
      Upon need, a system initiates a series of BFD control packets to
      verify the link. BFD control packets are sent independently in
      each direction of the link.

   The transmission interval of BFD packets that are sent periodically,
   is a result of negotiation between the two systems. Each BFD Control
   packet includes the desired transmission interval, and the desired
   reception interval, allowing the two systems to agree on common
   intervals.




Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   If no BFD Control packets are received during a fixed period of time
   called the Detection Time, the session is declared to be down. The
   detection time is a function of the negotiated transmission time, and
   a parameter called Detect Mult. Detect Mult determines the number of
   missing BFD Control packets that cause the session to be declared as
   down. This parameter is included in the BFD Control packet.

   The BFD Control packet also includes two fields that specify the
   transmitting and receiving systems, called My Discriminator and Your
   Discriminator, respectively.

4.2.3. BFD Echo

   The echo function is a bidirectional connectivity check. A BFD echo
   packet is sent to a peer system, and is looped back to the
   originator. The echo function can be used proactively, or on-demand.

4.3. LSP Ping

   The IETF MPLS working group has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs. The
   requirements and framework of this effort was defined in [MPLS OAM
   FW] and [MPLS OAM], respectively. The corresponding OAM mechanism
   that was defined in this context is LSP Ping [LSP Ping]. LSP ping is
   used to detect data plain failures in MPLS LSPs. The transmitting LSR
   sends an echo request to a remote LSR, and in turn receives an echo
   reply. LSP ping is used in one of two modes:

   o "Ping" mode: In this mode LSP ping is used for end-to-end
      connectivity verification between two LSRs.

   o "Traceroute" mode: This mode is used for hop-by-hop fault
      localization.

4.4. PWE3 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)

   VCCV, as defined in [VCCV], maintains the connectivity status of a
   pseudowire. VCCV is supported for both MPLS PWs and L2TPv3 PWs.

   VCCV supports two possible Connectivity Verification (CV) types,
   i.e., two modes of operation:

   o ICMP Ping: In this mode the CV is performed using an ICMP ping
      packet format, as defined in [ICMPv4] or [ICMPv6].

   o LSP Ping: In this mode the LSP Ping packet format, as defined in
      [LSP Ping] is used for CV.



Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4.5. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)

4.5.1. Overview

   The IPPM working group [IPPM FW] in the IETF defines common criteria
   and metrics for measuring performance of IP traffic. Some of the key
   RFCs published by this working group have defined metrics for
   measuring connectivity [rfc2678], delay [RFC2679, RFC 2681], and
   packet loss [RFC2681].

   The IPPM working group has defined not only metrics for performance
   measurement, but also protocols that define how the measurement is
   carried out. The One-way Active Measurement Protocol [OWAMP] and the
   Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [TWAMP] define a method and
   protocol for measuring delay and packet loss in IP networks.

   OWAMP and TWAMP use two separate protocols: a Control plane protocol,
   and a Test plane protocol.

4.5.2. OWAMP/TWAMP Control

   Each of these standards defines a Control protocol. This protocol is
   layered over TCP, and is used to initiate measurement sessions, and
   to communicate their results.

4.5.3. OWAMP/TWAMP Test

   The Test protocol is layered over UDP, and is used to measure delay
   and packet loss between the session endpoints. The Test session is
   initiated by a Request/Response negotiation, followed by a set of
   active test packets that are used for the measurement.

4.6. ITU-T Y.1711

4.6.1. Overview

   As mentioned above (4.3.), the IETF defined LSP Ping as an OAM
   mechanism for MPLS. The ITU-T has also defined an OAM protocol for
   MPLS, defined in [ITU-T Y.1711]. The standard defines mechanisms for
   connectivity verification and fast failure detection, as well as
   mechanism for reporting defects that have been identified in an LSP.

   MPLS OAM packets per Y.1711 are detected by a reserved MPLS label
   value. The reserved value is 14, and is defined in [OAM Label] as the
   'OAM Alert Label'.




Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4.6.2. Connectivity Verification (CV)

   The CV function is used to detect connectivity defects in an LSP. CV
   frames are sent proactively at a rate of 1 per second. Each frame
   contains the Trail-Termination Source Identifier (TTSI), indicating
   the identity of the transmitting LSR.

   The CV function can detect any of the following defect conditions.

   o Loss of Connectivity Verification (LOCV): A loss of connectivity
      is detected when no CV OAM packets are received in a period of 3
      consecutive transmission periods.

   o TTSI Mismatch: A TTSI mismatch is detected when a CV frame with an
      unexpected TTSI is received.

   o TTSI Mismerge: A TTSI mismerge is detected when the CV frames
      received in a given LSP contain some frame with an expected TTSI,
      and some frames with an unexpected TTSI.

   o Excess: An excess is detected when at least 5 CV frames are
      received during a period of 3 consecutive transmission periods.

4.6.3. Fast Failure Detection (FFD)

   The FFD function is a proactive function, used for fast detection of
   connectivity defects. While CV is typically sufficient for path
   failure detection and reporting, protection switching mechanisms
   typically require faster detection. FFD is very similar to CV in
   terms of the packet format, and the possible defect conditions, but
   FFD allows a configurable transmission frequency. The default
   transmission rate of FFD frames is 20 per second, i.e., every 50 ms,
   allowing fast detection for protection switching applications.

4.6.4. Forward Defect Indication (FDI)

   The FDI function is used by an LSR to report a defect to affected
   client layers, allowing them to suppress alarms about this defect. An
   FDI packets are sent at a rate of 1 per second.

4.6.5. Backward Defect Indication (BDI)

   The BDI function is used to inform the LSR at an LSP trail
   termination source point about a defect condition in the forward
   direction of an LSP. The LSR at the LSP trail termination sink point
   transmits the BDI to the upstream LSR through the return path. BDI
   packets are sent at the same transmission rate as FDI.


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4.7. ITU-T Y.1731

4.7.1. Overview

   The [ITU-T Y.1731] is a protocol for Ethernet OAM. It is presented in
   this document as a reference point, since the OAM mechanisms that are
   currently being defined by the IETF for MPLS-TP are in many ways
   based on this standard. The standard defines various OAM functions,
   including unidirectional and bidirectional continuity check, and
   functions for performance monitoring.

4.7.2. ETH-CC

   The Ethernet Continuity Check function is a proactive function that
   allows a MEP to detect loss of continuity with any of the other MEPs
   in the MEG. This function also allows detection of other defect
   conditions, such as unintended connectivity between two MEGs. The
   ETH-CC function is used for one of three possible applications: fault
   management, performance monitoring (see 4.6.10.), and protection
   switching.

   Continuity Check Messages (CCM) are transmitted periodically at a
   constant rate. There are 7 possible transmission periods, from 3.33
   ms to 10 min. When the ETH-CC function detects a defect, it reports
   one of the following defect conditions:

   o Loss of continuity (LOC): Occurs when at least when no CCM
      messages have been received from a peer MEP during a period of 3.5
      times the configured transmission period.

   o Unexpected MEG level: The MEG level is a 3-bit number that defines
      the level of hierarchy of the MEG. This defect condition occurs
      when a CCM is received from a peer MEP with a MEG level that is
      lower than the expected MEG level.

   o Mismerge: Occurs when a CCM is received from a peer MEP with an
      unexpected MEG ID.

   o Unexpected MEP: Occurs when a CCM is received from a peer MEP with
      an unexpected transmitting MEP ID.

   o Unexpected period: Occurs when the transmission period field in
      the CCM does not match the expected transmission period value.






Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4.7.3. ETH-LB

   The Ethernet loopback function verifies connectivity with a peer MEP
   or MIP. The loopback function is performed on-demand, by sending a
   loopback message (LBM) to the peer MEP or MIP. The peer node then
   responds with a loopback reply (LBR).

   More precisely, it is used for one of two purposes:

   o Bidirectional connectivity test.

   o Bidirectional in-service / out-of-service test. The in-service
      mode refers to a test that is run under traffic, while the out-of-
      service test requires other traffic to be halted.

4.7.4. ETH-TST

   The test function is very similar to the loopback function, but is
   unidirectional, i.e., the ETH-TST PDUs are terminated by the receiver
   rather than being looped back to the sender.

4.7.5. ETH-LT

   The Ethernet linktrace is an on-demand function that is used for path
   discovery to a given target, or for locating a failure in a broken
   path.

4.7.6. ETH-AIS

   The Alarm Indication Signal indicates that a MEG should suppress
   alarms about a defect condition at a lower MEG level, i.e., since a
   defect has occurred in a lower hierarchy in the network, it should
   not be reported by the current node.

   A MEP that detects a failure periodically sends AIS messages to
   higher hierarchies. AIS messages are sent periodically at a
   recommended rate of 1 packet per second, until the defect condition
   is resolved.

4.7.7. ETH-LCK

   The lock function is used for administrative locking. A MEP can
   initiate administrative locking, resulting in interruption of data,
   e.g., for out-of-service ETH-LB or ETH-TST.

   A MEP that initiates an administrative locking notifies its peer MEPs
   to halt all relevant traffic until administrative/diagnostic


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   condition is removed. ETH-LCK frames are used to report to higher MEG
   levels about the lock. The LCK frame, much like an AIS frame,
   indicates to the receiving MEP that it should suppress alarms about
   the locked link.

4.7.8. ETH-RDI

   The Remote Defect Indication allows the sender to indicate that it
   encountered a defect conditions. The receiving MEPs are then aware
   that there is a defect condition in the MEG.

4.7.9. ETH-APS

   The Y.1731 standard defines the frame format for Automatic Protection
   Switching frames. The protection switching operations are defined in
   other ITU-T standards.

4.7.10. ETH-LM

   The loss measurement function allows a MEP to measure the packet loss
   rate from/to a given MEP in the MEG. Each MEP maintains counters of
   transmitted and received in-profile packets to/from each of its peer
   MEPs. These counters are incorporated in the ETH-LM frames, allowing
   the MEPs to compute the packet loss rate.

   The ETH-LM function measures the far-end loss, referring to traffic
   FROM the MEP to its peer, as well as the near-end loss, referring to
   traffic from the peer MEP TO the local MEP.

   ETH-LM is performed in one of two possible modes:

   o Single-ended LM: in this mode loss measurement is performed on-
      demand. The initiator sends an LM message (LMM) to its peer MEP,
      and the peer responds with an LM reply (LMR).

   o Dual-ended LM: in this mode loss measurement is performed
      proactively. The continuity check message (CCM) is used for
      proactive LM. The LM counters are piggy-backed into the CCM, and
      allow proactive loss measurement.

4.7.11. ETH-DM

   The delay measurement function is an on-demand function that allows a
   MEP to measure the frame delay and frame delay variation to a peer
   MEP.

   ETH-DM can be performed in one of two modes of operation:


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   o One-way DM: in this mode, a MEP transmits a 1DM frame containing
      the time of its transmission, TxTimeStampf. The receiving MEP
      receives the 1DM frame and records the time of reception, RxTimef.
      The receiving MEP can then compute the one-way delay by: RxTimef -
      TxTimeStampf.

   o Two-way DM: in this mode, a MEP transmits a delay measurement
      message (DMM) containing its transmission time, TxTimeStampf. The
      peer MEP receives the DMM and responds with a delay measurement
      reply (DMR). Upon receiving the DMR, the initiating MEP records
      the time of its reception, RxTimef, and computes the round trip
      delay by: RxTimef - TxTimeStampf.

   Each MEP maintains a time-of-day clock that is used for timestamping
   delay measurement frames. It should be noted that in one-way DM it is
   implicitly assumed that the clocks of the two peer MEPs are
   synchronized by a time synchronization protocol.

4.8. IEEE 802.1ag

4.8.1. Overview

   While the [ITU-T Y.1731] was defined in the ITU-T, the IEEE defined
   the [IEEE 802.1ag] as a standard for connectivity fault management in
   Ethernet based networks. While the two standards are to some extent
   overlapping, they can also be viewed as two complementary parts of a
   single Ethernet OAM picture. The two standards use a common packet
   format. There are a few differences between the two standards in
   terms of terminology: the term MEG level, used in Y.1731, as referred
   to as Maintenance Domain level in 802.1ag; the Y.1731 standard uses
   the term MEG, while the 802.1ag equivalent is Maintenance Association
   (MA).

   While Y.1731 defines multiple OAM functions (see section 4.6), the
   802.1ag standard focuses on three main OAM functions: continuity
   check, loopback, and linktrace, and defines them with great detail.

4.8.2. Continuity Check

   See 4.6.2.

4.8.3. Loopback

   See 4.6.3.





Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4.8.4. Linktrace

   See 4.6.5.

4.9. IEEE 802.3ah

4.9.1. Overview

   The [IEEE 802.3ah] defines an Ethernet link-layer OAM, for single-hop
   Ethernet links. The OAM functions in this standard are described
   below.

4.9.2. Remote Failure Indication

   This function allows a node to notify a peer about a defect in the
   receive path. Some physical interfaces allow unidirectional traffic,
   where even if one direction of the link fails, the reverse direction
   can still be used to convey the remote failure indication.

4.9.3. Remote Loopback

   The remote loopback function provides a diagnostic mode that is used
   to verify the link connectivity, and to measure the packet loss rate.
   When a bridge interface is configured to loopback mode, all incoming
   traffic through the interface is looped and sent back to the
   originator.

4.9.4. Link Monitoring

   Link monitoring provides an event notification function, allowing
   peer devices to communicate defect conditions and diagnostic
   information.

4.10. MPLS-TP OAM

4.10.1. Overview

   The MPLS working group is currently working on defining the OAM
   requirements and mechanisms for MPLS-TP. The requirements of MPLS-TP
   OAM are defined in [MPLS-TP OAM], and are described below.

   MPLS-TP OAM traffic uses a Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh),
   defined in [G-ACh]. This standard defines that MPLS-TP OAM traffic
   uses:





Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   o An Associated Channel Header (ACH), also known as a Control Word
      in the PWE3 terminology, is a 4-byte header that is added to OAM
      packets.

   o A Generic Associated Label (GAL). The GAL is a reserved MPLS label
      value. The reserved value is 13, and identifies the packet as an
      MPLS-TP OAM packet. A GAL indicates the existence of the ACH
      immediately after it.

   The analysis in [OAM Analysis] discusses various OAM mechanism that
   were considered in order to satisfy the requirements in [MPLS-TP
   OAM]. The MPLS working group currently plans to use a mixture of OAM
   mechanisms that are based on various existing standards, and adapt
   them to the requirements of [MPLS-TP OAM]. Some of the main building
   blocks of this solution are based on:

   o Bidirectional Forwarding Detection ([BFD], [BFD LSP]) for
      proactive connectivity verification.

   o LSP Ping as defined in [LSP Ping] for on-demand connectivity
      verification.

   o Y.1731 per the [ITU-T Y.1731], mainly for performance measurement.

   The requirements of MPLS-TP OAM are summarized below.

4.10.2. Continuity Checks

   The continuity check is a proactive function that allows an End Point
   to determine whether or not it receives traffic from its peer End
   Points.

4.10.3. Connectivity Verification

   The connectivity verification is a function that allows an End Point
   to verify its connectivity to a peer node. The connectivity check is
   performed by sending a connectivity verification PDU to the peer
   node, and receiving a reply within an expected time frame. This
   function can be performed proactively or on-demand.

4.10.4. Diagnostic Tests

   This function allows an End Point to perform an on-demand test, e.g.,
   for bandwidth measurement.





Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


4.10.5. Route Tracing

   This on-demand function is used for path discovery and for locating
   link failures.

4.10.6. Lock Instruct

   The lock instruct function allows an End Point to instruct its peers
   to enter an administrative status where all traffic is halted except
   the test traffic and OAM PDUs.

4.10.7. Lock Reporting

   This function allows an Intermediate Point to report to an End Point
   about a lock condition.

4.10.8. Alarm Reporting

   This function allows an Intermediate Point to report to an End Point
   about a defect condition.

4.10.9. Remote Defect Indication

   This is a proactive function that allows the sender to indicate that
   it encountered a defect conditions.

4.10.10. Client Failure Indication

   This function allows the MPLS-TP network to relay information about a
   fault condition in a client network, allowing the failure indication
   to propagate from end to end over the MPLS-TP network.

4.10.11. Packet Loss Measurement

   This function measures the packet loss ratio between two peer End
   Points. It can be performed proactively or on-demand.

4.10.12. Packet Delay Measurement

   This function measures the frame delay between two peer End Points.
   Two modes of operation are supported, one-way DM, and two-way DM.

4.11. Summary of OAM Functions

   Table 3 summarizes the OAM functions that are supported in each of
   the standards that were analyzed in this section.



Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   +-----------+-------+--------+--------+-----------+-------+--------+
   | Standard  |Unidire|Bidirect|Path    |Defect     |Perform|Other   |
   |           |ctional|ional   |Discover|Indications|ance   |Function|
   |           |Connect|Connecti|y       |           |Monitor|s       |
   |           |ivity  |vity    |        |           |ing    |        |
   |           |Check  |Check   |        |           |       |        |
   +-----------+-------+--------+--------+-----------+-------+--------+
   |ICMP Ping  |       | Echo   |        |           |       |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |BFD        |BFD    |BFD     |        |           |       |        |
   |           |Control|Echo    |        |           |       |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |LSP Ping   |       |"Ping"  |"Tracero|           |       |        |
   |           |       |mode    |ute"    |           |       |        |
   |           |       |        |mode    |           |       |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |PW VCCV    |       |VCCV    |        |           |       |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |IPPM       |       |        |        |           |-Delay |        |
   |           |       |        |        |           | measur|        |
   |           |       |        |        |           | ement |        |
   |           |       |        |        |           |-Packet|        |
   |           |       |        |        |           | loss  |        |
   |           |       |        |        |           | measur|        |
   |           |       |        |        |           | ement |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |ITU-T      |-CV    |        |        |           |       |        |
   |Y.1711     |-FFD   |        |        |           |       |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |ITU-T      |ETH-CC |ETH-LB  |ETH-LT  |-ETH-RDI   |-ETH-LM|-ETH-LCK|
   |Y.1731     |       |        |        |-ETH-AIS   |-ETH-DM|-ETH-APS|
   |           |       |        |        |           |       |-ETH-TST|
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |IEEE       |CC     |Loopback|Linktrac|           |       |        |
   |802.1ag    |       |        |e       |           |       |        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |IEEE       |       |Remote  |        |-Remote    |       |        |
   |802.3ah    |       |Loopback|        | Failure   |       |        |
   |           |       |        |        | Indication|       |        |
   |           |       |        |        |-Link      |       |        |
   |           |       |        |        | Monitoring|       |        |


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + --------- + ----- + ------ +
   |MPLS-TP    |CC     |CV      |Route   |-Alarm     |-LM    |-Diagnos|
   |OAM        |       |        |Tracing | Reporting |-DM    | tic Tes|
   |           |       |        |        |-Client    |       | s      |
   |           |       |        |        | Failure   |       |-Lock   |
   |           |       |        |        | Indication|       |        |
   |           |       |        |        |-Remote    |       |        |
   |           |       |        |        | Defect    |       |        |
   |           |       |        |        | Indication|       |        |
   +-----------+-------+--------+--------+-----------+-------+--------+
                     Table 3 Summary of OAM Functions

4.12. Summary of Unidirectional Connectivity Check Mechanisms

   A key element in some of the OAM standards that are analyzed in this
   document is the unidirectional connectivity check. It is thus
   interesting to present a more detailed comparison of the connectivity
   check mechanisms defined in OAM standards. Table 4 can be viewed as
   an extension of Table 3, but is presented separately for convenience.
   The table compares the OAM standards that support a unidirectional
   connectivity check. MPLS-TP is not included in the comparison, as the
   continuity check mechanism in MPLS-TP has not yet been defined.

   The "Tx Interval" column in the table specifies the period between
   two consequent message transmissions, while the "Source Identifier"
   column specifies the name of the field in the OAM packet that is used
   as the identifier of the transmitter. The "Error Codes" column
   specifies the possible error codes when the unidirectional
   connectivity check detects a failure.

   +-----------+-------+--------+---+--------+------------------------+
   |           |Mechani|Tx      |UC/|Source  | Error                  |
   |           |sm     |Interval|MC |Identifi| Codes                  |
   |           |       |        |   |er      |                        |
   +-----------+-------+--------+---+--------+------------------------+
   |BFD        |BFD    |Negotiat|UC |My Discr| Control Detection Time |
   |           |Control|ed durin|   |iminator| Expired                |
   |           |       |g sessio|   |        |                        |
   |           |       |n       |   |        |                        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + - + ------ + ---------------------- +
   |ITU-T      |CV     |CV: 1s  |UC |TTSI    |-Loss of CV (LOCV)      |
   |Y.1711     |FFD    |FFD: par|   |        |-TTSI Mismatch          |
   |           |       |ameter, |   |        |-TTSI Mismerge          |



Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   |           |       |default:|   |        |-Excess                 |
   |           |       |50 ms   |   |        |                        |
   + --------- + ----- + ------ + - + ------ + ---------------------- +
   |ITU-T      |CC     |7 possib|UC/|MEP ID  |-Loss of Continuity(LOC)|
   |Y.1731 /   |       |le perio|MC |        |-Unexpected MEG level   |
   |IEEE       |       |ds:     |   |        |-Mismerge               |
   |802.1ag    |       |3 1/3 ms|   |        |-Unexpected MEP         |
   |           |       |10 ms   |   |        |-Unexpected period      |
   |           |       |100 ms  |   |        |                        |
   |           |       |1 s     |   |        |                        |
   |           |       |10 s    |   |        |                        |
   |           |       |1 min   |   |        |                        |
   |           |       |10 min  |   |        |                        |
   +-----------+-------+--------+---+--------+------------------------+
                       Table 4 Summary of OAM Terms

5. Security Considerations

   There are no security implications imposed by this document.

6. IANA Considerations

   There are no new IANA considerations implied by this document.

7. Acknowledgments

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

8. References

8.1. Normative References

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

   [LSP Ping]    Kompella, K., Swallow, G., "Detecting Multi-Protocol
                 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
                 February 2006.

   [MPLS OAM]    Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and
                 Matsushima, S., "Operations and Management (OAM)
                 Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS)
                 Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006.




Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   [MPLS OAM FW] Allan, D., Nadeau, T., "A Framework for Multi-Protocol
                 Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management
                 (OAM)", RFC 4378, February 2006.

   [MPLS OAM P2MP] Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., King, D., and Nadeau, T.,
                 "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for
                 Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks", RFC 4687,
                 September 2006.

   [OAM Label]   Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
                 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
                 Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429,
                 November 2002.

   [MPLS-TP OAM] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., "Requirements for
                 OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.

   [G-ACh]       Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., Bryant, S., "MPLS Generic
                 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

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

   [ICMPv4]      Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
                 RFC 792, September 1981.

   [ICMPv6]      Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
                 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
                 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [IPPM FW]     Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and Mathis, M.,
                 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
                 1998.

   [IPPM Con]    Mahdavi, J., Paxson, V., "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
                 Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.

   [IPPM 1DM]    Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
                 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.

   [IPPM 1LM]    Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
                 Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September
                 1999.

   [IPPM 2DM]    Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A Round-trip
                 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.


Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


   [OWAMP]       Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and
                 Zekauskas, M., "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
                 (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.

   [TWAMP]       Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
                 Babiarz, J., "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
                 (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.

   [BFD]         Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                 (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

   [BFD IP]      Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                 (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
                 2010.

   [BFD Gen]     Katz, D., Ward, D., "Generic Application of
                 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
                 June 2010.

   [BFD Multi]   Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                 (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.

   [BFD LSP]     Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow,
                 G., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS
                 Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.

   [BFD VCCV]    Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Bidirectional Forwarding
                 Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
                 Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June
                 2010.

   [IEEE 802.1ag]"Connectivity Fault Management", December 2007.

   [ITU-T Y.1731]"OAM Functions and Mechanisms for Ethernet-based
                 Networks", February 2008.

   [ITU-T Y.1711]"Operation & Maintenance mechanism for MPLS networks",
                 February 2004.

   [IEEE 802.3ah]"Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers, and
                 Management Parameters for Subscriber Access Networks",
                 clause 57, September 2004.







Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft       Overview of OAM Mechanisms              July 2010


8.2. Informative References

   [P2MP Ping]   Saxena, S., Farrel, A. , Yasukawa, S., "Detecting Data
                 Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol
                 Label Switching (MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping",
                 draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping, March 2010.

   [OAM Soup]    Andersson, L., Van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
                 D., Mansfield, S., "The OAM Acronym Soup", draft-ietf-
                 opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def, June 2010.

   [ITU-T G.806] "Characteristics of transport equipment - Description
                 methodology and generic functionality", January 2009.

   [MPLS-TP Term]Van Helvoort, H., Andersson, L., Sprecher, N., "A
                 Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol
                 Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
                 drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network
                 Recommendations", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone,
                 May 2010.

   [MPLS-TP Ping BFD] Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T.,
                 Sprecher, N., Weingarten, Y., "LSP-Ping and BFD
                 encapsulation over ACH", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-
                 bfd-procedures, March 2010.

   [OAM Analysis] Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., Weingarten, Y., "MPLS-TP
                 OAM Analysis", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis, July
                 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell

   Email: talmi@marvell.com












Mizrahi               Expires January 12, 2011               [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/