[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-mpls-t...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR] [Errata]

Updated by: 6435 INFORMATIONAL
Errata Exist
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      I. Busi, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6371                                Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Informational                                    D. Allan, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Ericsson
                                                          September 2011


       Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for
                     MPLS-Based Transport Networks

Abstract

   The Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) is a
   packet-based transport technology based on the MPLS Traffic
   Engineering (MPLS-TE) and pseudowire (PW) data-plane architectures.

   This document describes a framework to support a comprehensive set of
   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) procedures that
   fulfill the MPLS-TP OAM requirements for fault, performance, and
   protection-switching management and that do not rely on the presence
   of a control plane.

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

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371.







Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................5
      2.1. Terminology ................................................5
      2.2. Definitions ................................................7
   3. Functional Components ..........................................10
      3.1. Maintenance Entity and Maintenance Entity Group ...........10
      3.2. MEG Nesting: SPMEs and Tandem Connection Monitoring .......13
      3.3. MEG End Points (MEPs) .....................................14
      3.4. MEG Intermediate Points (MIPs) ............................18
      3.5. Server MEPs ...............................................20
      3.6. Configuration Considerations ..............................21
      3.7. P2MP Considerations .......................................21
      3.8. Further Considerations of Enhanced Segment Monitoring .....22
   4. Reference Model ................................................23
      4.1. MPLS-TP Section Monitoring (SMEG) .........................26
      4.2. MPLS-TP LSP End-to-End Monitoring Group (LMEG) ............27
      4.3. MPLS-TP PW Monitoring (PMEG) ..............................27
      4.4. MPLS-TP LSP SPME Monitoring (LSMEG) .......................28
      4.5. MPLS-TP MS-PW SPME Monitoring (PSMEG) .....................30
      4.6. Fate-Sharing Considerations for Multilink .................31
   5. OAM Functions for Proactive Monitoring .........................32
      5.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification ............33
           5.1.1. Defects Identified by CC-V .........................35
           5.1.2. Consequent Action ..................................37
           5.1.3. Configuration Considerations .......................38
      5.2. Remote Defect Indication ..................................40
           5.2.1. Configuration Considerations .......................40
      5.3. Alarm Reporting ...........................................41
      5.4. Lock Reporting ............................................42
      5.5. Packet Loss Measurement ...................................44
           5.5.1. Configuration Considerations .......................45



Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


           5.5.2. Sampling Skew ......................................45
           5.5.3. Multilink Issues ...................................45
      5.6. Packet Delay Measurement ..................................46
           5.6.1. Configuration Considerations .......................46
      5.7. Client Failure Indication .................................47
           5.7.1. Configuration Considerations .......................47
   6. OAM Functions for On-Demand Monitoring .........................48
      6.1. Connectivity Verification .................................48
           6.1.1. Configuration Considerations .......................49
      6.2. Packet Loss Measurement ...................................50
           6.2.1. Configuration Considerations .......................50
           6.2.2. Sampling Skew ......................................50
           6.2.3. Multilink Issues ...................................50
      6.3. Diagnostic Tests ..........................................50
           6.3.1. Throughput Estimation ..............................51
           6.3.2. Data-Plane Loopback ................................52
      6.4. Route Tracing .............................................54
           6.4.1. Configuration Considerations .......................54
      6.5. Packet Delay Measurement ..................................54
           6.5.1. Configuration Considerations .......................55
   7. OAM Functions for Administration Control .......................55
      7.1. Lock Instruct .............................................55
           7.1.1. Locking a Transport Path ...........................56
           7.1.2. Unlocking a Transport Path .........................56
   8. Security Considerations ........................................57
   9. Acknowledgments ................................................58
   10. References ....................................................58
      10.1. Normative References .....................................58
      10.2. Informative References ...................................59
   11. Contributing Authors ..........................................60

1.  Introduction

   As noted in the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) framework RFCs (RFC
   5921 [8] and RFC 6215 [9]), MPLS-TP is a packet-based transport
   technology based on the MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and
   pseudowire (PW) data-plane architectures defined in RFC 3031 [1], RFC
   3985 [2], and RFC 5659 [4].

   MPLS-TP utilizes a comprehensive set of Operations, Administration,
   and Maintenance (OAM) procedures for fault, performance, and
   protection-switching management that do not rely on the presence of a
   control plane.

   In line with [15], 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.  Some extensions discussed in this framework may end up



Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   as aspirational capabilities and may be determined to be not
   tractably realizable in some implementations.  Extensions do not
   deprecate support for existing MPLS OAM capabilities.

   The MPLS-TP OAM framework defined in this document provides a
   protocol-neutral description of the required OAM functions and of the
   data-plane OAM architecture to support a comprehensive set of OAM
   procedures that satisfy the MPLS-TP OAM requirements of RFC 5860
   [11].  In this regard, it defines similar OAM functionality as for
   existing Synchronous Optical Network / Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
   (SONET/SDH) and Optical Transport Network (OTN) OAM mechanisms (e.g.,
   [19]).

   The MPLS-TP OAM framework is applicable to Sections, Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs), Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), and Sub-Path
   Maintenance Elements (SPMEs).  It supports co-routed and associated
   bidirectional P2P transport paths as well as unidirectional P2P and
   P2MP transport paths.

   OAM packets that instrument a particular direction of a transport
   path are subject to the same forwarding treatment (i.e., fate-share)
   as the user data packets and in some cases, where Explicitly TC-
   encoded-PSC LSPs (E-LSPs) are employed, may be required to have
   common per-hop behavior (PHB) Scheduling Class (PSC) End-to-End (E2E)
   with the class of traffic monitored.  In case of Label-Only-Inferred-
   PSC LSP (L-LSP), only one class of traffic needs to be monitored, and
   therefore the OAM packets have common PSC with the monitored traffic
   class.

   OAM packets can be distinguished from the used data packets using the
   Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) and Associated Channel Header
   (ACH) constructs of RFC 5586 [7] for LSP, SPME, and Section, or the
   ACH construct of RFC 5085 [3] and RFC 5586 [7] for (MS-)PW.  OAM
   packets are never fragmented and are not combined with user data in
   the same packet payload.

   This framework makes certain assumptions as to the utility and
   frequency of different classes of measurement that naturally suggest
   different functions are implemented as distinct OAM flows or packets.
   This is dictated by the combination of the class of problem being
   detected and the need for timeliness of network response to the
   problem.  For example, fault detection is expected to operate on an
   entirely different time base than performance monitoring, which is
   also expected to operate on an entirely different time base than in-
   band management transactions.






Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   The remainder of this memo is structured as follows:

   Section 2 covers the definitions and terminology used in this memo.

   Section 3 describes the functional component that generates and
   processes OAM packets.

   Section 4 describes the reference models for applying OAM functions
   to Sections, LSP, MS-PW, and their SPMEs.

   Sections 5, 6, and 7 provide a protocol-neutral description of the
   OAM functions, defined in RFC 5860 [11], aimed at clarifying how the
   OAM protocol solutions will behave to achieve their functional
   objectives.

   Section 8 discusses the security implications of OAM protocol design
   in the MPLS-TP context.

   The OAM protocol solutions designed as a consequence of this document
   are expected to comply with the functional behavior described in
   Sections 5, 6, and 7.  Alternative solutions to required functional
   behaviors may also be defined.

   OAM specifications following this OAM framework may be provided in
   different documents to cover distinct OAM functions.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   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 as
   defined by the ITU-T.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Terminology

   AC     Attachment Circuit

   AIS    Alarm Indication Signal

   CC     Continuity Check

   CC-V   Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

   CV     Connectivity Verification

   DBN    Domain Border Node



Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   E-LSP  Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP

   ICC    ITU Carrier Code

   LER    Label Edge Router

   LKR    Lock Report

   L-LSP  Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP

   LM     Loss Measurement

   LME    LSP Maintenance Entity

   LMEG   LSP ME Group

   LSP    Label Switched Path

   LSR    Label Switching Router

   LSME   LSP SPME ME

   LSMEG  LSP SPME ME Group

   ME     Maintenance Entity

   MEG    Maintenance Entity Group

   MEP    Maintenance Entity Group End Point

   MIP    Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point

   NMS    Network Management System

   PE     Provider Edge

   PHB    Per-Hop Behavior

   PM     Performance Monitoring

   PME    PW Maintenance Entity

   PMEG   PW ME Group

   PSC    PHB Scheduling Class

   PSME   PW SPME ME




Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   PSMEG  PW SPME ME Group

   PW     Pseudowire

   SLA    Service Level Agreement

   SME    Section Maintenance Entity

   SMEG   Section ME Group

   SPME   Sub-Path Maintenance Element

   S-PE   Switching Provider Edge

   TC     Traffic Class

   T-PE   Terminating Provider Edge

2.2.  Definitions

   This document uses the terms defined in RFC 5654 [5].

   This document uses the term 'per-hop behavior' as defined in RFC 2474
   [16].

   This document uses the term 'LSP' to indicate either a service LSP or
   a transport LSP (as defined in RFC 5921 [8]).

   This document uses the term 'Section' exclusively to refer to the n=0
   case of the term 'Section' defined in RFC 5960 [10].

   This document uses the term 'Sub-Path Maintenance Element (SPME)' as
   defined in RFC 5921 [8].

   This document uses the term 'traffic profile' as defined in RFC 2475
   [13].

   Where appropriate, the following definitions are aligned with ITU-T
   recommendation Y.1731 [21] 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.

   Adaptation function: The adaptation function is the interface between
   the client (sub-)layer and the server (sub-)layer.

   Branch Node: A node along a point-to-multipoint transport path that
   is connected to more than one downstream node.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Bud Node: A node along a point-to-multipoint transport path that is
   at the same time a branch node and a leaf node for this transport
   path.

   Data-plane loopback: An out-of-service test where a transport path at
   either an intermediate or terminating node is placed into a data-
   plane loopback state, such that all traffic (including both payload
   and OAM) received on the looped back interface is sent on the reverse
   direction of the transport path.

      Note: The only way to send an OAM packet to a node that has been
      put into data-plane loopback mode is via Time to Live (TTL)
      expiry, irrespective of whether the node is hosting MIPs or MEPs.

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

   Down MEP: A MEP that receives OAM packets from, and transmits them
   towards, the direction of a server layer.

   Forwarding Engine: An abstract functional component, residing in an
   LSR, that forwards the packets from an ingress interface toward the
   egress interface(s).

   In-Service: The administrative status of a transport path when it is
   unlocked.

   Interface: An interface is the attachment point to a server
   (sub-)layer, e.g., a MPLS-TP Section or MPLS-TP tunnel.

   Intermediate Node: An intermediate node transits traffic for an LSP
   or a PW.  An intermediate node may originate OAM flows directed to
   downstream intermediate nodes or MEPs.

   Loopback: See data-plane loopback and OAM loopback definitions.

   Maintenance Entity (ME): Some portion of a transport path that
   requires management bounded by two points (called MEPs), 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 section or a transport path in
   an OAM domain.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   MEP: A MEG End Point (MEP) is capable of initiating (source MEP) and
   terminating (sink MEP) OAM packets for fault management and
   performance monitoring.  MEPs define the boundaries of an ME (details
   in Section 3.3).

   MIP: A MEG intermediate point (MIP) terminates and processes OAM
   packets that are sent to this particular MIP and may generate OAM
   packets in reaction to received OAM packets.  It never generates
   unsolicited OAM packets itself.  A MIP resides within a MEG between
   MEPs (details in Section 3.3).

   OAM domain: A domain, as defined in [5], whose entities are grouped
   for the purpose of keeping the OAM confined within that domain.  An
   OAM domain contains zero or more MEGs.

      Note: Within the rest of this document, the term "domain" is used
      to indicate an "OAM domain".

   OAM flow: The set of all OAM packets originating with a specific
   source MEP that instrument one direction of a MEG (or possibly both
   in the special case of data-plane loopback).

   OAM loopback: The capability of a node to be directed by a received
   OAM packet to generate a reply back to the sender.  OAM loopback can
   work in-service and can support different OAM functions (e.g.,
   bidirectional on-demand connectivity verification).

   OAM Packet: A packet that carries OAM information between MEPs and/or
   MIPs in a MEG to perform some OAM functionality (e.g., connectivity
   verification).

   Originating MEP: A MEP that originates an OAM transaction packet
   (toward a target MIP/MEP) and expects a reply, either in-band or out-
   of-band, from that target MIP/MEP.  The originating MEP always
   generates the OAM request packets in-band and expects and processes
   only OAM reply packets returned by the target MIP/MEP.

   Out-of-Service: The administrative status of a transport path when it
   is locked.  When a path is in a locked condition, it is blocked from
   carrying client traffic.

   Path Segment: It is either a segment or a concatenated segment, as
   defined in RFC 5654 [5].

   Signal Degrade: A condition declared by a MEP when the data
   forwarding capability associated with a transport path has
   deteriorated, as determined by performance monitoring (PM).  See also
   ITU-T recommendation G.806 [14].



Busi & Allan                  Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   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.  See also ITU-T recommendation G.806 [14].

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

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

   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.  Tandem connections may be nested but cannot
   overlap.  See also ITU-T recommendation G.805 [20].

   Target MEP/MIP: A MEP or a MIP that is targeted by OAM transaction
   packets and that replies to the originating MEP that initiated the
   OAM transactions.  The target MEP or MIP can reply either in-band or
   out-of-band.  The target sink MEP function always receives the OAM
   request packets in-band, while the target source MEP function only
   generates the OAM reply packets that are sent in-band.

   Up MEP: A MEP that transmits OAM packets towards, and receives them
   from, the direction of the forwarding engine.

3.  Functional Components

   MPLS-TP is a packet-based transport technology based on the MPLS and
   PW data plane architectures ([1], [2], and [4]) and is capable of
   transporting service traffic where the characteristics of information
   transfer between the transport path end points can be demonstrated to
   comply with certain performance and quality guarantees.

   In order to describe the required OAM functionality, this document
   introduces a set of functional components.

3.1.  Maintenance Entity and Maintenance Entity Group

   MPLS-TP OAM operates in the context of Maintenance Entities (MEs)
   that define a relationship between two points of a transport path to
   which maintenance and monitoring operations apply.  The two points
   that define a maintenance entity are called Maintenance Entity Group
   End Points (MEPs).  The collection of one or more MEs that belongs to
   the same transport path and that are maintained and monitored as a



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   group are known as a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG).  In between
   MEPs, there are zero or more intermediate points, called Maintenance
   Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs).  MEPs and MIPs are
   associated with the MEG and can be shared by more than one ME in a
   MEG.

   An abstract reference model for an ME is illustrated 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 Figure 1, nodes A and D can
   be Label Edge Routers (LERs) for an LSP or the Terminating Provider
   Edges (T-PEs) for an MS-PW, nodes B and C are LSRs for an LSP or
   Switching PEs (S-PEs) for an MS-PW.  MEPs reside in nodes A and D,
   while MIPs reside in nodes B and C and may reside in A and D.  The
   links connecting adjacent nodes can be physical links, (sub-)layer
   LSPs/SPMEs, or server-layer paths.

   This functional model defines the relationships between all OAM
   entities from a maintenance perspective and it allows each
   Maintenance Entity to provide monitoring and management for the
   (sub-)layer network under its responsibility and efficient
   localization of problems.

   An MPLS-TP Maintenance Entity Group may be defined to monitor the
   transport path for fault and/or performance management.

   The MEPs that form a MEG bound the scope of an OAM flow to the MEG
   (i.e., within the domain of the transport path that is being
   monitored and managed).  There are two exceptions to this:

   1) A misbranching fault may cause OAM packets to be delivered to a
      MEP that is not in the MEG of origin.

   2) An out-of-band return path may be used between a MIP or a MEP and
      the originating MEP.

   In case of a unidirectional point-to-point transport path, a single
   unidirectional Maintenance Entity is defined to monitor it.






Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   In case of associated bidirectional point-to-point transport paths,
   two independent unidirectional 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 the originating MEP does not necessarily exist in the MEG.

   In case of co-routed bidirectional point-to-point transport paths, a
   single bidirectional Maintenance Entity is defined to monitor both
   directions congruently.

   In case of unidirectional point-to-multipoint transport paths, a
   single unidirectional Maintenance Entity for each leaf is defined to
   monitor the transport path from the root to that leaf.

   In all cases, portions of the transport path may be monitored by the
   instantiation of SPMEs (see Section 3.2).

   The reference model for the P2MP MEG is represented in Figure 2.

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

                 Figure 2: Reference Model for P2MP MEG

   In the case of P2MP transport paths, the OAM measurements are
   independent for each ME (A-D, A-E, and A-F):

   o  Fault conditions - some faults may impact more than one ME
      depending on 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 - will be unique per ME.

   Each leaf (i.e., D, E, and F) terminates OAM flows to monitor the ME
   between itself and the root while the root (i.e., A) generates OAM
   packets common to all the MEs of the P2MP MEG.  All nodes may
   implement a MIP in the corresponding MEG.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


3.2.  MEG Nesting: SPMEs and Tandem Connection Monitoring

   In order to verify and maintain performance and quality guarantees,
   there is a need to apply OAM functionality not only 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 transport path.

   Sub-Path Maintenance Elements (SPMEs), as defined in [8], are
   hierarchical LSPs instantiated to provide monitoring of a portion of
   a set of transport paths (LSPs or MS-PWs) that follow the same path
   between the ingress and the egress of the SPME.  The operational
   aspects of instantiating SPMEs are out of scope of this memo.

   SPMEs can also be employed to meet the requirement to provide tandem
   connection monitoring (TCM), as defined by ITU-T Recommendation G.805
   [20].

   TCM for a given path segment of a transport path is implemented by
   creating an SPME that has a 1:1 association with the path segment of
   the transport path that is to be monitored.

   In the TCM case, this means that the SPME used to provide TCM can
   carry one and only one transport path, thus allowing direct
   correlation between all fault management and performance monitoring
   information gathered for the SPME and the monitored path segment of
   the end-to-end transport path.

   There are a number of implications to this approach:

   1) The SPME would use the uniform model [23] of Traffic Class (TC)
      code point copying between sub-layers for Diffserv such that the
      E2E markings and PHB treatment for the transport path were
      preserved by the SPMEs.

   2) The SPME normally would use the short-pipe model for TTL handling
      [6] (no TTL copying between sub-layers) such that the TTL distance
      to the MIPs for the E2E entity would not be impacted by the
      presence of the SPME, but it should be possible for an operator to
      specify use of the uniform model.

   Note that points 1 and 2 above assume that the TTL copying mode and
   TC copying modes are independently configurable for an LSP.

   The TTL distance to the MIPs plays a critical role for delivering
   packets to these MIPs as described in Section 3.4.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   There are specific issues with the use of the uniform model of TTL
   copying for an SPME:

   1. A MIP in the SPME sub-layer is not part of the transport-path MEG;
      hence, only an out-of-band return path for OAM originating in the
      transport-path MEG that addressed an SPME MIP might be available.

   2. The instantiation of a lower-level MEG or protection-switching
      actions within a lower-level MEG may change the TTL distances to
      MIPs in the higher-level MEGs.

   The end points of the SPME are MEPs and limit the scope of an OAM
   flow within the MEG that the MEPs belong to (i.e., within the domain
   of the SPME that is being monitored and managed).

   When considering SPMEs, it is important to consider that the
   following properties apply to all MPLS-TP MEGs (regardless of whether
   they instrument LSPs, SPMEs, or MS-PWs):

   o  They can be nested but not overlapped, e.g., a MEG may cover a
      path segment of another MEG and may also include the forwarding
      engine(s) of the node(s) at the edge(s) of the path segment.
      However, when MEGs are nested, the MEPs and MIPs in the SPME are
      no longer part of the encompassing MEG.

   o  It is possible that MEPs of MEGs that are nested reside on a
      single node but again are implemented in such a way that they do
      not overlap.

   o  Each OAM flow is associated with a single MEG.

   o  When an SPME is instantiated after the transport path has been
      instantiated, the TTL distance to the MIPs may change for the
      short-pipe model of TTL copying, and may change for the uniform
      model if the SPME is not co-routed with the original path.

3.3.  MEG End Points (MEPs)

   MEG End Points (MEPs) are the source and sink points of a MEG.  In
   the context of an MPLS-TP LSP, only LERs can implement MEPs, while in
   the context of an SPME, any LSR of the MPLS-TP LSP can be an LER of
   SPMEs that contributes to the overall monitoring infrastructure of
   the transport path.  Regarding PWs, only T-PEs can implement MEPs;
   while for SPMEs supporting one or more PWs, both T-PEs and S-PEs can
   implement SPME MEPs.  Any MPLS-TP LSR can implement a MEP for an
   MPLS-TP Section.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   MEPs are responsible for originating almost all of the proactive and
   on-demand monitoring OAM functionality for the MEG.  There is a
   separate class of notifications (such as Lock Report (LKR) and Alarm
   Indication Signal (AIS)) that are originated by intermediate nodes
   and triggered by server-layer events.  A MEP is capable of
   originating and terminating OAM packets for fault management and
   performance monitoring.  These OAM packets are carried within the
   Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) with the proper encapsulation and
   an appropriate channel type as defined in RFC 5586 [7].  A MEP
   terminates all the OAM packets it receives from the MEG it belongs to
   and silently discards those that do not.  (Note that in the
   particular case of Connectivity Verification (CV) processing, a CV
   packet from an incorrect MEG will result in a mis-connectivity defect
   and there are further actions taken.)  The MEG the OAM packet belongs
   to is associated with the MPLS or PW label, whether the label is used
   to infer the MEG or the content of the OAM packet is an
   implementation choice.  In the case of an MPLS-TP Section, the MEG is
   inferred from the port on which an OAM packet was received with the
   GAL at the top of the label stack.

   OAM packets may require the use of an available "out-of-band" return
   path (as defined in [8]).  In such cases, sufficient information is
   required in the originating transaction such that the OAM reply
   packet can be constructed and properly forwarded to the originating
   MEP (e.g., IP address).

   Each OAM solution document will further detail the applicability of
   the tools it defines as a proactive or on-demand mechanism as well as
   its usage when:

   o  The "in-band" return path exists and it is used.

   o  An "out-of-band" return path exists and it is used.

   o  Any return path does not exist or is not used.

   Once a MEG is configured, the operator can configure which proactive
   OAM functions to use on the MEG, but the MEPs are always enabled.

   MEPs terminate all OAM packets received from the associated MEG.  As
   the MEP corresponds to the termination of the forwarding path for a
   MEG at the given (sub-)layer, OAM packets never leak outside of a MEG
   in a properly configured fault-free implementation.








Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   A MEP of an MPLS-TP transport path 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 the source MEP and sink MEP coincide with transport paths'
   source and sink terminations.

   The MEPs of an SPME are not necessarily coincident with the
   termination of the MPLS-TP transport path.  They are used to monitor
   a path segment of the transport path for failures or performance
   degradation (e.g., based on packet counts) only within the boundary
   of the MEG for the SPME.

   An MPLS-TP sink MEP passes a fault indication to its client
   (sub-)layer network as a consequent action of fault detection.  When
   the client layer is not MPLS-TP, the consequent actions in the client
   layer (e.g., ignore or generate client-layer-specific OAM
   notifications) are outside the scope of this document.

   A node hosting a MEP can either support per-node MEP or per-interface
   MEP(s).  A per-node MEP resides in an unspecified location within the
   node, while a per-interface MEP resides on a specific side of the
   forwarding engine.  In particular, a per-interface MEP is called an
   "Up MEP" or a "Down MEP" depending on its location relative to the
   forwarding engine.  An "Up MEP" transmits OAM packets towards, and
   receives them from, the direction of the forwarding engine, while a
   "Down MEP" receives OAM packets from, and transmits them towards, the
   direction of a server layer.
























Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


         Source node Up MEP             Destination node Up MEP
       ------------------------         ------------------------
      |                        |       |                        |
      |-----              -----|       |-----              -----|
      | MEP |            |     |       |     |            | MEP |
      |     |    ----    |     |       |     |    ----    |     |
      | In  |->-| FW |->-| Out |->- ->-| In  |->-| FW |->-| Out |
      | i/f |    ----    | i/f |       | i/f |    ----    | i/f |
      |-----              -----|       |-----              -----|
      |                        |       |                        |
       ------------------------         ------------------------
                  (1)                               (2)

         Source node Down MEP           Destination node Down MEP
       ------------------------         ------------------------
      |                        |       |                        |
      |-----              -----|       |-----              -----|
      |     |            | MEP |       | MEP |            |     |
      |     |    ----    |     |       |     |    ----    |     |
      | In  |->-| FW |->-| Out |->- ->-| In  |->-| FW |->-| Out |
      | i/f |    ----    | i/f |       | i/f |    ----    | i/f |
      |-----              -----|       |-----              -----|
      |                        |       |                        |
       ------------------------         ------------------------
                  (3)                               (4)

                Figure 3: Examples of Per-Interface MEPs

   Figure 3 describes four examples of per-interface Up MEPs: an Up
   Source MEP in a source node (case 1), an Up Sink MEP in a destination
   node (case 2), a Down Source MEP in a source node (case 3), and a
   Down Sink MEP in a destination node (case 4).

   The usage of per-interface Up MEPs extends the coverage of the ME for
   both fault and performance monitoring closer to the edge of the
   domain and determines that the location of a failure or performance
   degradation is within a node or on a link between two adjacent nodes.

   Each OAM solution document will further detail the implications of
   the tools it defines when used with per-interface or per-node MEPs,
   if necessary.

   It may occur that multiple MEPs for the same MEG are on the same
   node, and are all Up MEPs, each on one side of the forwarding engine,
   such that the MEG is entirely internal to the node.






Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   It should be noted that an ME may span nodes that implement per-node
   MEPs and per-interface MEPs.  This guarantees backward compatibility
   with most of the existing LSRs that can implement only a per-node
   MEP.  In fact, in many current implementations, label operations are
   largely performed on the ingress interface; hence, the exposure of
   the GAL as top label will occur at the ingress interface.

   Note that a MEP can only exist at the beginning and end of a
   (sub-)layer in MPLS-TP.  If there is a need to monitor some portion
   of that LSP or PW, a new sub-layer (in the form of an SPME) must be
   created that permits MEPs and associated MEGs to be created.

   In the case where an intermediate node sends an OAM packet to a MEP,
   it uses the top label of the stack at that point.

3.4.  MEG Intermediate Points (MIPs)

   A MEG Intermediate Point (MIP) is a function located at a point
   between the MEPs of a MEG for a PW, LSP, or SPME.

   A MIP is capable of reacting to some OAM packets and forwarding all
   the other OAM packets while ensuring fate-sharing with user data
   packets.  However, a MIP does not initiate unsolicited OAM 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 it receives from the MEG it belongs to.  The OAM packets
   generated by the MIP are sent to the originating MEP.

   An intermediate node within a MEG can either:

   o  support per-node MIPs (i.e., a single MIP per node in an
      unspecified location within the node); or

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

   Support of per-interface or per-node MIPs is an implementation
   choice.  It is also possible that a node could support per-interface
   MIPs on some MEGs and per-node MIPs on other MEGs for which it is a
   transit node.











Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


                            Intermediate node
                        ------------------------
                       |                        |
                       |-----              -----|
                       | MIP |            | MIP |
                       |     |    ----    |     |
                    ->-| In  |->-| FW |->-| Out |->-
                       | i/f |    ----    | i/f |
                       |-----              -----|
                       |                        |
                        ------------------------

                Figure 4: Example of Per-Interface MIPs

   Figure 4 describes an example of two per-interface MIPs at an
   intermediate node of a point-to-point MEG.

   Using per-interface MIPs allows the network operator to determine
   that the location of a failure or performance degradation is within a
   node or on a link between two adjacent nodes.

   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.

   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 belongs to is associated
   with the MPLS label, whether the label is used to infer the MEG or
   the content of the OAM packet is an implementation choice.  In the
   latter case, the MPLS label is checked to be the expected one.

   The use of TTL expiry to deliver OAM packets to a specific MIP is not
   a fully reliable delivery mechanism because the TTL distance of a MIP
   from a MEP can change.  Any MPLS-TP node silently discards any OAM
   packet that is received with an expired TTL and that is not addressed
   to any of its MIPs or MEPs.  An MPLS-TP node that does not support
   OAM is also expected to silently discard any received OAM packet.

   Packets directed to a MIP may not necessarily carry specific MIP
   identification information beyond that of TTL distance.  In this
   case, a MIP would promiscuously respond to all MEP queries on its
   MEG.  This capability could be used for discovery functions (e.g.,
   route tracing as defined in Section 6.4) or when it is desirable to
   leave to the originating MEP the job of correlating TTL and MIP
   identifiers and noting changes or irregularities (via comparison with
   information previously extracted from the network).




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   MIPs are associated to the MEG they belong to, and their identity is
   unique within the MEG.  However, their identity is not necessarily
   unique to the MEG, e.g., all nodal MIPs in a node can have a common
   identity.

   A node hosting a MEP can also support per-interface Up MEPs and per-
   interface MIPs on either side of the forwarding engine.

   Once a MEG is configured, the operator can enable/disable the MIPs on
   the nodes within the MEG.  All the intermediate nodes and possibly
   the end nodes host MIP(s).  Local policy allows them to be enabled
   per function and per MEG.  The local policy is controlled by the
   management system, which may delegate it to the control plane.  A
   disabled MIP silently discards any received OAM packets.

3.5.  Server MEPs

   A server MEP is a MEP of a 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)
   (sub-)layer network.

   A server MEP also provides server-layer OAM indications to 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 set up over that server (sub-)layer's
   transport path.

   For example, a server MEP can be:

   o  a non-MPLS MEP at a termination point of a physical link (e.g.,
      802.3, an SDH Virtual Circuit, or OTN Optical Data Unit (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 4.3;





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   o  an MPLS-TP SPME MEP used for LSP path segment monitoring, as
      defined in Section 4.4, for MPLS-TP LSPs or higher-level SPMEs
      providing LSP path segment monitoring; or

   o  an MPLS-TP SPME MEP used for PW path segment monitoring, as
      defined in Section 4.5, for MPLS-TP PWs or higher-level SPMEs
      providing PW path segment monitoring.

   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 via the client/server adaptation
   function.  When the server layer is not MPLS-TP, server MEP OAM
   functions are simply assumed to exist but are outside the scope of
   this document.

3.6.  Configuration Considerations

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

   Local policy allows disabling the usage of any available "out-of-
   band" return path, as defined in [8], irrespective of what is
   requested by the node originating the OAM packet.

   SPMEs are usually instantiated when the transport path is created by
   either the management plane or the control plane (if present).
   Sometimes an SPME can be instantiated after the transport path is
   initially created.

3.7.  P2MP Considerations

   All the traffic sent over a P2MP transport path, including OAM
   packets generated by a MEP, is sent (multicast) from the root to all
   the leaves.  As a consequence:

   o  To send an OAM packet to all leaves, the source MEP can send a
      single OAM packet that will be delivered by the forwarding plane
      to all the leaves and processed by all the leaves.  Hence, a
      single OAM packet can simultaneously instrument all the MEs in a
      P2MP MEG.

   o  To send an OAM packet to a single leaf, the source MEP sends a
      single OAM packet that will be delivered by the forwarding plane
      to all the leaves but contains sufficient information to identify
      a target leaf, and therefore is processed only by the target leaf
      and can be silently discarded by the other leaves.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   o  To send an OAM packet to a single MIP, the source MEP sends a
      single OAM packet with the TTL field indicating the number of hops
      necessary to reach the node where the MIP resides.  This packet
      will be delivered by the forwarding plane to all intermediate
      nodes at the same TTL distance of the target MIP and to any leaf
      that is located at a shorter distance.  The OAM packet must
      contain sufficient information to identify the target MIP and
      therefore is processed only by the target MIP and can be silently
      discarded by the others.

   o  In order to send an OAM packet to M leaves (i.e., a subset of all
      the leaves), the source MEP sends M different OAM packets targeted
      to each individual leaf in the group of M leaves.  Aggregating or
      subsetting mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.

   A bud node with a Down MEP or a per-node MEP will both terminate and
   relay OAM packets.  Similar to how fault coverage is maximized by the
   explicit utilization of Up MEPs, the same is true for MEPs on a bud
   node.

   P2MP paths are unidirectional; therefore, any return path to an
   originating MEP for on-demand transactions will be out-of-band.  A
   mechanism to target "on-demand" transactions to a single MEP or MIP
   is required as it relieves the originating MEP of an arbitrarily
   large processing load and of the requirement to filter and discard
   undesired responses.  This is because normally TTL exhaustion will
   address all MIPs at a given distance from the source, and failure to
   exhaust TTL will address all MEPs.

3.8.  Further Considerations of Enhanced Segment Monitoring

   Segment monitoring, like any in-service monitoring, in a transport
   network should meet the following network objectives:

   1. The monitoring and maintenance of existing transport paths has to
      be conducted in service without traffic disruption.

   2. Segment monitoring must not modify the forwarding of the segment
      portion of the transport path.

   SPMEs defined in Section 3.2 meet the above two objectives, when they
   are pre-configured or pre-instantiated as exemplified in Section 3.6.
   However, sometimes pre-design and pre-configuration of all the
   considered patterns of SPME are not preferable in real operation due
   to the burden of design works, a number of header consumptions,
   bandwidth consumption, and so on.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   When SPMEs are configured or instantiated after the transport path
   has been created, network objective (1) can be met: application and
   removal of SPME to a faultless monitored transport entity can be
   performed in such a way as not to introduce any loss of traffic,
   e.g., by using a non-disruptive "make before break" technique.

   However, network objective (2) cannot be met due to new assignment of
   MPLS labels.  As a consequence, generally speaking, the results of
   SPME monitoring are not necessarily correlated with the behavior of
   traffic in the monitored entity when it does not use SPME.  For
   example, application of SPME to a problematic/faulty monitoring
   entity might "fix" the problem encountered by the latter -- for as
   long as SPME is applied.  And vice versa, application of SPME to a
   faultless monitored entity may result in making it faulty -- again,
   as long as SPME is applied.

   Support for a more sophisticated segment-monitoring mechanism
   (temporal and hitless segment monitoring) to efficiently meet the two
   network objectives may be necessary.

   One possible option to instantiate non-intrusive segment monitoring
   without the use of SPMEs would require the MIPs selected as
   monitoring end points to implement enhanced functionality and state
   for the monitored transport path.

   For example, the MIPs need to be configured with the TTL distance to
   the peer or with the address of the peer, when out-of-band return
   paths are used.

   A further issue that would need to be considered is events that
   result in changing the TTL distance to the peer monitoring entity,
   such as protection events that may temporarily invalidate OAM
   information gleaned from the use of this technique.

   Further considerations on this technique are outside the scope of
   this document.

4.  Reference Model

   The reference model for the MPLS-TP OAM framework builds upon the
   concept of a MEG, and its associated MEPs and MIPs, to support the
   functional requirements specified in RFC 5860 [11].

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

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




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


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

   o  A PW Maintenance Entity Group (PMEG), allowing monitoring and
      management of an end-to-end Single-Segment Pseudowire (SS-PW) or
      MS-PW (between T-PEs).

   o  An LSP SPME ME Group (LSMEG), allowing monitoring and management
      of an SPME (between a given pair of LERs and/or LSRs along an
      LSP).

   o  A PW SPME ME Group (PSMEG), allowing monitoring and management of
      an SPME (between a given pair of T-PEs and/or S-PEs along an
      (MS-)PW).

   The MEGs specified in this MPLS-TP OAM framework are compliant with
   the architecture framework for MPLS-TP [8] that includes both MS-PWs
   [4] and LSPs [1].

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

























Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


    Native |<------------------ MS-PW1Z ---------------->|  Native
    Layer  |                                             |   Layer
   Service |    |<LSP13>|    |<-LSP3X->|    |<LSPXZ>|    |  Service
    (AC1)  V    V       V    V         V    V       V    V   (AC2)
           +----+ +---+ +----+         +----+ +---+ +----+
   +----+  |T-PE| |LSR| |S-PE|         |S-PE| |LSR| |T-PE|   +----+
   |    |  | 1  | | 2 | | 3  |         | X  | | Y | | Z  |   |    |
   |    |  |    |=======|    |=========|    |=======|    |   |    |
   | CE1|--|.......PW13......|...PW3X..|......PWXZ.......|---|CE2 |
   |    |  |    |=======|    |=========|    |=======|    |   |    |
   |    |  |    | |   | |    |         |    | |   | |    |   |    |
   +----+  |    | |   | |    |         |    | |   | |    |   +----+
           +----+ +---+ +----+         +----+ +---+ +----+
           .                 .         .                 .
           |                 |         |                 |
           |<--- Domain 1 -->|         |<--- Domain Z -->|
           ^----------------- PW1Z  PMEG ----------------^
           ^--- PW13 PSMEG --^         ^--- PWXZ PSMEG --^
                ^-------^                   ^-------^
                LSP13 LMEG                  LSPXZ LMEG
                ^--^ ^--^    ^---------^    ^--^ ^--^
               Sec12 Sec23      Sec3X      SecXY SecYZ
                SMEG  SMEG       SMEG       SMEG  SMEG

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

   T-PE 1: Terminating Provider Edge 1
   LSR 2:  Label Switching Router 2
   S-PE 3: Switching Provider Edge 3
   S-PE X: Switching Provider Edge X
   LSR Y:  Label Switching Router Y
   T-PE Z: Terminating Provider Edge Z

        Figure 5: Reference Model for the MPLS-TP OAM Framework

   Figure 5 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, T-PE 1 is
   adjacent to LSR 2 via the MPLS-TP Section Sec12, and LSR 2 is
   adjacent to S-PE 3 via the MPLS-TP Section Sec23.  Similarly, in
   Domain Z, S-PE X is adjacent to LSR Y via the MPLS-TP Section SecXY,
   and LSR Y is adjacent to T-PE Z via the MPLS-TP Section SecYZ.  In
   addition, S-PE 3 is adjacent to S-PE X via the MPLS-TP Section Sec3X.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Figure 5 also shows a bidirectional MS-PW (MS-PW1Z) between AC1 on
   T-PE1 and AC2 on T-PE Z.  The MS-PW consists of three bidirectional
   PW path segments: 1) PW13 path segment between T-PE 1 and S-PE 3 via
   the bidirectional LSP13 LSP, 2) PW3X path segment between S-PE 3 and
   S-PE X via the bidirectional LSP3X LSP, and 3) PWXZ path segment
   between S-PE X and T-PE Z via the bidirectional LSPXZ LSP.

   The MPLS-TP OAM procedures that apply to a MEG are expected to
   operate independently from procedures on other MEGs.  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 constraints 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 5, it should be possible to configure one or more MEPs on the
   same node if that node is the end point of one or more MEGs.

   Figure 5 does not describe a PW3X PSMEG because typically SPMEs are
   used to monitor an OAM domain (like PW13 and PWXZ PSMEGs) rather than
   the segment between two OAM domains.  However, the OAM framework does
   not pose any constraints on the way SPMEs 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-TP Sections, LSPs, pseudowires, and
   MEGs in this section are made in relation to those shown in Figure 5.

4.1.  MPLS-TP Section Monitoring (SMEG)

   An MPLS-TP Section MEG (SMEG) is an MPLS-TP maintenance entity
   intended to monitor an MPLS-TP Section.  An SMEG may be configured on
   any MPLS-TP section.  SMEG OAM packets must fate-share with the user
   data packets sent over the monitored MPLS-TP Section.

   An SMEG 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-TP LSRs rather than monitoring the
   individual LSP or PW path segments traversing the MPLS-TP Section and
   where the server-layer technology does not provide adequate OAM
   capabilities.









Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Figure 5 shows five Section MEGs configured in the network between
   AC1 and AC2:

   1. Sec12 MEG associated with the MPLS-TP Section between T-PE 1 and
      LSR 2,

   2. Sec23 MEG associated with the MPLS-TP Section between LSR 2 and
      S-PE 3,

   3. Sec3X MEG associated with the MPLS-TP Section between S-PE 3 and
      S-PE X,

   4. SecXY MEG associated with the MPLS-TP Section between S-PE X and
      LSR Y, and

   5. SecYZ MEG associated with the MPLS-TP Section between LSR Y and
      T-PE Z

4.2.  MPLS-TP LSP End-to-End Monitoring Group (LMEG)

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

   An LMEG 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.

   Figure 5 depicts two LMEGs configured in the network between AC1 and
   AC2: 1) the LSP13 LMEG between T-PE 1 and S-PE 3, and 2) the LSPXZ
   LMEG between S-PE X and T-PE Z.  Note that the presence of a LSP3X
   LMEG in such a configuration is optional, and hence, not precluded by
   this framework.  For instance, the network operator may prefer to
   monitor the MPLS-TP Section between the two LSRs rather than the
   individual LSPs.

4.3.  MPLS-TP PW Monitoring (PMEG)

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

   A PMEG 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 that aggregates multiple PWs between
   PEs.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Figure 5 depicts an MS-PW (MS-PW1Z) consisting of three path segments
   (PW13, PW3X, and PWXZ) and its associated end-to-end PMEG (PW1Z
   PMEG).

4.4.  MPLS-TP LSP SPME Monitoring (LSMEG)

   An MPLS-TP LSP SPME MEG (LSMEG) is an MPLS-TP SPME with an associated
   maintenance entity group intended to monitor an arbitrary part of an
   LSP between the MEPs instantiated for the SPME, independent from the
   end-to-end monitoring (LMEG).  An LSMEG can monitor an LSP path
   segment, and it may also include the forwarding engine(s) of the
   node(s) at the edge(s) of the path segment.

   When an SPME is established between non-adjacent LSRs, the edges of
   the SPME become adjacent at the LSP sub-layer network and any LSR
   that was previously in between becomes an LSR for the SPME.

   Multiple hierarchical LSMEGs can be configured on any LSP.  LSMEG OAM
   packets must fate-share with the user data packets sent over the
   monitored LSP path segment.

   A LSME can be defined between the following entities:

   o  The LER and LSR of a given LSP.

   o  Any two LSRs of a given LSP.

   An LSMEG is intended to be deployed in scenarios where it is
   preferable to monitor the behavior 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.



















Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


            |<-------------------- PW1Z ------------------->|
            |                                               |
            |    |<-------------LSP1Z LSP------------->|    |
            |    |<-LSP13->|    |<LSP3X>|    |<-LSPXZ->|    |
            V    V         V    V       V    V         V    V
            +----+  +---+  +----+       +----+  +---+  +----+
   +----+   | PE |  |LSR|  |DBN |       |DBN |  |LSR|  | PE |   +----+
   |    |   | 1  |  | 2 |  | 3  |       | X  |  | Y |  | Z  |   |    |
   |    |AC1|    |=====================================|    |AC2|    |
   | CE1|---|.....................PW1Z......................|---|CE2 |
   |    |   |    |=====================================|    |   |    |
   |    |   |    |  |   |  |    |       |    |  |   |  |    |   |    |
   +----+   |    |  |   |  |    |       |    |  |   |  |    |   +----+
            +----+  +---+  +----+       +----+  +---+  +----+
            .                   .       .                   .
            |                   |       |                   |
            |<---- Domain 1 --->|       |<---- Domain Z --->|

                 ^---------^                 ^---------^
                 LSP13 LSMEG                 LSPXZ LSMEG
                 ^-------------------------------------^
                                LSP1Z LMEG

   DBN: Domain Border Node

   PE 1:  Provider Edge 1
   LSR 2: Label Switching Router 2
   DBN 3: Domain Border Node 3
   DBN X: Domain Border Node X
   LSR Y: Label Switching Router Y
   PE Z:  Provider Edge Z

                 Figure 6: MPLS-TP LSP SPME MEG (LSMEG)

   Figure 6 depicts a variation of the reference model in Figure 5 where
   there is an end-to-end LSP (LSP1Z) between PE 1 and PE Z.  LSP1Z
   consists of, at least, three LSP Concatenated Segments: LSP13, LSP3X,
   and LSPXZ.  In this scenario, there are two separate LSMEGs
   configured to monitor the LSP1Z: 1) a LSMEG monitoring the LSP13
   Concatenated Segment on Domain 1 (LSP13 LSMEG), and 2) a LSMEG
   monitoring the LSPXZ Concatenated Segment on Domain Z (LSPXZ LSMEG).

   It is worth noticing that LSMEGs can coexist with the LMEG monitoring
   the end-to-end LSP and that LSMEG MEPs and LMEG MEPs can be
   coincident in the same node (e.g., PE 1 node supports both the LSP1Z
   LMEG MEP and the LSP13 LSMEG MEP).





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


4.5.  MPLS-TP MS-PW SPME Monitoring (PSMEG)

   An MPLS-TP MS-PW SPME Monitoring MEG (PSMEG) is an MPLS-TP SPME with
   an associated maintenance entity group intended to monitor an
   arbitrary part of an MS-PW between the MEPs instantiated for the
   SPME, independently of the end-to-end monitoring (PMEG).  A PSMEG can
   monitor a PW path segment, and it may also include the forwarding
   engine(s) of the node(s) at the edge(s) of the path segment.  A PSMEG
   is no different than an SPME; it is simply named as such to discuss
   SPMEs specifically in a PW context.

   When SPME is established between non-adjacent S-PEs, the edges of the
   SPME become adjacent at the MS-PW sub-layer network, and any S-PE
   that was previously in between becomes an LSR for the SPME.

   S-PE placement is typically dictated by considerations other than
   OAM.  S-PEs will frequently reside at operational boundaries such as
   the transition from distributed control plane (CP) to centralized
   Network Management System (NMS) control or at a routing area
   boundary.  As such, the architecture would appear not to have the
   flexibility that arbitrary placement of SPME segments would imply.
   Support for an arbitrary placement of PSMEG would require the
   definition of additional PW sub-layering.  Multiple hierarchical
   PSMEGs can be configured on any MS-PW.  PSMEG OAM packets fate-share
   with the user data packets sent over the monitored PW path Segment.

   A PSMEG does not add hierarchical components to the MPLS
   architecture; it defines the role of existing components for the
   purposes of discussing OAM functionality.

   A PSME can be defined between the following entities:

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

   o  Any two S-PEs of a given MS-PW.

   Note that, in line with the SPME description in Section 3.2, when a
   PW SPME is instantiated after the MS-PW has been instantiated, the
   TTL distance of the MIPs may change and MIPs in the PW SPME are no
   longer part of the encompassing MEG.  This means that the S-PE nodes
   hosting these MIPs are no longer S-PEs but P nodes at the SPME LSP
   level.  The consequences are that the S-PEs hosting the PSMEG MEPs
   become adjacent S-PEs.  This is no different than the operation of
   SPMEs in general.

   A PSMEG is intended to be deployed in scenarios where it is
   preferable to monitor the behavior of a part of an MS-PW rather than
   the entire end-to-end PW itself, for example, when monitoring an MS-



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   PW path segment within a given network domain of an inter-domain MS-
   PW.

   Figure 5 depicts an MS-PW (MS-PW1Z) consisting of three path
   segments: PW13, PW3X, and PWXZ with two separate PSMEGs: 1) a PSMEG
   monitoring the PW13 MS-PW path segment on Domain 1 (PW13 PSMEG) and
   2) a PSMEG monitoring the PWXZ MS-PW path segment on Domain Z with
   (PWXZ PSMEG).

   It is worth noticing that PSMEGs can coexist with the PMEG monitoring
   the end-to-end MS-PW and that PSMEG MEPs and PMEG MEPs can be
   coincident in the same node (e.g., T-PE 1 node supports both the PW1Z
   PMEG MEP and the PW13 PSMEG MEP).

4.6.  Fate-Sharing Considerations for Multilink

   Multilink techniques are in use today and are expected to continue to
   be used in future deployments.  These techniques include Ethernet
   link aggregation [22] and the use of link bundling for MPLS [18]
   where the option to spread traffic over component links is supported
   and enabled.  While the use of link bundling can be controlled at the
   MPLS-TP layer, use of link aggregation (or any server-layer-specific
   multilink) is not necessarily under the control of the MPLS-TP layer.
   Other techniques may emerge in the future.  These techniques
   frequently share the characteristic that an LSP may be spread over a
   set of component links and therefore be reordered, but no flow within
   the LSP is reordered (except when very infrequent and minimally
   disruptive load rebalancing occurs).

   The use of multilink techniques may be prohibited or permitted in any
   particular deployment.  If multilink techniques are used, the
   deployment can be considered to be only partially MPLS-TP compliant;
   however, this is unlikely to prevent their use.

   The implications for OAM are that not all components of a multilink
   will be exercised, independent server-layer OAM being required to
   exercise the aggregated link components.  This has further
   implications for MIP and MEP placement, as per-interface MIPs or Down
   MEPs on a multilink interface are akin to a layer violation, as they
   instrument at the granularity of the server layer.  The implications
   for reduced OAM loss measurement functionality are documented in
   Sections 5.5.3 and 6.2.3.









Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


5.  OAM Functions for Proactive Monitoring

   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.

   Proactive monitoring is usually performed "in-service".  Such
   transactions are universally MEP to MEP in operation, while
   notifications can be node to node (e.g., some MS-PW transactions) or
   node to MEPs (e.g., AIS).  The control and measurement considerations
   are:

   1. Proactive monitoring for a MEG is typically configured at the
      creation time of the transport path.

   2. The operational characteristics of in-band measurement
      transactions (e.g., CV, Loss Measurement (LM), etc.) are
      configured at the MEPs.

   3. Server-layer events are reported by OAM packets originating at
      intermediate nodes.

   4. The measurements resulting from proactive monitoring are typically
      reported outside of the MEG (e.g., to a management system) as
      notification events such as faults or indications of performance
      degradations (such as signal degrade conditions).

   5. The measurements resulting from proactive monitoring may be
      periodically harvested by an NMS.

   Proactive fault reporting is assumed to be subject to unreliable
   delivery and soft-state, and it needs to operate in cases where a
   return path is not available or faulty.  Therefore, periodic
   repetition is assumed to be used for reliability, instead of
   handshaking.

   Delay measurement also requires periodic repetition to allow
   estimation of the packet delay variation for the MEG.

   For statically provisioned transport paths, the above information is
   statically configured; for dynamically established transport paths,
   the configuration information is signaled via the control plane or
   configured via the management plane.

   The operator may enable/disable some of the consequent actions
   defined in Section 5.1.2.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 32]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


5.1.  Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

   Proactive Continuity Check functions, as required in Section 2.2.2 of
   RFC 5860 [11], are used to detect a loss of continuity (LOC) defect
   between two MEPs in a MEG.

   Proactive Connectivity Verification functions, as required in Section
   2.2.3 of RFC 5860 [11], 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, at the same
   rate, of OAM packets by the source MEP that are processed by the peer
   sink MEP(s).  As a consequence, in order to save OAM bandwidth
   consumption, CV, when used, is linked with CC into Continuity Check
   and Connectivity Verification (CC-V) OAM packets.

   In order to perform proactive Connectivity Verification, each CC-V
   OAM packet also includes a globally unique Source MEP identifier,
   whose value needs to be configured on the source MEP and on the peer
   sink MEP(s).  In some cases, to avoid the need to configure the
   globally unique Source MEP identifier, it is preferable to perform
   only proactive Continuity Check.  In this case, the CC-V OAM packet
   does not need to include any globally unique Source MEP identifier.
   Therefore, a MEG can be monitored only for CC or for both CC and CV.
   CC-V OAM packets used for CC-only monitoring are called CC OAM
   packets, while CC-V OAM packets used for both CC and CV are called CV
   OAM packets.

   As a consequence, it is not possible to detect misconnections between
   two MEGs monitored only for continuity as neither the OAM packet type
   nor the OAM packet content provides sufficient information to
   disambiguate an invalid source.  To expand:

   o  For a CC OAM packet leaking into a CC monitored MEG -
      undetectable.

   o  For a CV OAM packet leaking into a CC monitored MEG - reception of
      CV OAM packets instead of a CC OAM packets (e.g., with the
      additional Source MEP identifier) allows detecting the fault.

   o  For a CC OAM packet leaking into a CV monitored MEG - reception of
      CC OAM packets instead of CV OAM packets (e.g., lack of additional
      Source MEP identifier) allows detecting the fault.

   o  For a CV OAM packet leaking into a CV monitored MEG - reception of
      CV OAM packets with different Source MEP identifier permits fault
      to be identified.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 33]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Having a common packet format for CC-V OAM packets would simplify
   parsing in a sink MEP to properly detect all the misconfiguration
   cases described above.

   MPLS-TP OAM supports different formats of MEP identifiers to address
   different environments.  When an alternative to IP addressing is
   desired (e.g., MPLS-TP is deployed in transport network environments
   where consistent operations with other transport technologies defined
   by the ITU-T are required), the ITU Carrier Code (ICC)-based format
   for MEP identification is used: this format is under definition in
   [25].  When MPLS-TP is deployed in an environment where IP
   capabilities are available and desired for OAM, the IP-based MEP
   identification is used: this format is described in [24].

   CC-V OAM packets are transmitted at a regular, operator-configurable
   rate.  The default CC-V transmission periods are application
   dependent (see Section 5.1.3).

   Proactive CC-V OAM packets are transmitted with the "minimum loss
   probability PHB" within the transport path (LSP, PW) they are
   monitoring.  For E-LSPs, this PHB is configurable on the network
   operator's basis, while for L-LSPs this is determined as per RFC 3270
   [23].  PHBs can be translated at the network borders by the same
   function that translates them for user data traffic.  The implication
   is that CC-V fate-shares with much of the forwarding implementation,
   but not all aspects of PHB processing are exercised.  Either on-
   demand tools are used for finer-grained fault finding or an
   implementation may utilize a CC-V flow per PHB to ensure a CC-V flow
   fate-shares with each individual PHB.

   In a co-routed or associated, bidirectional point-to-point transport
   path, when a MEP is enabled to generate proactive CC-V OAM packets
   with a configured transmission rate, it also expects to receive
   proactive CC-V OAM packets from its peer MEP at the same transmission
   rate.  This is because a common SLA applies to all components of the
   transport path.  In a unidirectional transport path (either point-to-
   point or point-to-multipoint), the source MEP is enabled only to
   generate CC-V OAM packets, while each 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 proactive CC-V information and forward these
   proactive CC-V OAM packets as regular data packets.

   During path setup and tear down, situations arise where CC-V checks
   would give rise to alarms, as the path is not fully instantiated.  In
   order to avoid these spurious alarms, the following procedures are
   recommended.  At initialization, the source MEP function (generating



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 34]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   proactive CC-V packets) should be enabled prior to the corresponding
   sink MEP function (detecting continuity and connectivity defects).
   When disabling the CC-V proactive functionality, the sink MEP
   function should be disabled prior to the corresponding source MEP
   function.

   It should be noted that different encapsulations are possible for
   CC-V packets, and therefore it is possible that in case of
   misconfigurations or mis-connectivity, CC-V packets are received with
   an unexpected encapsulation.

   There are practical limitations to detecting unexpected
   encapsulation.  It is possible that there are misconfiguration or
   mis-connectivity scenarios where OAM packets can alias as payload,
   e.g., when a transport path can carry an arbitrary payload without a
   pseudowire.

   When CC-V packets are received with an unexpected encapsulation that
   can be parsed by a sink MEP, the CC-V packet is processed as if it
   were received with the correct encapsulation.  If it is not a
   manifestation of a mis-connectivity defect, a warning is raised (see
   Section 5.1.1.4).  Otherwise, the CC-V packet may be silently
   discarded as unrecognized and a LOC defect may be detected (see
   Section 5.1.1.1).

   The defect conditions are described in no specific order.

5.1.1.  Defects Identified by CC-V

   Proactive CC-V functions allow a sink MEP to detect the defect
   conditions described in the following subsections.  For all of the
   described defect cases, a sink MEP should notify the equipment fault
   management process of the detected defect.

   Sequential consecutive loss of CC-V packets is considered indicative
   of an actual break and not of congestive loss or physical-layer
   degradation.  The loss of 3 packets in a row (implying a detection
   interval that is 3.5 times the insertion time) is interpreted as a
   true break and a condition that will not clear by itself.

   A CC-V OAM packet is considered to carry an unexpected globally
   unique Source MEP identifier if it is a CC OAM packet received by a
   sink MEP monitoring the MEG for CV; it is a CV OAM packet received by
   a sink MEP monitoring the MEG for CC, or it is a CV OAM packet
   received by a sink MEP monitoring the MEG for CV but carrying a
   unique Source MEP identifier that is different that the expected one.
   Conversely, the CC-V packet is considered to have an expected
   globally unique Source MEP identifier; it is a CC OAM packet received



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 35]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   by a sink MEP monitoring the MEG for CC, or it is a CV OAM packet
   received by a sink MEP monitoring the MEG for CV and carrying a
   unique Source MEP identifier that is equal to the expected one.

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 proactive CC-V OAM
   packets from the source MEP.

   o  Entry criteria:  If no proactive CC-V OAM packets from the source
      MEP (and in the case of CV, this includes the requirement to have
      the expected globally unique Source MEP identifier) are received
      within the interval equal to 3.5 times the receiving MEP's
      configured CC-V reception period.

   o  Exit criteria: A proactive CC-V OAM packet from the source MEP
      (and again in the case of CV, with the expected globally unique
      Source MEP identifier) is received.

5.1.1.2.  Mis-Connectivity Defect

   When a proactive CC-V OAM packet is received, a sink MEP identifies a
   mis-connectivity defect (e.g., mismerge, misconnection, or unintended
   looping) when the received packet carries an unexpected globally
   unique Source MEP identifier.

   o  Entry criteria: The sink MEP receives a proactive CC-V OAM packet
      with an unexpected globally unique Source MEP identifier or with
      an unexpected encapsulation.

   o  Exit criteria: The sink MEP does not receive any proactive CC-V
      OAM packet with an unexpected globally unique Source MEP
      identifier for an interval equal at least to 3.5 times the longest
      transmission period of the proactive CC-V OAM packets received
      with an unexpected globally unique Source MEP identifier since
      this defect has been raised.  This requires the OAM packet 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 proactive CC-V OAM packets are received with the expected globally
   unique Source MEP identifier but with a transmission period different
   than the locally configured reception period, then a CC-V period
   misconfiguration defect is detected.





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 36]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   o  Entry criteria: A MEP receives a CC-V proactive packet with the
      expected globally unique Source MEP identifier but with a
      transmission period different than its own CC-V-configured
      transmission period.

   o  Exit criteria: The sink MEP does not receive any proactive CC-V
      OAM packet with the expected 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
      proactive CC-V OAM packets received with the expected globally
      unique Source MEP identifier and an incorrect transmission period
      since this defect has been raised.

5.1.1.4.  Unexpected Encapsulation Defect

   If proactive CC-V OAM packets are received with the expected globally
   unique Source MEP identifier but with an unexpected encapsulation,
   then a CC-V unexpected encapsulation defect is detected.

   It should be noted that there are practical limitations to detecting
   unexpected encapsulation (see Section 5.1.1).

   o  Entry criteria: A MEP receives a CC-V proactive packet with the
      expected globally unique Source MEP identifier but with an
      unexpected encapsulation.

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

5.1.2.  Consequent Action

   A sink MEP that detects any of the defect conditions defined in
   Section 5.1.1 declares a defect condition and performs the following
   consequent actions.

   If a MEP detects a mis-connectivity defect, it blocks all the traffic
   (including also the user data packets) that it receives from the
   misconnected transport path.

   If a MEP detects a LOC defect that is not caused by a period
   misconfiguration, 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.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 37]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   It is worth noticing that the OAM requirements document [11]
   recommends that CC-V proactive monitoring be enabled on every MEG in
   order to reliably detect connectivity defects.  However, CC-V
   proactive monitoring can be disabled by an operator for a MEG.  In
   the event of a misconnection between a transport path that is
   proactively monitored for CC-V and a transport path that 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 consequence of delivery of
   traffic to an incorrect destination.  For these reasons, the traffic
   block consequent action is applied even when a LOC condition occurs.
   This block consequent action can 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) or a mis-connectivity
   defect (Section 5.1.1.2), it declares a signal fail condition of the
   ME.

   It is a matter of local policy whether or not a MEP that detects a
   period misconfiguration defect (Section 5.1.1.3) declares a signal
   fail condition of the ME.

   The detection of an unexpected encapsulation defect does not have any
   consequent action: it is just a warning for the network operator.  An
   implementation able to detect an unexpected encapsulation but not
   able to verify the source MEP ID may choose to declare a mis-
   connectivity defect.

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:

   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 the other MEPs in the MEG.  For a point-to-point MEG, the
      list would consist of the single MEP ID from which the OAM packets
      are expected.  In case of the root MEP of a P2MP MEG, the list is
      composed of all the leaf MEP IDs inside the MEG.  In case of the
      leaf MEP of a P2MP MEG, the list is composed of the root MEP ID
      (i.e., each leaf needs to know the root MEP ID from which it
      expects to receive the CC-V OAM packets).




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 38]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   o  PHB for E-LSPs.  It identifies the per-hop behavior of a 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.

   o  transmission rate.  The default CC-V transmission periods are
      application dependent (depending on whether they are used to
      support fault management, performance monitoring, or protection-
      switching applications):

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

      *  Performance Management: default transmission period is 100 ms
         (i.e., transmission rate of 10 packets/second).  CC-V
         contributes to the accuracy of performance monitoring
         statistics by permitting the defect-free periods to be properly
         distinguished as described in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.6.1.

      *  Protection Switching: If protection switching with CC-V, defect
         entry criteria of 12 ms is required (for example, in
         conjunction with the requirement to support 50 ms recovery time
         as indicated in RFC 5654 [5]), then an implementation should
         use a default transmission period of 3.33 ms (i.e.,
         transmission rate of 300 packets/second).  Sometimes, the
         requirement of 50 ms recovery time is associated with the
         requirement for a CC-V defect entry criteria period of 35 ms;
         in these cases a transmission period of 10 ms (i.e.,
         transmission rate of 100 packets/second) can be used.
         Furthermore, when there is no need for so small CC-V defect
         entry criteria periods, a larger transmission period can be
         used.

   It should be possible for the operator to configure these
   transmission rates for all applications, to satisfy specific network
   requirements.

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

   For management-provisioned transport paths, the above parameters are
   statically configured; for dynamically signaled transport paths, the
   configuration information is distributed via the control plane.

   The operator should be able to enable/disable some of the consequent
   actions.  Which consequent actions can be enabled/disabled is
   described in Section 5.1.2.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 39]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


5.2.  Remote Defect Indication

   The Remote Defect Indication (RDI) function, as required in Section
   2.2.9 of RFC 5860 [11], is an indicator that is transmitted by a sink
   MEP to communicate to its source MEP that a signal fail condition
   exists.  In case of co-routed and associated bidirectional transport
   paths, RDI is associated with proactive CC-V, and the RDI indicator
   can be piggy-backed onto the CC-V packet.  In case of unidirectional
   transport paths, the RDI indicator can be sent only using an out-of-
   band return path if it exists and its usage is enabled by policy
   actions.

   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.  When incorporated into CC-V, the RDI
   information will be included in all proactive CC-V packets that it
   generates for the duration of the signal fail condition's existence.

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

   MIPs as well as intermediate nodes not supporting MPLS-TP OAM are
   transparent to the RDI indicator and forward OAM 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 condition clears, the MEP should stop
   transmitting the RDI indicator to its peer MEP.  When incorporated
   into CC-V, the RDI indicator will not be set for subsequent
   transmission of proactive CC-V packets.  A MEP should clear the RDI
   defect upon reception of an RDI indicator cleared.

5.2.1.  Configuration Considerations

   In order to support RDI, the indication may be carried in a unique
   OAM packet or may be embedded in a CC-V packet.  The in-band RDI
   transmission rate and PHB of the OAM packets carrying RDIs should be
   the same as that configured for CC-V to allow both far-end and near-
   end defect conditions being resolved in a timeframe that has the same
   order of magnitude.  This timeframe is application specific as
   described in Section 5.1.3.  Methods of the out-of-band return paths
   will dictate how out-of-band RDIs are transmitted.








Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 40]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


5.3.  Alarm Reporting

   The Alarm Reporting function, as required in Section 2.2.8 of RFC
   5860 [11], relies upon an Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) packet to
   suppress alarms following detection of defect conditions at the
   server (sub-)layer.

   When a server MEP asserts a signal fail condition, it notifies that
   to the co-located MPLS-TP client/server adaptation function that then
   generates OAM packets with AIS information in the downstream
   direction to allow the suppression of secondary alarms at the MPLS-TP
   MEP in the client (sub-)layer.

   The generation of packets with AIS information starts immediately
   when the server MEP asserts a signal fail condition.  These periodic
   OAM packets, with AIS information, continue to be transmitted until
   the signal fail condition is cleared.

   It is assumed that to avoid spurious alarm generation a MEP detecting
   a loss of continuity defect (see Section 5.1.1.1) will wait for a
   hold-off interval prior to asserting an alarm to the management
   system.  Therefore, upon receiving an OAM packet with AIS
   information, an MPLS-TP MEP enters an AIS defect condition and
   suppresses reporting of alarms to the NMS on the loss of continuity
   with its peer MEP, but it does not block traffic received from the
   transport path.  A MEP resumes loss of continuity alarm generation
   upon detecting loss of continuity defect conditions in the absence of
   AIS condition.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process AIS information
   and forward these AIS OAM packets as regular data packets.

   For example, let's consider a fiber cut between T-PE 1 and LSR 2 in
   the reference network of Figure 5.  Assuming that all of the MEGs
   described in Figure 5 have proactive CC-V enabled, a LOC defect is
   detected by the MEPs of Sec12 SMEG, LSP13 LMEG, PW1 PSMEG, and PW1Z
   PMEG; however, in a transport network, only the alarm associated to
   the fiber cut needs to be reported to an NMS, while all 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 LSR
   2), LSR 2 can generate the proper alarm in the physical layer and
   suppress the secondary alarm associated with the LOC defect detected
   on Sec12 SMEG.  As both MEPs reside within the same node, this
   process does not involve any external protocol exchange.  Otherwise,





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 41]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   if the physical layer does not have enough OAM capabilities to detect
   the fiber cut, the MEP of Sec12 SMEG in LSR 2 will report a LOC
   alarm.

   In both cases, the MEP of Sec12 SMEG in LSR 2 notifies the adaptation
   function for LSP13 LMEG that then generates AIS packets on the LSP13
   LMEG in order to allow its MEP in S-PE 3 to suppress the LOC alarm.
   S-PE 3 can also suppress the secondary alarm on PW13 PSMEG because
   the MEP of PW13 PSMEG resides within the same node as the MEP of
   LSP13 LMEG.  The MEP of PW13 PSMEG in S-PE 3 also notifies the
   adaptation function for PW1Z PMEG that then generates AIS packets on
   PW1Z PMEG in order to allow its MEP in T-PE Z to suppress the LOC
   alarm.

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

   The AIS condition is cleared if no AIS packet has been received in
   3.5 times the AIS transmission period.

   The AIS transmission period is traditionally one per second, but an
   option to configure longer periods would be also desirable.  As a
   consequence, OAM packets need to self-identify the transmission
   period such that proper exit criteria can be established.

   AIS packets are transmitted with the "minimum loss probability PHB"
   within a single network operator.  For E-LSPs, this PHB is
   configurable on network operator's basis, while for L-LSPs, this is
   determined as per RFC 3270 [23].

5.4.  Lock Reporting

   The Lock Reporting function, as required in Section 2.2.7 of RFC 5860
   [11], relies upon a Lock Report (LKR) packet used to suppress alarms
   following administrative locking action in the server (sub-)layer.

   When a server MEP is locked, the MPLS-TP client (sub-)layer
   adaptation function generates packets with LKR information to allow
   the suppression of secondary alarms at the MEPs in the client
   (sub-)layer.  Again, it is assumed that there is a hold-off for any
   loss of continuity alarms in the client-layer MEPs downstream of the
   node originating the Lock Report.  In case of client (sub-)layer co-
   routed bidirectional transport paths, the LKR information is sent on
   both directions.  In case of client (sub-)layer unidirectional
   transport paths, the LKR information is sent only in the downstream
   direction.  As a consequence, in case of client (sub-)layer point-to-
   multipoint transport paths, the LKR information is sent only to the



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 42]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   MEPs that are downstream from the server (sub-)layer that has been
   administratively locked.  Client (sub-)layer associated bidirectional
   transport paths behave like co-routed bidirectional transport paths
   if the server (sub-)layer that has been administratively locked is
   used by both directions; otherwise, they behave like unidirectional
   transport paths.

   The generation of packets with LKR information starts immediately
   when the server MEP is locked.  These periodic packets, with LKR
   information, continue to be transmitted until the locked condition is
   cleared.

   Upon receiving a packet with LKR information, an MPLS-TP MEP enters
   an LKR defect condition and suppresses the loss of continuity alarm
   associated with its peer MEP but does not block traffic received from
   the transport path.  A MEP resumes loss of continuity alarm
   generation upon detecting loss of continuity defect conditions in the
   absence of the LKR condition.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process the LKR
   information; they forward these LKR OAM packets as regular data
   packets.

   For example, let's consider the case where the MPLS-TP Section
   between T-PE 1 and LSR 2 in the reference network of Figure 5 is
   administratively locked at LSR 2 (in both directions).

   Assuming that all the MEGs described in Figure 5 have proactive CC-V
   enabled, a LOC defect is detected by the MEPs of LSP13 LMEG, PW1
   PSMEG, and PW1Z PMEG; however, in a transport network all these
   secondary alarms should be suppressed (i.e., not reported to the NMS
   or reported as secondary alarms).

   The MEP of Sec12 SMEG in LSR 2 notifies the adaptation function for
   LSP13 LMEG that then generates LKR packets on the LSP13 LMEG in order
   to allow its MEPs in T-PE 1 and S-PE 3 to suppress the LOC alarm.
   S-PE 3 can also suppress the secondary alarm on PW13 PSMEG because
   the MEP of PW13 PSMEG resides within the same node as the MEP of
   LSP13 LMEG.  The MEP of PW13 PSMEG in S-PE 3 also notifies the
   adaptation function for PW1Z PMEG that then generates AIS packets on
   PW1Z PMEG in order to allow its MEP in T-PE Z to suppress the LOC
   alarm.

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





Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 43]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   The locked condition is cleared if no LKR packet has been received
   for 3.5 times the transmission period.

   The LKR transmission period is traditionally one per second, but an
   option to configure longer periods would be also desirable.  As a
   consequence, OAM packets need to self-identify the transmission
   period such that proper exit criteria can be established.

   LKR packets are transmitted with the "minimum loss probability PHB"
   within a single network operator.  For E-LSPs, this PHB is
   configurable on network operator's basis, while for L-LSPs, this is
   determined as per RFC 3270 [23].

5.5.  Packet Loss Measurement

   Packet Loss Measurement (LM) is one of the capabilities supported by
   the MPLS-TP Performance Monitoring (PM) function in order to
   facilitate reporting of Quality of Service (QoS) information for a
   transport path as required in Section 2.2.11 of RFC 5860 [11].  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.

   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 co-routed or associated bidirectional transport path) during
   the lifetime of the transport path.  Each MEP performs measurements
   of its transmitted and received user data packets.  These
   measurements are then correlated in real time 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 PHB scheduling class 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).

   Proactive LM can be operated in two ways:

   o  One-way: a MEP sends an LM OAM packet to its peer MEP containing
      all the required information to facilitate near-end packet loss
      measurements at the peer MEP.

   o  Two-way: a MEP sends an LM OAM packet with an LM request to its
      peer MEP, which replies with an LM OAM packet as an LM response.
      The request/response LM OAM packets contain all the required



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 44]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


      information to facilitate both near-end and far-end packet loss
      measurements from the viewpoint of the originating MEP.

   One-way LM is applicable to both unidirectional and bidirectional
   (co-routed or associated) transport paths, while two-way LM is
   applicable only to bidirectional (co-routed or associated) transport
   paths.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process the LM
   information; they forward these proactive LM OAM packets as regular
   data packets.

5.5.1.  Configuration Considerations

   In order to support proactive LM, the transmission rate and, for
   E-LSPs, the PHB class (associated with the LM OAM packets originating
   from a MEP) need to be configured as part of the LM provisioning.  LM
   OAM packets should be transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest
   drop precedence within the measured PHB Scheduling Class (see RFC
   3260 [17]), in order to maximize reliability of measurement within
   the traffic class.

   If that PHB class is not an ordered aggregate where the ordering
   constraint is all packets with the PHB class being delivered in
   order, LM can produce inconsistent results.

   Performance monitoring (e.g., LM) 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.  Therefore, support of proactive LM has implications
   on the CC-V transmission period (see Section 5.1.3).

5.5.2.  Sampling Skew

   If an implementation makes use of a hardware forwarding path that
   operates in parallel with an OAM processing path, whether hardware or
   software based, the packet and byte counts may be skewed if one or
   more packets can be processed before the OAM processing samples
   counters.  If OAM is implemented in software, this error can be quite
   large.

5.5.3.  Multilink Issues

   If multilink is used at the ingress or egress of a transport path,
   there may not be a single packet-processing engine where an LM packet
   can be injected or extracted as an atomic operation while having
   accurate packet and byte counts associated with the packet.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 45]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   In the case where multilink is encountered along the route of the
   transport path, the reordering of packets within the transport path
   can cause inaccurate LM results.

5.6.  Packet Delay Measurement

   Packet 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 as required in Section 2.2.12 of RFC
   5860 [11].  Specifically, proactive 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 co-routed or associated bidirectional transport path) during a
   configurable time interval.

   Proactive DM can be operated in two ways:

   o  One-way: a MEP sends a 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 precise time synchronization at
      either MEP by means outside the scope of this framework.

   o  Two-way: a MEP sends a 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 contain all the required
      information to facilitate two-way packet delay and/or two-way
      packet delay variation measurements from the viewpoint of the
      originating MEP.

   One-way DM is applicable to both unidirectional and bidirectional
   (co-routed or associated) transport paths, while two-way DM is
   applicable only to bidirectional (co-routed or associated) transport
   paths.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process the DM
   information; they forward these proactive DM OAM packets as regular
   data packets.

5.6.1.  Configuration Considerations

   In order to support proactive DM, the transmission rate and, for
   E-LSPs, the PHB (associated with the DM OAM packets originating from
   a MEP) need to be configured as part of the DM provisioning.  DM OAM
   packets should be transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 46]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   drop precedence within the measured PHB Scheduling Class (see RFC
   3260 [17]).

   Performance monitoring (e.g., DM) 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.  Therefore, support of proactive DM has implications
   on the CC-V transmission period (see Section 5.1.3).

5.7.  Client Failure Indication

   The Client Failure Indication (CFI) function, as required in Section
   2.2.10 of RFC 5860 [11], 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).  It is propagated 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 transport path does not support a
   native defect/alarm indication mechanism, e.g., AIS.

   A source MEP starts transmitting a CFI to its peer MEP when it
   receives a local client signal defect notification via its local
   client signal fail indication.  Mechanisms to detect local client
   signal fail defects are technology specific.  Similarly, mechanisms
   to determine when to cease originating client signal fail indication
   are also technology specific.

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

   There needs to be a 1:1 correspondence between the client and the
   MEG; otherwise, when multiple clients are multiplexed over a
   transport path, the CFI packet requires additional information to
   permit the client instance to be identified.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process the CFI
   information; they forward these proactive CFI OAM packets as regular
   data packets.

5.7.1.  Configuration Considerations

   In order to support CFI indication, the CFI transmission rate and,
   for E-LSPs, the PHB of the CFI OAM packets should be configured as
   part of the CFI configuration.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 47]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


6.  OAM Functions for On-Demand Monitoring

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

   On-demand monitoring covers a combination of "in-service" and "out-
   of-service" monitoring functions.  The control and measurement
   implications are:

   1. A MEG can be directed to perform an "on-demand" functions at
      arbitrary times in the lifetime of a transport path.

   2. "Out-of-service" monitoring functions may require a priori
      configuration of both MEPs and intermediate nodes in the MEG
      (e.g., data-plane loopback) and the issuance of notifications into
      client layers of the transport path being removed from service
      (e.g., lock reporting)

   3. The measurements resulting from "on-demand" monitoring are
      typically harvested in real time, as they are frequently initiated
      manually.  These do not necessarily require different harvesting
      mechanisms than for harvesting proactive monitoring telemetry.

   The functions that are exclusively out-of-service are those described
   in Section 6.3.  The remainder are applicable to both in-service and
   out-of-service transport paths.

6.1.  Connectivity Verification

   The on-demand connectivity verification function, as required in
   Section 2.2.3 of RFC 5860 [11], is a transaction that flows from the
   originating MEP to a target MIP or MEP to verify the connectivity
   between these points.

   Use of on-demand CV is dependent on the existence of a bidirectional
   ME or an associated return ME, or the availability of an out-of-band
   return path, because it requires the ability for target MIPs and MEPs
   to direct responses to the originating MEPs.

   One possible use of on-demand CV would be to perform fault management
   without using proactive CC-V, in order to preserve network resources,
   e.g., bandwidth, processing time at switches.  In this case, network
   management periodically invokes on-demand CV.







Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 48]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   An additional use of on-demand CV would be to detect and locate a
   problem of connectivity when a problem is suspected or known to be
   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-
   demand functionality may be used to check either an entire MEG (end-
   to-end) or between the originating MEP and a specific MIP.  This
   functionality may not be available for associated bidirectional
   transport paths or unidirectional paths, as the MIP may not have a
   return path to the originating MEP for the on-demand CV transaction.

   When on-demand CV is invoked, the originating MEP issues a sequence
   of on-demand CV packets that uniquely identifies the MEG being
   verified.  The number of packets and their transmission rate should
   be pre-configured at the originating MEP to take into account normal
   packet-loss conditions.  The source MEP should use the mechanisms
   defined in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 when sending an on-demand CV packet
   to a target MEP or target MIP, respectively.  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 the originating MEP, this is an indication that a connectivity
   problem may exist.

   On-demand CV should have the ability to carry padding such that a
   variety of MTU sizes can be originated to verify the MTU transport
   capability of the transport path.

   MIPs that are not targeted by on-demand CV packets, as well as
   intermediate nodes, do not process the CV information; they forward
   these on-demand CV OAM packets as regular data packets.

6.1.1.  Configuration Considerations

   For on-demand CV, the originating MEP should support the
   configuration of the number of packets to be transmitted/received in
   each sequence of transmissions and their packet size.

   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.

   For E-LSPs, the PHB of the on-demand CV packets should be configured
   as well.  This permits the verification of correct operation of QoS
   queuing as well as connectivity.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 49]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


6.2.  Packet Loss Measurement

   On-demand Packet Loss Measurement (LM) is one of the capabilities
   supported by the MPLS-TP Performance Monitoring function in order to
   facilitate the diagnosis of QoS performance for a transport path, as
   required in Section 2.2.11 of RFC 5860 [11].

   On-demand LM is very similar to proactive LM described in Section
   5.5.  This section focuses on the differences between on-demand and
   proactive LM.

   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 co-routed or associated bidirectional transport path) during a
   pre-defined monitoring period.  Each MEP performs measurements of its
   transmitted and received user data packets.  These measurements are
   then correlated to evaluate the packet-loss performance metrics of
   the transport path.

   Use of packet loss measurement in an out-of-service transport path
   requires a traffic source such as a test device that can inject
   synthetic traffic.

6.2.1.  Configuration Considerations

   In order to support on-demand LM, the beginning and duration of the
   LM procedures, the transmission rate, and, for E-LSPs, the PHB class
   (associated with the LM OAM packets originating from a MEP) must be
   configured as part of the on-demand LM provisioning.  LM OAM packets
   should be transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest drop
   precedence as described in Section 5.5.1.

6.2.2.  Sampling Skew

   The same considerations described in Section 5.5.2 for the proactive
   LM are also applicable to on-demand LM implementations.

6.2.3.  Multilink Issues

   Multilink issues are as described in Section 5.5.3.

6.3.  Diagnostic Tests

   Diagnostic tests are tests performed on a MEG that has been taken out
   of service.






Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 50]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


6.3.1.  Throughput Estimation

   Throughput estimation is an on-demand out-of-service function, as
   required in Section 2.2.5 of RFC 5860 [11], that allows verifying the
   bandwidth/throughput of an MPLS-TP transport path (LSP or PW) before
   it is put in service.

   Throughput estimation is performed between MEPs and between a MEP and
   a MIP.  It can be performed in one-way or two-way modes.

   According to RFC 2544 [12], this test is performed by sending OAM
   test packets at increasing rates (up to the theoretical maximum),
   computing the percentage of OAM test packets received, and reporting
   the rate at which OAM test packets begin to drop.  In general, this
   rate is dependent on the OAM test packet size.

   When configured to perform such tests, a source MEP inserts OAM test
   packets with a specified packet size and transmission pattern at a
   rate to exercise the throughput.

   The throughput test can create congestion within the network, thus
   impacting other transport paths.  However, the test traffic should
   comply with the traffic profile of the transport path under test, so
   the impact of the test will not be worse than the impact caused by
   the customers, whose traffic would be sent over that transport path,
   sending the traffic at the maximum rate allowed by their traffic
   profiles.  Therefore, throughput tests are not applicable to
   transport paths that do not have a defined traffic profile, such as
   LSPs in a context where statistical multiplexing is leveraged for
   network capacity dimensioning.

   For a one-way test, the remote sink MEP receives the OAM test packets
   and calculates the packet loss.  For a two-way test, the remote MEP
   loops the OAM test packets back to the original MEP, and the local
   sink MEP calculates the packet loss.

   It is worth noting that two-way throughput estimation is only
   applicable to bidirectional (co-routed or associated) transport paths
   and can only evaluate the minimum of available throughput of the two
   directions.  In order to estimate the throughput of each direction
   uniquely, two one-way throughput estimation sessions have to be set
   up.  One-way throughput estimation requires coordination between the
   transmitting and receiving test devices as described in Section 6 of
   RFC 2544 [12].

   It is also worth noting that if throughput estimation is performed on
   transport paths that transit oversubscribed links, the test may not
   produce comprehensive results if viewed in isolation because the



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 51]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   impact of the test on the surrounding traffic needs to also be
   considered.  Moreover, the estimation will only reflect the bandwidth
   available at the moment when the measure is made.

   MIPs that are not targeted by on-demand test OAM packets, as well as
   intermediate nodes, do not process the throughput test information;
   they forward these on-demand test OAM packets as regular data
   packets.

6.3.1.1.  Configuration Considerations

   Throughput estimation is an out-of-service tool.  The diagnosed MEG
   should be put into a locked state before the diagnostic test is
   started.

   A MEG can be put into a locked state either via an NMS action or
   using the Lock Instruct OAM tool as defined in Section 7.

   At the transmitting MEP, provisioning is required for a test signal
   generator that is associated with the MEP.  At a receiving MEP,
   provisioning is required for a test signal detector that is
   associated with the MEP.

   In order to ensure accurate measurement, care needs to be taken to
   enable throughput estimation only if all the MEPs within the MEG can
   process OAM test packets at the same rate as the payload data rates
   (see Section 6.3.1.2).

6.3.1.2.  Limited OAM Processing Rate

   If an implementation is able to process payload at much higher data
   rates than OAM test packets, then accurate measurement of throughput
   using OAM test packets is not achievable.  Whether OAM packets can be
   processed at the same rate as payload is implementation dependent.

6.3.1.3.  Multilink Considerations

   If multilink is used, then it may not be possible to perform
   throughput measurement, as the throughput test may not have a
   mechanism for utilizing more than one component link of the
   aggregated link.

6.3.2.  Data-Plane Loopback

   Data-plane loopback is an out-of-service function, as required in
   Section 2.2.5 of RFC 5860 [11].  This function consists in placing a
   transport path, at either an intermediate or terminating node, into a
   data-plane loopback state, such that all traffic (including both



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 52]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   payload and OAM) received on the looped back interface is sent on the
   reverse direction of the transport path.  The traffic is looped back
   unmodified except for normal per-hop processing such as TTL
   decrement.

   The data-plane loopback function requires that the MEG is locked such
   that user data traffic is prevented from entering/exiting that MEG.
   Instead, test traffic is inserted at the ingress of the MEG.  This
   test traffic can be generated from an internal process residing
   within the ingress node or injected by external test equipment
   connected to the ingress node.

   It is also normal to disable proactive monitoring of the path as the
   MEP located upstream with respect to the node set in the data-plane
   loopback mode will see all the OAM packets originated by itself, and
   this may interfere with other measurements.

   The only way to send an OAM packet (e.g., to remove the data-plane
   loopback state) to the MIPs or MEPs hosted by a node set in the data-
   plane loopback mode is via TTL expiry.  It should also be noted that
   MIPs can be addressed with more than one TTL value on a co-routed
   bidirectional path set into data-plane loopback.

   If the loopback function is to be performed at an intermediate node,
   it is only applicable to co-routed bidirectional paths.  If the
   loopback is to be performed end to end, it is applicable to both co-
   routed bidirectional and associated bidirectional paths.

   It should be noted that data-plane loopback function itself is
   applied to data-plane loopback points that can reside on different
   interfaces from MIPs/MEPs.  Where a node implements data-plane
   loopback capability and whether it implements it in more than one
   point is implementation dependent.

6.3.2.1.  Configuration Considerations

   Data-plane loopback is an out-of-service tool.  The MEG that defines
   a diagnosed transport path should be put into a locked state before
   the diagnostic test is started.  However, a means is required to
   permit the originated test traffic to be inserted at the ingress MEP
   when data-plane loopback is performed.

   A transport path, at either an intermediate or terminating node, can
   be put into data-plane loopback state via an NMS action or using an
   OAM tool for data-plane loopback configuration.






Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 53]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   If the data-plane loopback point is set somewhere at an intermediate
   point of a co-routed bidirectional transport path, the side of the
   loopback function (east/west side or both sides) needs to be
   configured.

6.4.  Route Tracing

   It is often necessary to trace a route covered by a MEG from an
   originating MEP to the peer MEP(s) including all the MIPs in between.
   This may be conducted after provisioning an MPLS-TP transport path
   for, e.g., troubleshooting purposes such as fault localization.

   The route tracing function, as required in Section 2.2.4 of RFC 5860
   [11], is providing this functionality.  Based on the fate-sharing
   requirement of OAM flows, i.e., OAM packets receive the same
   forwarding treatment as data packets, route tracing is a basic means
   to perform connectivity verification and, to a much lesser degree,
   continuity check.  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 tracing should always discover the full list of MIPs and of
   peer MEPs.  In case a defect exists, the route tracing function will
   only be able to trace up to the defect, and it needs to be able to
   return the incomplete list of OAM entities that it was able to trace
   so that the fault can be localized.

6.4.1.  Configuration Considerations

   The configuration of the route tracing function must at least support
   the setting of the number of trace attempts before it gives up.

6.5.  Packet Delay Measurement

   Packet 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, as required in Section 2.2.12 of
   RFC 5860 [11].  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 co-routed or associated bidirectional transport path) during a
   configurable time interval.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 54]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   On-demand DM can be operated in two modes:

   o  One-way: a MEP sends a 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 precise time synchronization at
      either MEP by means outside the scope of this framework.

   o  Two-way: a MEP sends a 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 contain all the required
      information to facilitate two-way packet delay and/or two-way
      packet delay variation measurements from the viewpoint of the
      originating MEP.

   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process the DM
   information; they forward these on-demand DM OAM packets as regular
   data packets.

6.5.1.  Configuration Considerations

   In order to support on-demand DM, the beginning and duration of the
   DM procedures, the transmission rate and, for E-LSPs, the PHB
   (associated with the DM OAM packets originating from a MEP) need to
   be configured as part of the DM provisioning.  DM OAM packets should
   be transmitted with the PHB that yields the lowest drop precedence
   within the measured PHB Scheduling Class (see RFC 3260 [17]).

   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 the packet size of the on-demand OAM DM
   packet.

7.  OAM Functions for Administration Control

7.1.  Lock Instruct

   The Lock Instruct (LKI) function, as required in Section 2.2.6 of RFC
   5860 [11], is a command allowing a MEP to instruct the peer MEP(s) to
   put the MPLS-TP transport path into a locked condition.

   This function allows single-side provisioning for administratively
   locking (and unlocking) an MPLS-TP transport path.

   Note that it is also possible to administratively lock (and unlock)
   an MPLS-TP transport path using two-side provisioning, where the NMS
   administratively puts both MEPs into an administrative lock
   condition.  In this case, the LKI function is not required/used.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 55]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   MIPs, as well as intermediate nodes, do not process the Lock Instruct
   information; they forward these on-demand LKI OAM packets as regular
   data packets.

7.1.1.  Locking a Transport Path

   A MEP, upon receiving a single-side administrative lock command from
   an NMS, sends an LKI request OAM packet to its peer MEP(s).  It also
   puts the MPLS-TP transport path into a locked state and notifies its
   client (sub-)layer adaptation function upon the locked condition.

   A MEP, upon receiving an LKI request from its peer MEP, can either
   accept or reject the instruction and replies to the peer MEP with an
   LKI reply OAM packet indicating whether or not it has accepted the
   instruction.  This requires either an in-band or out-of-band return
   path.  The LKI reply is needed to allow the MEP to properly report to
   the NMS the actual result of the single-side administrative lock
   command.

   If the lock instruction has been accepted, it also puts the MPLS-TP
   transport path into a locked state and notifies its client
   (sub-)layer adaptation function upon the locked condition.

   Note that if the client (sub-)layer is also MPLS-TP, Lock Report
   (LKR) generation at the client MPLS-TP (sub-)layer is started, as
   described in Section 5.4.

7.1.2.  Unlocking a Transport Path

   A MEP, upon receiving a single-side administrative unlock command
   from NMS, sends an LKI removal request OAM packet to its peer MEP(s).

   The peer MEP, upon receiving an LKI removal request, can either
   accept or reject the removal instruction and replies with an LK
   removal reply OAM packet indicating whether or not it has accepted
   the instruction.  The LKI removal reply is needed to allow the MEP to
   properly report to the NMS the actual result of the single-side
   administrative unlock command.

   If the lock removal instruction has been accepted, it also clears the
   locked condition on the MPLS-TP transport path and notifies its
   client (sub-)layer adaptation function of this event.

   The MEP that has initiated the LKI clear procedure, upon receiving a
   positive LKI removal reply, also clears the locked condition on the
   MPLS-TP transport path and notifies this event to its client
   (sub-)layer adaptation function.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 56]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Note that if the client (sub-)layer is also MPLS-TP, Lock Report
   (LKR) generation at the client MPLS-TP (sub-)layer is terminated, as
   described in Section 5.4.

8.  Security Considerations

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

   OAM traffic can reveal sensitive information, such as performance
   data and details, about the current state of the network.  Insertion
   or modification of OAM transactions can mask the true operational
   state of the network, and in the case of transactions for
   administration control, such as lock or data-plane loopback
   instructions, these can be used for explicit denial-of-service
   attacks.  The effect of such attacks is mitigated only by the fact
   that, for in-band messaging, the managed entities whose state can be
   masked is limited to those that transit the point of malicious access
   to the network internals due to the fate-sharing nature of OAM
   messaging.  This is not true when an out-of-band return path is
   employed.

   The sensitivity of OAM data therefore suggests that one solution is
   that some form of authentication, authorization, and encryption is 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.  However, it should be
   observed that the combination of the frequency of some OAM
   transactions, the need for timeliness of OAM transaction exchange,
   and all permutations of unique MEP to MEP, MEP to MIP, and
   intermediate-system-originated transactions mitigates against the
   practical establishment and maintenance of a large number of security
   associations per MEG either in advance or as required.

   For this reason, it is assumed that the internal links of the network
   are physically secured from malicious access such that OAM
   transactions scoped to fault and performance management of individual
   MEGs are not encumbered with additional security.  Further, it is
   assumed in multi-provider cases where OAM transactions originate
   outside of an individual provider's trusted domain that filtering
   mechanisms or further encapsulation will need to constrain the
   potential impact of malicious transactions.  Mechanisms that the
   framework does not specify might be subject to additional security
   considerations.

   In case of misconfiguration, some nodes can receive OAM packets that
   they cannot recognize.  In such a case, these OAM packets should be
   silently discarded in order to avoid malfunctions whose effects may



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 57]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   be similar to malicious attacks (e.g., degraded performance or even
   failure).  Further considerations about data-plane attacks via G-ACh
   are provided in RFC 5921 [8].

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
   Ad Hoc Group on MPLS-TP in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
   specification of the MPLS Transport Profile.

   The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Adrian
   Farrel, Yoshinori Koike, Luca Martini, Yuji Tochio, and Manuel Paul
   for the definition of per-interface MIPs and MEPs.

   The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Malcolm
   Betts, Yoshinori Koike, Xiao Min, and Maarten Vissers for the Lock
   Report and Lock Instruct descriptions.

   The authors would also like to thank Alessandro D'Alessandro, Loa
   Andersson, Malcolm Betts, Dave Black, Stewart Bryant, Rui Costa,
   Xuehui Dai, John Drake, Adrian Farrel, Dan Frost, Xia Liang, Liu
   Gouman, Peng He, Russ Housley, Feng Huang, Su Hui, Yoshionori Koike,
   Thomas Morin, George Swallow, Yuji Tochio, Curtis Villamizar, Maarten
   Vissers, and Xuequin Wei for their comments and enhancements to the
   text.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

   [4]  Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-Segment
        Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, October 2009.

   [5]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
        Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport
        Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.




Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 58]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


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

   [7]  Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., "MPLS
        Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [8]  Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, L., and
        L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC
        5921, July 2010.

   [9]  Bocci, M., Levrau, L., and D. Frost, "MPLS Transport Profile
        User-to-Network and Network-to-Network Interfaces", RFC 6215,
        April 2011.

   [10] Frost, D., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., and M. Bocci, Ed., "MPLS
        Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960, August
        2010.

   [11] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
        "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
        (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.

   [12] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
        Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

   [13] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W.
        Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Service", RFC 2475,
        December 1998.

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

10.2.  Informative References

   [15] Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for
        MPLS based Transport Networks", Work in Progress, June 2011.

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

   [17] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for Diffserv",
        RFC 3260, April 2002.

   [18] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in MPLS
        Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.



Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 59]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


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

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

   [21] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731 (02/08), "OAM functions and
        mechanisms for Ethernet based networks", February 2008.

   [22] IEEE Standard 802.1AX-2008, "IEEE Standard for Local and
        Metropolitan Area Networks - Link Aggregation", November 2008.

   [23] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P.,
        Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-Protocol Label
        Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270,
        May 2002.

   [24] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile
        (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.

   [25] Winter, R., Ed., van Helvoort, H., and M. Betts, "MPLS-TP
        Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions", Work in Progress, July
        2011.

11.  Contributing Authors

   Ben Niven-Jenkins
   Velocix

   EMail: ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk


   Annamaria Fulignoli
   Ericsson

   EMail: annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com


   Enrique Hernandez-Valencia
   Alcatel-Lucent

   EMail: Enrique.Hernandez@alcatel-lucent.com








Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 60]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


   Lieven Levrau
   Alcatel-Lucent

   EMail: Lieven.Levrau@alcatel-lucent.com


   Vincenzo Sestito
   Alcatel-Lucent

   EMail: Vincenzo.Sestito@alcatel-lucent.com


   Nurit Sprecher
   Nokia Siemens Networks

   EMail: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com


   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 & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 61]

RFC 6371         OAM Framework for MPLS-Based Transport   September 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Dave Allan
   Ericsson

   EMail: david.i.allan@ericsson.com


   Italo Busi
   Alcatel-Lucent

   EMail: Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.com







































Busi & Allan                  Informational                    [Page 62]


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