[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6370
MPLS Working Group M. Bocci
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow
Expires: January 13, 2011 Cisco
July 12, 2010
MPLS-TP Identifiers
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-02
Abstract
This document specifies identifiers for MPLS-TP objects. Included
are identifiers conformant to existing ITU conventions and
identifiers which are compatible with existing IP, MPLS, GMPLS, and
Pseudowire definitions.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Named Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. The Global ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. ITU Carrier Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Node and Interface Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Mapping to GMPLS Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Maintenance Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.1. ICC based MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.2. IP Compatible MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.2.2. Pseudowire MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.1. ICC based MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.2. IP based MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.2.2. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.2.3. Endpoint IDs for Pseudowire Segments . . . . . . . 12
7.3. MIP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
1. Introduction
This document specifies identifiers to be used in within the
Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). The
MPLS-TP requirements [12] require that the elements and objects in an
MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and managed without a
control plane. In such an environment many conventions for defining
identifiers are possible. This document defines identifiers for
MPLS-TP management and OAM functions suitable to ITU conventions and
to IP/MPLS conventions. Applicability of the different identifier
schemas to different applications are outside the scope of this
document.
1.1. Terminology
AII: Attachment Interface Identifier
AP: Attachment Point
ASN: Autonomous System Number
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
GMPLS: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
ICC: ITU Carrier Code
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSR: Label Switching Router
ME: Maintenance Entity
MEG: Maintenance Entity Group
MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point
MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
P2MP: Point to Multi-Point
P2P: Point to Point
PW: Pseudowire
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
RSVP-TE: RSVP Traffic Engineering
S-PE: Switching Provider Edge
T-PE: Terminating Provider Edge
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Notational Conventions in Backus-Naur Form
All multiple-word atomic identifiers use underscores (_) between the
words to join the words. Many of the identifiers are composed of a
concatenation of other identifiers, these are expressed using Backus-
Naur Form. Where the same identifier is used multiple times in a
concatenation, they are qualified by a prefix joining it to the
identifier by a dash (-). For example Src-Node_ID is the Node_ID of
a node referred to as Src (short for source).
2. Named Entities
In order to configure, operate and manage a transport network based
on the MPLS Transport Profile, a number of entities require
identification. Identifiers for the follow entities are defined in
this document:
o Operator
* Global_ID
* ICC
o LSR
o LSP
o PW
o Interface
o MEG
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
o MEP
o MIP
o Tunnel
Note that we have borrowed the term tunnel from RSVP-TE (RFC 3209)
[2] where it is used to describe an entity that provides a connection
between a source and destination LSR. The tunnel in turn is
instantiated by one or more LSPs, where the additional LSPs are used
for protection or re-grooming of the tunnel.
3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator
Two forms of identification are defined, one that is compatible with
IP operational practice called a Global_ID and one compatible with
ITU practice, the ICC. An Operator MAY be identified either by its
Global_ID or by its ICC.
3.1. The Global ID
RFC 5003 [3] defines a globally unique Attachment Interface
Identifier (AII). That AII is composed of three parts, a Global_ID
which uniquely identifies a operator, a prefix, and finally and
attachment circuit identifier. We have chosen to use that Global ID
for MPLS-TP. Quoting from RFC 5003, section 3.2, "The global ID can
contain the 2-octet or 4-octet value of the operator's Autonomous
System Number (ASN). It is expected that the global ID will be
derived from the globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting
the PEs containing the actual AIIs. The presence of a global ID
based on the operator's ASN ensures that the AII will be globally
unique."
When the Global_ID is derived from a 2-octet AS number, the two high-
order octets of this 4-octet identifier MUST be set to zero.
Note that this Global_ID is used solely to provide a globally unique
context for other MPLS-TP identifiers. It has nothing to do with the
use of the ASN in protocols such as BGP.
3.2. ITU Carrier Code
M.1400 defines the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) assigned to a network
operator/service provider and maintained by the ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB): www.itu.int/ITU-T/
inr/icc/index.html.
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
ICCs can be assigned both to ITU-T and non-ITU-T members and the
referenced local ICC website may contain ICCs of operators of both
kinds.
The ICC is a string of one to six characters, each character being
either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9) characters.
Alphabetic characters in the ICC SHOULD be represented with upper
case letters.
4. Node and Interface Identifiers
An LSR requires identification of the node itself and of its
interfaces. An interface is the Access Point (AP) to a server layer
MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel.
We call the identifier associated with a node a Node Identifier
(Node_ID). The Node_ID is a unique 32-bit unsigned integer assigned
by the operator within the scope of the Global_ID. The value 0 (or
0.0.0.0 in dotted decimal notation) is reserved MUST NOT be used.
The Node_ID is not an IPv4 address. However, it was chosen to be 32-
bits to allow compatibility with existing MPLS deployments. In
existing MPLS deployments LSRs are generally identified by an IPv4
loopback address. Where IPv4 addresses are in use the Node_ID MAY be
automatically mapped to the LSR's /32 IPv4 loopback address. Note
that, when IP reachability is not needed, the 32-bit Node_ID is not
required to have any association with the IPv4 address space used in
the operator's IGP or BGP.
In situations where a Node_ID needs to be globally unique, this is
accomplished by prefixing the identifier with the operator's
Global_ID. The combination of Global_ID::Node_ID we call an Global
Node ID or Global_Node_ID.
Within the context of a particular node, we call the identifier
associated with an interface an Interface Number or IF_Num. The
IF_Num is a 32-bit unsigned integer assigned by the operator and MUST
be unique within the scope of a Node_ID. The IF_Num value 0 has
special meaning (see section Section 7.3 and must not be used as the
IF_Num in an MPLS-TP IF_ID.
An Interface Identifier or IF_ID identifies an interface uniquely
within the context of a Global_ID. It is formed by concatenating the
Node_ID with the IF_Num. That is an IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier
formed as Node_ID::IF_Num.
This convention was chosen to allow compatibility with GMPLS. GMPLS
signaling [4] requires interface identification. GMPLS allows three
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
formats for the Interface_ID. The third format consists of an IPv4
Address plus a 32-bit unsigned integer for the specific interface.
The format defined for MPLS-TP is consistent with this format, but
uses the Node_ID instead of an IPv4 Address.
An IF_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
prefixing the identifier with the operator's Global_ID. The
combination of Global_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num we call an Global Interface
ID or Global_IF_ID.
The attachment point to an MPLS-TP Tunnel (see section Section 5.1
also needs an interface identifier. A procedure for automatically
generating these is contained in that section.
5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers
A important construct within MPLS_TP is a connection which is
provided across a working and a protection LSP. Within this document
we will use the term MPLS-TP Tunnel or simply tunnel for the
connection provided by the working and protect LSPs. This section
defines an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID to uniquely identify a tunnel and
MPLS-TP LSP_IDs within the context of a tunnel.
5.1. MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers
At each endpoint a tunnel is uniquely identified by the endpoint's
Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number. Specifically a
Tunnel_Num is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the context of
the node. The motivation for each endpoint having its own tunnel
number is to allow a compact form for the MEP-ID. See section
Section 7.1.2.1.
Having two tunnel-ids also serves to simplify other signaling. For
instance an associated bi-directional tunnel could be setup using two
unidirectional tunnels signaled via RSVP.
The concatenation of the two endpoint identifier servers as the full
identifier. In a signaled situation, the node originating the
signaling exchange is called the source and the target node is called
the destination. In a configured environment the endpoints could
equally be called East and West. Using the signaled convention and
abbreviating the endpoint qualifiers to Src and Dst respectively, the
format of the format of a Tunnel_ID is:
Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num
Where the Tunnel_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
unique Tunnel_ID becomes:
Src-Global_Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Global_Node_ID::
Dst-Tunnel_Num
When an MPLS-TP Tunnel is configured, it MUST be assigned a unique
IF_ID at both the source and destination endpoints. As usual, the
IF_ID is composed of the local NODE_ID concatenated with a 32-bit
IF_Num. It is RECOMMENDED that the IF_Num be auto-generated by adding
2^31 to the local Tunnel_Num.
5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers
Within the scope of an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID an LSP can be uniquely
identified by a single LSP number. Specifically an LSP_Num is a 16-
bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID. Thus the format of
a LSP_ID is:
Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
unique Tunnel_ID becomes:
Src-Global_Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Global_Node_ID::
Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
5.3. Mapping to GMPLS Signalling
This section defines the mapping from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to GMPLS. At
this time, GMPLS has yet to be extended to accommodate Global_IDs.
Thus a mapping is only made for the network unique form of the
LSP_ID.
GMPLS signaling [5] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within
a operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel Endpoint
Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender Address and
(GMPLS) LSP_ID.
In situations where a mapping to the GMPLS 5-tuple is required, the
following mapping is used.
o Tunnel Endpoint Address = Dst-Node_ID
o Tunnel_ID = Src-Tunnel_Num
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
o Extended Tunnel_ID = Src-Node_ID
o Tunnel Sender Address = Src-Node_ID
o LSP_ID = LSP_Num
6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers
Pseudowire signaling (RFC 4447 [6]) defines two FECs used to signal
pseudowires. Of these, FEC Type 129 along with AII Type 2 as defined
in RFC 5003 [3] fits the identification requirements of MPLS-TP.
In an MPLS-TP environment, a PW is identified by a set of identifiers
which can be mapped directly to the elements required by FEC 129 and
AII Type 2. To distinguish this identifier from other Pseudowire
Identifiers, we call this a Pseudowire Path Identifier or PW_Path_Id.
The AII Type 2 is composed of three fields. These are the Global_ID,
the Prefix, and the AC_ID. The Global_ID used in this document is
identical to the Global_ID defined in RFC 5003. The Node_ID is used
as the Prefix. The AC_ID is as defined in RFC 5003.
To complete the FEC 129, all that is required is a Attachment Group
Identifier (AGI). That field is exactly as specified in RFC 4447.
FEC 129 has a notion of Source AII (SAII) and Target AII (TAII).
These terms are used relative to the direction of the signaling. In
a purely configured environment when referring to the entire PW, this
distinction is not critical. That is a FEC 129 of AGIa::AIIb::AIIc
is equivalent to AGIa::AIIc::AIIb. We note that in a signaled
environment, the required convention in RFC 4447 is that at a
particular endpoint, the AII associated with that endpoint comes
first. The complete PW_Path_Id is:
AGI:Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID::Dst-Global_ID::
Dst-Node_ID::Dst-AC_ID.
7. Maintenance Identifiers
In MPLS-TP a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) represents an Entity that
requires management and defines a relationship between a set of
maintenance points. A maintenance point is either Maintenance Entity
Group End-point (MEP) or a Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate
Point (MIP). Maintenance points are uniquely associated with a MEG.
Within the context of a MEG, MEPs and MIPs must be uniquely
identified. This section defines a means of uniquely identifying
Maintenance Entity Groups, Maintenance Entities and uniquely defining
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
MEPs and MIPs within the context of a Maintenance Entity Group.
Note that depending on the requirements of a particular OAM
interaction, the MPLS-TP maintenance entity context may be provided
either explicitly using the MEG_IDs described above or implicitly by
the label of the received OAM message.
7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers
Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers (MEG_IDs) are required for
MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires. Two classes of MEG_IDs are defined,
one that follows the IP compatible identifier defined above as well
as the ICC-format.
7.1.1. ICC based MEG_IDs
MEG_ID for MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires MAY use the globally unique
ICC-based format.
In this case, the MEG_ID is a string of up to thirteen characters,
each character being either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e.
0-9) characters. It consists of two subfields: the ICC (as defined
in section 3) followed by a unique MEG code (UMC). The UMC MUST be
unique within the organization identified by the ICC.
The ICC MEG_ID may be applied equally to a single MPLS-TP LSP or
Pseudowires. Note that when encoded in a protocol such as in a TLV,
a different type needs to be defined for LSP and PWs as the OAM
capabilities may be different.
7.1.2. IP Compatible MEG_IDs
7.1.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs
Since a MEG pertains to a single MPLS-TP LSP, IP compatible MEG_IDs
for MPLS-TP LSPs are simply the corresponding LSP_IDs. We note that
while the two identifiers are syntactically identical, they have
different semantics. This semantic difference needs to be made
clear. For instance if both a MPLS-TP LSP_ID and MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs
are to be encoded in TLVs different types need to be assigned for
these two identifiers.
7.1.2.2. Pseudowire MEG_IDs
For Pseudowires a MEG pertains to a single PW. The IP compatible
MEG_ID for a PW is simply the corresponding PW_Path_ID. We note that
while the two identifiers are syntactically identical, they have
different semantics. This semantic difference needs to be made
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
clear. For instance if both a PW_Path_ID and a PW_MEG_ID is to be
encoded in TLVs different types need to be assigned for these two
identifiers.
7.2. MEP_IDs
7.2.1. ICC based MEP_IDs
ICC-based MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires are formed by
appending a unique number to the MEG_ID defined in section
Section 7.1.1 above. Within the context of a particular MEG, we call
the identifier associated with a MEP the MEP Index (MEP_Index). The
MEP_Index is administratively assigned. It is encoded as a 16-bit
unsigned integer and MUST be unique within the MEG. An ICC-based
MEP_ID is:
MEG_ID::MEP_Index
An ICC-based MEP ID is globally unique by construction given the ICC-
based MEG_ID global uniqueness.
7.2.2. IP based MEP_IDs
7.2.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID
In order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs, we use
the elements of identification that are unique to an endpoint. This
ensures that MEP_IDs are unique for all LSPs within a operator. When
Tunnels or LSPs cross operator boundaries, these are made unique by
pre-pending them with the operator's Global_ID.
The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is
Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num,
where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and
Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node.
In situations where global uniqueness is required this becomes:
Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
7.2.2.2. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires
Like MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowire endpoints (T-PEs) require MEP_IDs. In
order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for PWs, we simply use the
AGI plus the AII associated with that end of the PW. Thus a MEP_ID
used in end-to-end for an Pseudowire T-PE takes the form
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
AGI:Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID,
where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and
Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node.
7.2.2.3. Endpoint IDs for Pseudowire Segments
In some OAM communications, messages are originated by the node at
one end of a PW segment and relayed to the other end by setting the
TTL of the PW label to one.
The MEP_ID Is Formed by a combination of a PW MEP_ID and the
identification of the local node. At an S-PE, there are two PW
segments. We distinguish the segments by using the MEP_ID which is
upstream of the PW segment in question. To complete the
identification we suffix this with the identification of the local
node.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | | | |
| A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F |
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
T-PE1 S-PE2 S-PE3 T-PE4
Pseudowire Maintenance Points
For example, suppose that in the above figure all of the nodes have
Global_ID GID1; the node are represented as named in the figure; and
The identification for the Pseudowire is:
AGI = AGI1
Src-Global_ID = GID1
Src-Node_ID = T-PE1
Src-AC_ID = AII1
Dst-Global_ID = GID1
Dst-Node_ID = T-PE1
Dst-AC_ID = AII4
The PW segment endpoint at point A would be AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1.
The MP_ID at point C would be AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1::GID1:S-PE2.
7.3. MIP_IDs
At a cross connect point, in order to automatically generate MIP_IDs
for MPLS-TP, we simply use the IF_IDs of the two interfaces which are
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
cross connected via the label bindings of the MPLS-TP LSP. If only
one MIP is configured, then the MIP_ID is formed using the Node_ID
and an IF_Num of 0. In some contexts, such as LSP Ping[13], the
Node_ID alone may be used as the MIP_ID.
8. IANA Considerations
9. Security Considerations
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and
G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001.
[3] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC 5003,
September 2007.
[4] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[5] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[6] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron,
"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[7] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and A. Kullberg, "Signalling
Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label
Distribution Protocol)", RFC 3480, February 2003.
[8] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[9] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers July 2010
[10] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, "BFD
For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in progress),
June 2008.
[11] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07 (work in
progress), July 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[12] Vigoureux, M. and D. Ward, "Requirements for OAM in MPLS
Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-06
(work in progress), March 2010.
[13] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[14] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and
Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002.
[15] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and
S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-10 (work in progress),
August 2009.
[16] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A
Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12 (work in progress), May 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ
UK
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
George Swallow
Cisco
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Bocci & Swallow Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 14]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/