draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework-06.txt   rfc6373.txt 
Internet Draft Loa Andersson, Ed. (Ericsson)
Category: Informational Lou Berger, Ed. (LabN)
Expiration Date: August 7, 2011 Luyuan Fang, Ed. (Cisco)
Nabil Bitar, Ed. (Verizon)
Eric Gray, Ed. (Ericsson)
February 7, 2011 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Andersson, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6373 Ericsson
MPLS-TP Control Plane Framework Category: Informational L. Berger, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 LabN
L. Fang, Ed.
Cisco
N. Bitar, Ed.
Verizon
E. Gray, Ed.
Ericsson
September 2011
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework-06.txt MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Control Plane Framework
Abstract Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) supports static provisioning The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) supports static provisioning of
of transport paths via a Network Management System (NMS), and transport paths via a Network Management System (NMS) and dynamic
dynamic provisioning of transport paths via a control plane. This provisioning of transport paths via a control plane. This document
document provides the framework for MPLS-TP dynamic provisioning, provides the framework for MPLS-TP dynamic provisioning and covers
and covers control plane addressing, routing, path computation, control-plane addressing, routing, path computation, signaling,
signaling, traffic engineering, and path recovery. MPLS-TP uses traffic engineering, and path recovery. MPLS-TP uses GMPLS as the
GMPLS as the control plane for MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths control plane for MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs). MPLS-TP also
(LSPs). MPLS-TP also uses the Pseudowire (PW) control plane for uses the pseudowire (PW) control plane for pseudowires. Management-
Pseudowires (PWs). Management plane functions are out of scope of plane functions are out of scope of this document.
this document.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities
of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.
This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Status of This Memo
Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF
Last Call.
[RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and
insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published
RFC has IETF consensus.]
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html published for informational purposes.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html (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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 7, 2011 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/rfc6373.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................... 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1 Scope .................................................. 4 1.1. Scope ......................................................4
1.2 Basic Approach ......................................... 5 1.2. Basic Approach .............................................4
1.3 Reference Model ........................................ 6 1.3. Reference Model ............................................6
2 Control Plane Requirements ............................. 9 2. Control-Plane Requirements ......................................9
2.1 Primary Requirements ................................... 9 2.1. Primary Requirements .......................................9
2.2 MPLS-TP Framework Derived Requirements ................. 18 2.2. Requirements Derived from the MPLS-TP Framework ...........18
2.3 OAM Framework Derived Requirements ..................... 19 2.3. Requirements Derived from the OAM Framework ...............20
2.4 Security Requirements .................................. 24 2.4. Security Requirements .....................................25
2.5 Identifier Requirements ................................ 24 2.5. Identifier Requirements ...................................25
3 Relationship of PWs and TE LSPs ........................ 25 3. Relationship of PWs and TE LSPs ................................26
4 TE LSPs ................................................ 26 4. TE LSPs ........................................................27
4.1 GMPLS Functions and MPLS-TP LSPs ....................... 26 4.1. GMPLS Functions and MPLS-TP LSPs ..........................27
4.1.1 In-Band and Out-Of-Band Control ........................ 26 4.1.1. In-Band and Out-of-Band Control ....................27
4.1.2 Addressing ............................................. 28 4.1.2. Addressing .........................................29
4.1.3 Routing ................................................ 28 4.1.3. Routing ............................................29
4.1.4 TE LSPs and Constraint-Based Path Computation .......... 28 4.1.4. TE LSPs and Constraint-Based Path Computation ......29
4.1.5 Signaling .............................................. 29 4.1.5. Signaling ..........................................30
4.1.6 Unnumbered Links ....................................... 29 4.1.6. Unnumbered Links ...................................30
4.1.7 Link Bundling .......................................... 29 4.1.7. Link Bundling ......................................30
4.1.8 Hierarchical LSPs ...................................... 30 4.1.8. Hierarchical LSPs ..................................31
4.1.9 LSP Recovery ........................................... 30 4.1.9. LSP Recovery .......................................31
4.1.10 Control Plane Reference Points (E-NNI, I-NNI, UNI) ..... 31 4.1.10. Control-Plane Reference Points (E-NNI,
4.2 OAM, MEP (Hierarchy), MIP Configuration and Control .... 31 I-NNI, UNI) .......................................32
4.2.1 Management Plane Support ............................... 32 4.2. OAM, MEP (Hierarchy), MIP Configuration and Control .......32
4.3 GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table ................... 33 4.2.1. Management-Plane Support ...........................33
4.4 Anticipated MPLS-TP Related Extensions and Definitions . 36 4.3. GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table ......................34
4.4.1 MPLS-TE to MPLS-TP LSP Control Plane Interworking ...... 36 4.4. Anticipated MPLS-TP-Related Extensions and Definitions ....37
4.4.2 Associated Bidirectional LSPs .......................... 36 4.4.1. MPLS-TE to MPLS-TP LSP Control-Plane Interworking ..37
4.4.3 Asymmetric Bandwidth LSPs .............................. 37 4.4.2. Associated Bidirectional LSPs ......................38
4.4.4 Recovery for P2MP LSPs ................................. 37 4.4.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth LSPs ..........................38
4.4.5 Test Traffic Control and other OAM functions ........... 37 4.4.4. Recovery for P2MP LSPs .............................38
4.4.6 DiffServ Object usage in GMPLS ......................... 37 4.4.5. Test Traffic Control and Other OAM Functions .......38
4.4.7 Support for MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers .................... 38 4.4.6. Diffserv Object Usage in GMPLS .....................39
4.4.8 Support for MPLS-TP Maintenance Identifiers ............ 38 4.4.7. Support for MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers ................39
5 Pseudowires ............................................ 38 4.4.8. Support for MPLS-TP Maintenance Identifiers ........39
5.1 LDP Functions and Pseudowires .......................... 38 5. Pseudowires ....................................................39
5.1.1 Management Plane Support ............................... 39 5.1. LDP Functions and Pseudowires .............................39
5.2 PW Control (LDP) and MPLS-TP Requirements Table ........ 39 5.1.1. Management-Plane Support ...........................40
5.3 Anticipated MPLS-TP Related Extensions ................. 42 5.2. PW Control (LDP) and MPLS-TP Requirements Table ...........40
5.3.1 Extensions to Support Out-of-Band PW Control ........... 42 5.3. Anticipated MPLS-TP-Related Extensions ....................44
5.3.2 Support for Explicit Control of PW-to-LSP Binding ...... 43 5.3.1. Extensions to Support Out-of-Band PW Control .......44
5.3.3 Support for Dynamic Transfer of PW Control/Ownership ... 43 5.3.2. Support for Explicit Control of PW-to-LSP Binding ..45
5.3.4 Interoperable Support for PW/LSP Resource Allocation ... 44 5.3.3. Support for Dynamic Transfer of PW
5.3.5 Support for PW Protection and PW OAM Configuration ..... 44 Control/Ownership ..................................45
5.3.6 Client Layer and Cross-Provider Interfaces to PW Control ...45 5.3.4. Interoperable Support for PW/LSP Resource
5.4 ASON Architecture Considerations ....................... 45 Allocation .........................................46
6 Security Considerations ................................ 45 5.3.5. Support for PW Protection and PW OAM
7 IANA Considerations .................................... 46 Configuration ......................................46
8 Acknowledgments ........................................ 46 5.3.6. Client Layer and Cross-Provider Interfaces
9 References ............................................. 46 to PW Control ......................................47
9.1 Normative References ................................... 46 5.4. ASON Architecture Considerations ..........................47
9.2 Informative References ................................. 49 6. Security Considerations ........................................47
10 Authors' Addresses ..................................... 54 7. Acknowledgments ................................................48
8. References .....................................................48
1. Introduction 8.1. Normative References ......................................48
8.2. Informative References ....................................51
9. Contributing Authors ...........................................56
The Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) 1. Introduction
is defined as a joint effort between the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the IETF. The requirements for
MPLS-TP are defined in the requirements document, see [RFC5654].
These requirements state that "A solution MUST be provided to support
dynamic provisioning of MPLS-TP transport paths via a control plane."
This document provides the framework for such dynamic provisioning.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is
(IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications defined as a joint effort between the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) and the IETF. The requirements for MPLS-TP are defined
in the requirements document, see [RFC5654]. These requirements
state that "A solution MUST be defined to support dynamic
provisioning of MPLS-TP transport paths via a control plane". This
document provides the framework for such dynamic provisioning. 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 Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functions of a (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functions of a
packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.
1.1. Scope 1.1. Scope
This document covers the control plane functions involved in This document covers the control-plane functions involved in
establishing MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Pseudowires establishing MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and pseudowires
(PWs). The control plane requirements for MPLS-TP are defined in the (PWs). The control-plane requirements for MPLS-TP are defined in the
MPLS-TP requirements document [RFC5654]. These requirements define MPLS-TP requirements document [RFC5654]. These requirements define
the role of the control plane in MPLS-TP. In particular, Section 2.4 the role of the control plane in MPLS-TP. In particular, Section 2.4
of [RFC5654] and portions of the remainder of Section 2 of [RFC5654] of [RFC5654] and portions of the remainder of Section 2 of [RFC5654]
provide specific control plane requirements. provide specific control-plane requirements.
The LSPs provided by MPLS-TP are used as a server layer for IP, MPLS The LSPs provided by MPLS-TP are used as a server layer for IP, MPLS,
and PWs, as well as other tunneled MPLS-TP LSPs. The PWs are used to and PWs, as well as other tunneled MPLS-TP LSPs. The PWs are used to
carry client signals other than IP or MPLS. The relationship between carry client signals other than IP or MPLS. The relationship between
PWs and MPLS-TP LSPs is exactly the same as between PWs and MPLS LSPs PWs and MPLS-TP LSPs is exactly the same as between PWs and MPLS LSPs
in an MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN). The PW encapsulation over in an MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN). The PW encapsulation over
MPLS-TP LSPs used in MPLS-TP networks is also the same as for PWs MPLS-TP LSPs used in MPLS-TP networks is also the same as for PWs
over MPLS in an MPLS network. MPLS-TP also defines protection and over MPLS in an MPLS network. MPLS-TP also defines protection and
restoration (or, collectively, recovery) functions, see [RFC5654] and restoration (or, collectively, recovery) functions; see [RFC5654] and
[RFC4427]. The MPLS-TP control plane provides methods to establish, [RFC4427]. The MPLS-TP control plane provides methods to establish,
remove and control MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs. This includes control of remove, and control MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs. This includes control of
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM), data plane, and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), data-plane, and
recovery functions. recovery functions.
A general framework for MPLS-TP has been defined in [RFC5921], and a A general framework for MPLS-TP has been defined in [RFC5921], and a
survivability framework for MPLS-TP has been defined in [TP-SURVIVE]. survivability framework for MPLS-TP has been defined in [RFC6372].
These documents scope the approaches and protocols that are the These documents scope the approaches and protocols that are the
foundation of MPLS-TP. Notably, Section 3.5 of [RFC5921] scopes the foundation of MPLS-TP. Notably, Section 3.5 of [RFC5921] scopes the
IETF protocols that serve as the foundation of the MPLS-TP control IETF protocols that serve as the foundation of the MPLS-TP control
plane. The PW control plane is based on the existing PW control plane. The PW control plane is based on the existing PW control
plane, see [RFC4447], and the PW end-to-end (PWE3) architecture, see plane (see [RFC4447]) and the PWE3 architecture (see [RFC3985]). The
[RFC3985]. The LSP control plane is based on Generalized MPLS LSP control plane is based on GMPLS (see [RFC3945]), which is built
(GMPLS), see [RFC3945], which is built on MPLS Traffic Engineering on MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and its numerous extensions.
(TE) and its numerous extensions. [TP-SURVIVE] focuses on the [RFC6372] focuses on the recovery functions that must be supported
recovery functions that must be supported within MPLS-TP. It does not within MPLS-TP. It does not specify which control-plane mechanisms
specify which control plane mechanisms are to be used. are to be used.
The remainder of this document discusses the impact of the MPLS-TP The remainder of this document discusses the impact of the MPLS-TP
requirements on the GMPLS signaling and routing protocols that are requirements on the GMPLS signaling and routing protocols that are
used to control MPLS-TP LSPs, and on the control of PWs as specified used to control MPLS-TP LSPs, and on the control of PWs as specified
in [RFC4447], [RFC6073], and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC]. in [RFC4447], [RFC6073], and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC].
1.2. Basic Approach 1.2. Basic Approach
The basic approach taken in defining the MPLS-TP Control Plane The basic approach taken in defining the MPLS-TP control-plane
framework includes the following: framework includes the following:
1) MPLS technology as defined by the IETF is the foundation for 1) MPLS technology as defined by the IETF is the foundation for
the MPLS Transport Profile. the MPLS Transport Profile.
2) The data plane for MPLS-TP is a standard MPLS data plane 2) The data plane for MPLS-TP is a standard MPLS data plane
[RFC3031] as profiled in [RFC5960]. [RFC3031] as profiled in [RFC5960].
3) MPLS PWs are used by MPLS-TP including the use of targeted 3) MPLS PWs are used by MPLS-TP including the use of targeted
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) as the foundation for PW Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) as the foundation for PW
signaling [RFC4447]; and Open Shortest Path First with Traffic signaling [RFC4447]. This also includes the use of Open
Engineering (OSPF-TE), Intermediate System to Intermediate Shortest Path First with Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE),
System (IS-IS) with Traffic Engineering (ISIS-TE) or Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) with Traffic
Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) as they apply Engineering (ISIS-TE), or Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol
for Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) routing. However, the PW (MP-BGP) as they apply for Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW)
can be encapsulated over an MPLS-TP LSP (established using routing. However, the PW can be encapsulated over an MPLS-TP
methods and procedures for MPLS-TP LSP establishment) in LSP (established using methods and procedures for MPLS-TP LSP
addition to the presently defined methods of carrying PWs over establishment) in addition to the presently defined methods of
LSP-based packet switched networks (PSNs). That is, the MPLS-TP carrying PWs over LSP-based PSNs. That is, the MPLS-TP domain
domain is a packet switched network from a PWE3 architecture is a PSN from a PWE3 architecture perspective [RFC3985].
perspective [RFC3985].
4) The MPLS-TP LSP control plane builds on the GMPLS control plane 4) The MPLS-TP LSP control plane builds on the GMPLS control plane
as defined by the IETF for transport LSPs. The protocols as defined by the IETF for transport LSPs. The protocols
within scope are Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic within scope are Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC3473], OSPF-TE [RFC4203][RFC5392], Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC3473], OSPF-TE [RFC4203] [RFC5392],
and ISIS-TE [RFC5307][RFC5316]. Automatically Switched Optical and ISIS-TE [RFC5307] [RFC5316]. Automatically Switched
Network (ASON) signaling and routing requirements in the Optical Network (ASON) signaling and routing requirements in
context of GMPLS can be found in [RFC4139] and [RFC4258]. the context of GMPLS can be found in [RFC4139] and [RFC4258].
5) Existing IETF MPLS and GMPLS RFCs and evolving Working Group 5) Existing IETF MPLS and GMPLS RFCs and evolving Working Group
Internet-Drafts should be reused wherever possible. Internet-Drafts should be reused wherever possible.
6) If needed, extensions for the MPLS-TP control plane should 6) If needed, extensions for the MPLS-TP control plane should
first be based on the existing and evolving IETF work, secondly first be based on the existing and evolving IETF work, and
based on work by other standard bodies only when IETF decides secondly be based on work by other standard bodies only when
that the work is out of the IETF's scope. New extensions may be IETF decides that the work is out of the IETF's scope. New
defined otherwise. extensions may be defined otherwise.
7) Extensions to the control plane may be required in order to 7) Extensions to the control plane may be required in order to
fully automate MPLS-TP LSP and PW related functions. fully automate functions related to MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs.
8) Control plane software upgrades to existing equipment is 8) Control-plane software upgrades to existing equipment are
acceptable and expected. acceptable and expected.
9) It is permissible for functions present in the GMPLS and PW 9) It is permissible for functions present in the GMPLS and PW
control planes to not be used in MPLS-TP networks. control planes to not be used in MPLS-TP networks.
10) One possible use of the control plane is to configure, enable 10) One possible use of the control plane is to configure, enable,
and generally control OAM functionality. This will require and generally control OAM functionality. This will require
extensions to existing control plane specifications which will extensions to existing control-plane specifications that will
be usable in MPLS-TP as well as MPLS networks. be usable in MPLS-TP as well as MPLS networks.
11) The foundation for MPLS-TP control plane requirements is 11) The foundation for MPLS-TP control-plane requirements is
primarily found in Section 2.4 of [RFC5654] and relevant primarily found in Section 2.4 of [RFC5654] and relevant
portions of the remainder Section 2 of [RFC5654]. portions of the remainder of Section 2 of [RFC5654].
1.3. Reference Model 1.3. Reference Model
The control plane reference model is based on the general MPLS-TP The control-plane reference model is based on the general MPLS-TP
reference model as defined in the MPLS-TP framework [RFC5921] and reference model as defined in the MPLS-TP framework [RFC5921] and
further refined in MPLS-TP User-to-Network and Network-to-Network further refined in [RFC6215] on the MPLS-TP User-to-Network and
Interfaces (UNI and NNI, respectively), [TP-UNI]. Per the MPLS-TP Network-to-Network Interfaces (UNI and NNI, respectively). Per the
framework [RFC5921], the MPLS-TP control plane is based on GMPLS with MPLS-TP framework [RFC5921], the MPLS-TP control plane is based on
RSVP-TE for LSP signaling and targeted LDP for PW signaling. In both GMPLS with RSVP-TE for LSP signaling and targeted LDP for PW
cases, OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE with GMPLS extensions is used for dynamic signaling. In both cases, OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE with GMPLS extensions
routing within an MPLS-TP domain. is used for dynamic routing within an MPLS-TP domain.
Note that in this context, "targeted LDP" (or T-LDP) means LDP as Note that in this context, "targeted LDP" (or T-LDP) means LDP as
defined in RFC 5036, using Targeted Hello messages. See Section defined in RFC 5036, using Targeted Hello messages. See Section
2.4.2 ("Extended Discovery Mechanism") of [RFC5036]. Use of the 2.4.2 ("Extended Discovery Mechanism") of [RFC5036]. Use of the
extended discovery mechanism is specified in [RFC4447] Section 5 extended discovery mechanism is specified in Section 5 ("LDP") of
("LDP"). [RFC4447].
From a service perspective, MPLS-TP client services may be supported From a service perspective, MPLS-TP client services may be supported
via both PWs and LSPs. PW client interfaces, or adaptations, are via both PWs and LSPs. PW client interfaces, or adaptations, are
defined on an interface technology basis, e.g., Ethernet over PW defined on an interface-technology basis, e.g., Ethernet over PW
[RFC4448]. In the context of MPLS-TP LSP, the client interface is [RFC4448]. In the context of MPLS-TP LSP, the client interface is
provided at the network layer and may be controlled via a GMPLS based provided at the network layer and may be controlled via a GMPLS-based
UNI, see [RFC4208], or statically provisioned. As discussed in UNI, see [RFC4208], or statically provisioned. As discussed in
[RFC5921] and [TP-UNI], MPLS-TP also presumes an NNI reference point. [RFC5921] and [RFC6215], MPLS-TP also presumes an NNI reference
point.
The MPLS-TP end-to-end control plane reference model is shown in The MPLS-TP end-to-end control-plane reference model is shown in
Figure 1. The Figure shows the control plane protocols used by MPLS- Figure 1. The figure shows the control-plane protocols used by MPLS-
TP, as well as the UNI and NNI reference points, in the case of a TP, as well as the UNI and NNI reference points, in the case of a
single segment PW supported by an end-to-end LSP without any Single-Segment PW supported by an end-to-end LSP without any
hierarchical LSPs. (The MS-PW case is not shown.) Each service hierarchical LSPs. (The MS-PW case is not shown.) Each service
provider node's participation in routing and signaling (both GMPLS provider node's participation in routing and signaling (both GMPLS
RSVP-TE and PW LDP) is represented. Note that only the service end RSVP-TE and PW LDP) is represented. Note that only the service end
points participate in PW LDP signaling, while all service provider points participate in PW LDP signaling, while all service provider
nodes participate in GMPLS TE LSP routing and signaling. nodes participate in GMPLS TE LSP routing and signaling.
|< ---- client signal (e.g., IP / MPLS / L2) -------- >| |< ---- client signal (e.g., IP / MPLS / L2) -------- >|
|< --------- SP1 ---------- >|< ------- SP2 ----- >| |< --------- SP1 ---------- >|< ------- SP2 ----- >|
|< ---------- MPLS-TP End-to-End PW --------- >| |< ---------- MPLS-TP End-to-End PW --------- >|
|< -------- MPLS-TP End-to-End LSP ------ >| |< -------- MPLS-TP End-to-End LSP ------ >|
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|CE1|-|-|PE1|--|P1 |--|P2 |--|PE2|-|-|PEa|--|Pa |--|PEb|-|-|CE2| |CE1|-|-|PE1|--|P1 |--|P2 |--|PE2|-|-|PEa|--|Pa |--|PEb|-|-|CE2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
UNI NNI UNI UNI NNI UNI
GMPLS GMPLS
TE-RTG, |<-----|------|------|-------|------|----->| TE-RTG, |<-----|------|------|-------|------|----->|
& RSVP-TE & RSVP-TE
PW LDP |< ---------------------------------------- >| PW LDP |< ---------------------------------------- >|
Figure 1. End-to-End MPLS-TP Control Plane Reference Model Figure 1. End-to-End MPLS-TP Control-Plane Reference Model
Legend: Legend:
CE: Customer Edge CE: Customer Edge
Client signal: defined in MPLS-TP Requirements Client signal: defined in MPLS-TP Requirements
L2: Any layer 2 signal that may be carried L2: Any layer 2 signal that may be carried
over a PW, e.g. Ethernet. over a PW, e.g., Ethernet
NNI: Network to Network Interface NNI: Network-to-Network Interface
P: Provider P: Provider
PE: Provider Edge PE: Provider Edge
SP: Service Provider SP: Service Provider
TE-RTG: GMPLS OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE TE-RTG: GMPLS OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE
UNI: User to Network Interface UNI: User-to-Network Interface
Note: The MS-PW case is not shown. Note: The MS-PW case is not shown.
Figure 2 adds three hierarchical LSP segments, labeled as "H-LSPs". Figure 2 adds three hierarchical LSP segments, labeled as "H-LSPs".
These segments are present to support scaling, OAM and Maintenance These segments are present to support scaling, OAM, and Maintenance
Entity End Points (MEPs), see [TP-OAM], within each provider domain Entity Group End Points (MEPs), see [RFC6371], within each provider
and across the inter-provider NNI. (H-LSPs are used to implement domain and across the inter-provider NNI. (H-LSPs are used to
Sub-Path Maintenance Elements (SPMEs) as defined in [RFC5921].) The implement Sub-Path Maintenance Elements (SPMEs) as defined in
MEPs are used to collect performance information, support diagnostic [RFC5921].) The MEPs are used to collect performance information,
and fault management functions, and support OAM triggered support diagnostic and fault management functions, and support OAM
survivability schemes as discussed in [TP-SURVIVE]. Each H-LSP may be triggered survivability schemes as discussed in [RFC6372]. Each
protected or restored using any of the schemes discussed in [TP- H-LSP may be protected or restored using any of the schemes discussed
SURVIVE]. End-to-end monitoring is supported via MEPs at the End-to- in [RFC6372]. End-to-end monitoring is supported via MEPs at the
End LSP and PW end points. Note that segment MEPs may be collocated end-to-end LSP and PW end points. Note that segment MEPs may be co-
with MIPs of the next higher-layer (e.g., end-to-end) LSPs. (The MS- located with MIPs of the next higher-layer (e.g., end-to-end) LSPs.
PW case is not shown.) (The MS-PW case is not shown.)
|< ------- client signal (e.g., IP / MPLS / L2) ----- >| |< ------- client signal (e.g., IP / MPLS / L2) ----- >|
|< -------- SP1 ----------- >|< ------- SP2 ----- >| |< -------- SP1 ----------- >|< ------- SP2 ----- >|
|< ----------- MPLS-TP End-to-End PW -------- >| |< ----------- MPLS-TP End-to-End PW -------- >|
|< ------- MPLS-TP End-to-End LSP ------- >| |< ------- MPLS-TP End-to-End LSP ------- >|
|< -- H-LSP1 ---- >|<-H-LSP2->|<- H-LSP3 ->| |< -- H-LSP1 ---- >|<-H-LSP2->|<- H-LSP3 ->|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|CE1|-|-|PE1|--|P1 |--|P2 |--|PE2|-|-|PEa|--|Pa |--|PEb|-|-|CE2| |CE1|-|-|PE1|--|P1 |--|P2 |--|PE2|-|-|PEa|--|Pa |--|PEb|-|-|CE2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
UNI NNI UNI UNI NNI UNI
skipping to change at page 8, line 34 skipping to change at page 8, line 34
H-LSP GMPLS H-LSP GMPLS
TE-RTG |<-----|------|----->||<---->||<-----|----->| TE-RTG |<-----|------|----->||<---->||<-----|----->|
&RSVP-TE (within an MPLS-TP network) &RSVP-TE (within an MPLS-TP network)
E2E GMPLS E2E GMPLS
TE-RTG |< ------------------|--------|------------>| TE-RTG |< ------------------|--------|------------>|
&RSVP-TE &RSVP-TE
PW LDP |< ---------------------------------------- >| PW LDP |< ---------------------------------------- >|
Figure 2. MPLS-TP Control Plane Reference Model with OAM Figure 2. MPLS-TP Control-Plane Reference Model with OAM
Legend: Legend:
CE: Customer Edge CE: Customer Edge
Client signal: defined in MPLS-TP Requirements Client signal: defined in MPLS-TP Requirements
E2E: End-to-end E2E: End-to-End
L2: Any layer 2 signal that may be carried L2: Any layer 2 signal that may be carried
over a PW, e.g. Ethernet. over a PW, e.g., Ethernet
H-LSP: Hierarchical LSP H-LSP: Hierarchical LSP
MEP: Maintenance entity end point MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point
MIP: Maintenance intermediate point MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
NNI: Network to Network Interface NNI: Network-to-Network Interface
P: Provider P: Provider
PE: Provider Edge PE: Provider Edge
SP: Service Provider SP: Service Provider
TE-RTG: GMPLS OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE TE-RTG: GMPLS OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE
Note: The MS-PW case is not shown. Note: The MS-PW case is not shown.
While not shown in the Figures above, the MPLS-TP control plane must While not shown in the figures above, the MPLS-TP control plane must
support the addressing separation and independence between the data, support the addressing separation and independence between the data,
control and management planes. Address separation between the planes control, and management planes. Address separation between the
is already included in GMPLS. Such separation is also already planes is already included in GMPLS. Such separation is also already
included in LDP as LDP session end point addresses are never included in LDP as LDP session end point addresses are never
automatically associated with forwarding. automatically associated with forwarding.
2. Control Plane Requirements 2. Control-Plane Requirements
The requirements for the MPLS-TP control plane are derived from the The requirements for the MPLS-TP control plane are derived from the
MPLS-TP requirements and framework documents, specifically [RFC5654], MPLS-TP requirements and framework documents, specifically [RFC5654],
[RFC5921], [RFC5860], [TP-OAM], and [TP-SURVIVE]. The requirements [RFC5921], [RFC5860], [RFC6371], and [RFC6372]. The requirements are
are summarized in this section, but do not replace those documents. summarized in this section, but do not replace those documents. If
If there are differences between this section and those documents, there are differences between this section and those documents, those
those documents shall be considered authoritative. documents shall be considered authoritative.
2.1. Primary Requirements 2.1. Primary Requirements
These requirements are based on Section 2 of [RFC5654]: These requirements are based on Section 2 of [RFC5654]:
1. Any new functionality that is defined to fulfill the 1. Any new functionality that is defined to fulfill the
requirements for MPLS-TP must be agreed within the IETF through requirements for MPLS-TP must be agreed within the IETF through
the IETF consensus process as per [RFC4929] [RFC5654, Section the IETF consensus process as per [RFC4929] and Section 1,
1, Paragraph 15]. paragraph 15 of [RFC5654].
2. The MPLS-TP control plane design should as far as reasonably 2. The MPLS-TP control-plane design should as far as reasonably
possible reuse existing MPLS standards [RFC5654, requirement possible reuse existing MPLS standards ([RFC5654], requirement
2]. 2).
3. The MPLS-TP control plane must be able to interoperate with 3. The MPLS-TP control plane must be able to interoperate with
existing IETF MPLS and PWE3 control planes where appropriate existing IETF MPLS and PWE3 control planes where appropriate
[RFC5654, requirement 3]. ([RFC5654], requirement 3).
4. The MPLS-TP control plane must be sufficiently well-defined to 4. The MPLS-TP control plane must be sufficiently well-defined to
ensure the interworking between equipment supplied by multiple ensure that the interworking between equipment supplied by
vendors will be possible both within a single domain and multiple vendors will be possible both within a single domain
between domains [RFC5654, requirement 4]. and between domains ([RFC5654], requirement 4).
5. The MPLS-TP control plane must support a connection-oriented 5. The MPLS-TP control plane must support a connection-oriented
packet switching model with traffic engineering capabilities packet switching model with traffic engineering capabilities
that allow deterministic control of the use of network that allow deterministic control of the use of network
resources [RFC5654, requirement 5]. resources ([RFC5654], requirement 5).
6. The MPLS-TP control plane must support traffic-engineered 6. The MPLS-TP control plane must support traffic-engineered
point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) transport point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) transport
paths [RFC5654, requirement 6]. paths ([RFC5654], requirement 6).
7. The MPLS-TP control plane must support unidirectional, 7. The MPLS-TP control plane must support unidirectional,
associated bidirectional and co-routed bidirectional point-to- associated bidirectional and co-routed bidirectional point-to-
point transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 7]. point transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 7).
8. The MPLS-TP control plane must support unidirectional point-to- 8. The MPLS-TP control plane must support unidirectional point-to-
multipoint transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 8]. multipoint transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 8).
9. The MPLS-TP control plane must enable all nodes (i.e., ingress, 9. The MPLS-TP control plane must enable all nodes (i.e., ingress,
egress and intermediate) to be aware about the pairing egress, and intermediate) to be aware about the pairing
relationship of the forward and the backward directions relationship of the forward and the backward directions
belonging to the same co-routed bidirectional transport path belonging to the same co-routed bidirectional transport path
[RFC5654, requirement 10]. ([RFC5654], requirement 10).
10. The MPLS-TP control plane must enable edge nodes (i.e., ingress 10. The MPLS-TP control plane must enable edge nodes (i.e., ingress
and egress) to be aware of the pairing relationship of the and egress) to be aware of the pairing relationship of the
forward and the backward directions belonging to the same forward and the backward directions belonging to the same
associated bidirectional transport path [RFC5654, requirement associated bidirectional transport path ([RFC5654], requirement
11]. 11).
11. The MPLS-TP control plane should enable common transit nodes to 11. The MPLS-TP control plane should enable common transit nodes to
be aware of the pairing relationship of the forward and the be aware of the pairing relationship of the forward and the
backward directions belonging to the same associated backward directions belonging to the same associated
bidirectional transport path [RFC5654, requirement 12]. bidirectional transport path ([RFC5654], requirement 12).
12. The MPLS-TP control plane must support bidirectional transport 12. The MPLS-TP control plane must support bidirectional transport
paths with symmetric bandwidth requirements, i.e. the amount of paths with symmetric bandwidth requirements, i.e., the amount
reserved bandwidth is the same in the forward and backward of reserved bandwidth is the same in the forward and backward
directions [RFC5654, requirement 13]. directions ([RFC5654], requirement 13).
13. The MPLS-TP control plane must support bidirectional transport 13. The MPLS-TP control plane must support bidirectional transport
paths with asymmetric bandwidth requirements, i.e. the amount paths with asymmetric bandwidth requirements, i.e., the amount
of reserved bandwidth differs in the forward and backward of reserved bandwidth differs in the forward and backward
directions [RFC5654, requirement 14]. directions ([RFC5654], requirement 14).
14. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the logical separation 14. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the logical separation
of the control plane from the management and data plane of the control plane from the management and data planes
[RFC5654, requirement 15]. Note that this implies that the ([RFC5654], requirement 15). Note that this implies that the
addresses used in the control plane are independent from the addresses used in the control plane are independent from the
addresses used in the management and data planes. addresses used in the management and data planes.
15. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the physical separation 15. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the physical separation
of the control plane from the management and data plane, and no of the control plane from the management and data plane, and no
assumptions should be made about the state of the data plane assumptions should be made about the state of the data-plane
channels from information about the control or management plane channels from information about the control- or management-
channels when they are running out-of-band [RFC5654, plane channels when they are running out-of-band ([RFC5654],
requirement 16]. requirement 16).
16. A control plane must be defined to support dynamic provisioning 16. A control plane must be defined to support dynamic provisioning
and restoration of MPLS-TP transport paths, but its use is a and restoration of MPLS-TP transport paths, but its use is a
network operator's choice [RFC5654, requirement 18]. network operator's choice ([RFC5654], requirement 18).
17. The presence of a control plane must not be required for static 17. The presence of a control plane must not be required for static
provisioning of MPLS-TP transport paths. [RFC5654, requirement provisioning of MPLS-TP transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement
19]. 19).
18. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the coexistence of 18. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the coexistence of
statically and dynamically provisioned/managed MPLS-TP statically and dynamically provisioned/managed MPLS-TP
transport paths within the same layer network or domain transport paths within the same layer network or domain
[RFC5654, requirement 20]. ([RFC5654], requirement 20).
19. The MPLS-TP control plane should be operable in a way that is 19. The MPLS-TP control plane should be operable in a way that is
similar to the way the control plane operates in other similar to the way the control plane operates in other
transport-layer technologies [RFC5654, requirement 21]. transport-layer technologies ([RFC5654], requirement 21).
20. The MPLS-TP control plane must avoid or minimize traffic impact 20. The MPLS-TP control plane must avoid or minimize traffic impact
(e.g. packet delay, reordering and loss) during network (e.g., packet delay, reordering, and loss) during network
reconfiguration [RFC5654, requirement 24]. reconfiguration ([RFC5654], requirement 24).
21. The MPLS-TP control plane must work across multiple homogeneous 21. The MPLS-TP control plane must work across multiple homogeneous
domains [RFC5654, requirement 25], i.e., all domains use the domains ([RFC5654], requirement 25), i.e., all domains use the
same MPLS-TP control plane. same MPLS-TP control plane.
22. The MPLS-TP control plane should work across multiple non- 22. The MPLS-TP control plane should work across multiple non-
homogeneous domains [RFC5654, requirement 26], i.e., some homogeneous domains ([RFC5654], requirement 26), i.e., some
domains use the same control plane and other domains use static domains use the same control plane and other domains use static
provisioning at the domain boundary. provisioning at the domain boundary.
23. The MPLS-TP control plane must not dictate any particular 23. The MPLS-TP control plane must not dictate any particular
physical or logical topology [RFC5654, requirement 27]. physical or logical topology ([RFC5654], requirement 27).
24. The MPLS-TP control plane must include support of ring 24. The MPLS-TP control plane must include support of ring
topologies which may be deployed with arbitrarily topologies that may be deployed with arbitrary interconnection
interconnection, support rings of at least 16 nodes [RFC5654, and support of rings of at least 16 nodes ([RFC5654],
requirement 27.A, 27.B and 27.C]. requirements 27.A, 27.B, and 27.C).
25. The MPLS-TP control plane must scale gracefully to support a 25. The MPLS-TP control plane must scale gracefully to support a
large number of transport paths, nodes and links. That is it large number of transport paths, nodes, and links. That is, it
must be able to scale at least as well as control planes in must be able to scale at least as well as control planes in
existing transport technologies with growing and increasingly existing transport technologies with growing and increasingly
complex network topologies as well as with increasing bandwidth complex network topologies as well as with increasing bandwidth
demands, number of customers, and number of services [RFC 5654, demands, number of customers, and number of services
requirements 53 and 28]. ([RFC5654], requirements 53 and 28).
26. The MPLS-TP control plane should not provision transport paths 26. The MPLS-TP control plane should not provision transport paths
which contain forwarding loops [RFC5654, requirement 29]. that contain forwarding loops ([RFC5654], requirement 29).
27. The MPLS-TP control plane must support multiple client layers. 27. The MPLS-TP control plane must support multiple client layers
(e.g. MPLS-TP, IP, MPLS, Ethernet, ATM, FR, etc.) [RFC5654, (e.g., MPLS-TP, IP, MPLS, Ethernet, ATM, Frame Relay, etc.)
requirement 30]. ([RFC5654], requirement 30).
28. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide a generic and extensible 28. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide a generic and extensible
solution to support the transport of MPLS-TP transport paths solution to support the transport of MPLS-TP transport paths
over one or more server layer networks (such as MPLS-TP, over one or more server-layer networks (such as MPLS-TP,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH, OTN, etc.). Requirements for bandwidth Ethernet, Synchronous Optical Network / Synchronous Digital
management within a server layer network are outside the scope Hierarchy (SONET/SDH), Optical Transport Network (OTN), etc.).
of this document [RFC5654, requirement 31]. Requirements for bandwidth management within a server-layer
network are outside the scope of this document ([RFC5654],
requirement 31).
29. In an environment where an MPLS-TP layer network is supporting 29. In an environment where an MPLS-TP layer network is supporting
a client layer network, and the MPLS-TP layer network is a client-layer network, and the MPLS-TP layer network is
supported by a server layer network then the control plane supported by a server-layer network, then the control-plane
operation of the MPLS-TP layer network must be possible without operation of the MPLS-TP layer network must be possible without
any dependencies on the server or client layer network any dependencies on the server or client-layer network
[RFC5654, requirement 32]. ([RFC5654], requirement 32).
30. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the transport of a 30. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the transport of a
client MPLS or MPLS-TP layer network over a server MPLS or client MPLS or MPLS-TP layer network over a server MPLS or
MPLS-TP layer network [RFC5654, requirement 33]. MPLS-TP layer network ([RFC5654], requirement 33).
31. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow the autonomous operation 31. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow the autonomous operation
of the layers of a multi-layer network that includes an MPLS-TP of the layers of a multi-layer network that includes an MPLS-TP
layer [RFC5654, requirement 34]. layer ([RFC5654], requirement 34).
32. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow the hiding of MPLS-TP 32. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow the hiding of MPLS-TP
layer network addressing and other information (e.g. topology) layer network addressing and other information (e.g., topology)
from client layer networks. However, it should be possible, at from client-layer networks. However, it should be possible, at
the option of the operator, to leak a limited amount of the option of the operator, to leak a limited amount of
summarized information, such as Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) summarized information, such as Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)
or reachability, between layers [RFC5654, requirement 35]. or reachability, between layers ([RFC5654], requirement 35).
33. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the identification of 33. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the identification of
a transport path on each link within and at the destination a transport path on each link within and at the destination
(egress) of the transport network. [RFC5654, requirement 38 and (egress) of the transport network ([RFC5654], requirements 38
39]. and 39).
34. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the use of P2MP server 34. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the use of P2MP server
(sub)layer capabilities as well as P2P server (sub)layer (sub-)layer capabilities as well as P2P server (sub-)layer
capabilities when supporting P2MP MPLS-TP transport paths capabilities when supporting P2MP MPLS-TP transport paths
[RFC5654, requirement 40]. ([RFC5654], requirement 40).
35. The MPLS-TP control plane must be extensible in order to 35. The MPLS-TP control plane must be extensible in order to
accommodate new types of client layer networks and services accommodate new types of client-layer networks and services
[RFC5654, requirement 41]. ([RFC5654], requirement 41).
36. The MPLS-TP control plane should support the reserved bandwidth 36. The MPLS-TP control plane should support the reserved bandwidth
associated with a transport path to be increased without associated with a transport path to be increased without
impacting the existing traffic on that transport path provided impacting the existing traffic on that transport path, provided
enough resources are available [RFC5654, requirement 42]. enough resources are available ([RFC5654], requirement 42)).
37. The MPLS-TP control plane should support the reserved bandwidth 37. The MPLS-TP control plane should support the reserved bandwidth
of a transport path to be decreased without impacting the of a transport path being decreased without impacting the
existing traffic on that transport path, provided that the existing traffic on that transport path, provided that the
level of existing traffic is smaller than the reserved level of existing traffic is smaller than the reserved
bandwidth following the decrease [RFC5654, requirement 43]. bandwidth following the decrease ([RFC5654], requirement 43).
38. The control plane for MPLS-TP must fit within the ASON (control 38. The control plane for MPLS-TP must fit within the ASON
plane) architecture. The ITU-T has defined an architecture for (control-plane) architecture. The ITU-T has defined an
Automatically Switched Optical Networks (ASON) in G.8080 architecture for ASONs in G.8080 [ITU.G8080.2006] and G.8080
[ITU.G8080.2006] and G.8080 Amendment 1 [ITU.G8080.2008]. An Amendment 1 [ITU.G8080.2008]. An interpretation of the ASON
interpretation of the ASON signaling and routing requirements signaling and routing requirements in the context of GMPLS can
in the context of GMPLS can be found in [RFC4139] and [RFC4258] be found in [RFC4139], [RFC4258], and Section 2.4, paragraphs 2
[RFC5654, Section 2.4., Paragraph 2 and 3]. and 3 of [RFC5654].
39. The MPLS-TP control plane must support control plane topology 39. The MPLS-TP control plane must support control-plane topology
and data plane topology independence [RFC5654, requirement 47]. and data-plane topology independence ([RFC5654], requirement
47).
40. A failure of the MPLS-TP control plane must not interfere with 40. A failure of the MPLS-TP control plane must not interfere with
the delivery of service or recovery of established transport the delivery of service or recovery of established transport
paths [RFC5654, requirement 47]. paths ([RFC5654], requirement 47).
41. The MPLS-TP control plane must be able to operate independent 41. The MPLS-TP control plane must be able to operate independent
of any particular client or server layer control plane of any particular client- or server-layer control plane
[RFC5654, requirement 48]. ([RFC5654], requirement 48).
42. The MPLS-TP control plane should support, but not require, an 42. The MPLS-TP control plane should support, but not require, an
integrated control plane encompassing MPLS-TP together with its integrated control plane encompassing MPLS-TP together with its
server and client layer networks when these layer networks server- and client-layer networks when these layer networks
belong to the same administrative domain [RFC5654, requirement belong to the same administrative domain ([RFC5654],
49]. requirement 49).
43. The MPLS-TP control plane must support configuration of 43. The MPLS-TP control plane must support configuration of
protection functions and any associated maintenance (OAM) protection functions and any associated maintenance (OAM)
functions [RFC5654, requirement 50 and 7]. functions ([RFC5654], requirements 50 and 7).
44. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the configuration and 44. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the configuration and
modification of OAM maintenance points as well as the modification of OAM maintenance points as well as the
activation/deactivation of OAM when the transport path or activation/deactivation of OAM when the transport path or
transport service is established or modified [RFC5654, transport service is established or modified ([RFC5654],
requirement 51]. requirement 51).
45. The MPLS-TP control plane must be capable of restarting and 45. The MPLS-TP control plane must be capable of restarting and
relearning its previous state without impacting forwarding relearning its previous state without impacting forwarding
[RFC5654, requirement 54]. ([RFC5654], requirement 54).
46. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide a mechanism for dynamic 46. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide a mechanism for dynamic
ownership transfer of the control of MPLS-TP transport paths ownership transfer of the control of MPLS-TP transport paths
from the management plane to the control plane and vice versa. from the management plane to the control plane and vice versa.
The number of reconfigurations required in the data plane must The number of reconfigurations required in the data plane must
be minimized (preferably no data plane reconfiguration will be be minimized; preferably no data-plane reconfiguration will be
required) [RFC5654, requirement 55]. Note, such transfers cover required ([RFC5654], requirement 55). Note, such transfers
all transport path control functions including control of cover all transport path control functions including control of
recovery and OAM. recovery and OAM.
47. The MPLS-TP control plane must support protection and 47. The MPLS-TP control plane must support protection and
restoration mechanisms, i.e., recovery [RFC5654, requirement restoration mechanisms, i.e., recovery ([RFC5654], requirement
52]. 52).
Note that the MPLS-TP Survivability Framework document, [TP- Note that the MPLS-TP survivability framework document
SURVIVE], provides additional useful information related to [RFC6372] provides additional useful information related to
recovery. recovery.
48. The MPLS-TP control plane mechanisms should be identical (or as 48. The MPLS-TP control-plane mechanisms should be identical (or as
similar as possible) to those already used in existing similar as possible) to those already used in existing
transport networks to simplify implementation and operations. transport networks to simplify implementation and operations.
However, this must not override any other requirement [RFC5654, However, this must not override any other requirement
requirement 56 A]. ([RFC5654], requirement 56 A).
49. The MPLS-TP control plane mechanisms used for P2P and P2MP 49. The MPLS-TP control-plane mechanisms used for P2P and P2MP
recovery should be identical to simplify implementation and recovery should be identical to simplify implementation and
operation. However, this must not override any other operation. However, this must not override any other
requirement [RFC5654, requirement 56 B]. requirement ([RFC5654], requirement 56 B).
50. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery mechanisms that 50. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery mechanisms that
are applicable at various levels throughout the network are applicable at various levels throughout the network
including support for link, transport path, segment, including support for link, transport path, segment,
concatenated segment and end-to-end recovery [RFC5654, concatenated segment, and end-to-end recovery ([RFC5654],
requirement 57]. requirement 57).
51. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery paths that meet 51. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery paths that meet
the SLA protection objectives of the service [RFC5654, the Service Level Agreement (SLA) protection objectives of the
requirement 58]. Including: service ([RFC5654], requirement 58). These include:
a. Guarantee 50ms recovery times from the moment of fault a. Guarantee 50-ms recovery times from the moment of fault
detection in networks with spans less than 1200 km. detection in networks with spans less than 1200 km.
b. Protection of 100% of the traffic on the protected path. b. Protection of 100% of the traffic on the protected path.
c. Recovery must meet SLA requirements over multiple c. Recovery must meet SLA requirements over multiple domains.
domains.
52. The MPLS-TP control plane should support per transport path 52. The MPLS-TP control plane should support per-transport-path
Recovery objectives [RFC5654, requirement 59]. recovery objectives ([RFC5654], requirement 59).
53. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery mechanisms that 53. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery mechanisms that
are applicable to any topology [RFC5654, requirement 60]. are applicable to any topology ([RFC5654], requirement 60).
54. The MPLS-TP control plane must operate in synergy with 54. The MPLS-TP control plane must operate in synergy with
(including coordination of timing/timer settings) the recovery (including coordination of timing/timer settings) the recovery
mechanisms present in any client or server transport networks mechanisms present in any client or server transport networks
(for example, Ethernet, SDH, OTN, WDM) to avoid race conditions (for example, Ethernet, SDH, OTN, Wavelength Division
between the layers [RFC5654, requirement 61]. Multiplexing (WDM)) to avoid race conditions between the layers
([RFC5654], requirement 61).
55. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery and reversion 55. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery and reversion
mechanisms that prevent frequent operation of recovery in the mechanisms that prevent frequent operation of recovery in the
event of an intermittent defect [RFC5654, requirement 62]. event of an intermittent defect ([RFC5654], requirement 62).
56. The MPLS-TP control plane must support revertive and non- 56. The MPLS-TP control plane must support revertive and non-
revertive protection behavior [RFC5654, requirement 64]. revertive protection behavior ([RFC5654], requirement 64).
57. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1+1 bidirectional 57. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1+1 bidirectional
protection for P2P transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 65 A]. protection for P2P transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 65
A).
58. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1+1 unidirectional 58. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1+1 unidirectional
protection for P2P transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 65 B]. protection for P2P transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 65
B).
59. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1+1 unidirectional 59. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1+1 unidirectional
protection for P2MP transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 65 protection for P2MP transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 65
C]. C).
60. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the ability to share 60. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the ability to share
protection resources amongst a number of transport paths protection resources amongst a number of transport paths
[RFC5654, requirement 66]. ([RFC5654], requirement 66).
61. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1:n bidirectional 61. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1:n bidirectional
protection for P2P transport paths. Bidirectional 1:n protection for P2P transport paths. Bidirectional 1:n
protection should be the default for 1:n protection [RFC5654, protection should be the default for 1:n protection ([RFC5654],
requirement 67 A]. requirement 67 A).
62. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1:n unidirectional 62. The MPLS-TP control plane must support 1:n unidirectional
protection for P2MP transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 67 protection for P2MP transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 67
B]. B).
63. The MPLS-TP control plane may support 1:n unidirectional 63. The MPLS-TP control plane may support 1:n unidirectional
protection for P2P transport paths [RFC5654, requirement 65 C]. protection for P2P transport paths ([RFC5654], requirement 65
C).
64. The MPLS-TP control plane may support the control of extra- 64. The MPLS-TP control plane may support the control of extra-
traffic type traffic [RFC5654, note after requirement 67]. traffic type traffic ([RFC5654], note after requirement 67).
65. The MPLS-TP control plane should support 1:n (including 1:1) 65. The MPLS-TP control plane should support 1:n (including 1:1)
shared mesh recovery [RFC5654, requirement 68]. shared mesh recovery ([RFC5654], requirement 68).
66. The MPLS-TP control plane must support sharing of protection 66. The MPLS-TP control plane must support sharing of protection
resources such that protection paths that are known not to be resources such that protection paths that are known not to be
required concurrently can share the same resources [RFC5654, required concurrently can share the same resources ([RFC5654],
requirement 69]. requirement 69).
67. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the sharing of resources 67. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the sharing of resources
between a restoration transport path and the transport path between a restoration transport path and the transport path
being replaced [RFC5654, requirement 70]. being replaced ([RFC5654], requirement 70).
68. The MPLS-TP control plane must support restoration priority so 68. The MPLS-TP control plane must support restoration priority so
that an implementation can determine the order in which that an implementation can determine the order in which
transport paths should be restored [RFC5654, requirement 71]. transport paths should be restored ([RFC5654], requirement 71).
69. The MPLS-TP control plane must support preemption priority in 69. The MPLS-TP control plane must support preemption priority in
order to allow restoration to displace other transport paths in order to allow restoration to displace other transport paths in
the event of resource constraints [RFC5654, requirement 72 and the event of resource constraints ([RFC5654], requirements 72
86]. and 86).
70. The MPLS-TP control plane must support revertive and non- 70. The MPLS-TP control plane must support revertive and non-
revertive restoration behavior [RFC5654, requirement 73]. revertive restoration behavior ([RFC5654], requirement 73).
71. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery being triggered 71. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery being triggered
by physical (lower) layer fault indications [RFC5654, by physical (lower) layer fault indications ([RFC5654],
requirement 74]. requirement 74).
72. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery being triggered 72. The MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery being triggered
by OAM [RFC5654, requirement 75]. by OAM ([RFC5654], requirement 75).
73. The MPLS-TP control plane must support management plane 73. The MPLS-TP control plane must support management-plane
recovery triggers (e.g., forced switch, etc.) [RFC5654, recovery triggers (e.g., forced switch, etc.) ([RFC5654],
requirement 76]. requirement 76).
74. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the differentiation of 74. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the differentiation of
administrative recovery actions from recovery actions initiated administrative recovery actions from recovery actions initiated
by other triggers [RFC5654, requirement 77]. by other triggers ([RFC5654], requirement 77).
75. The MPLS-TP control plane should support control plane 75. The MPLS-TP control plane should support control-plane
restoration triggers (e.g., forced switch, etc.) [RFC5654, restoration triggers (e.g., forced switch, etc.) ([RFC5654],
requirement 78]. requirement 78).
76. The MPLS-TP control plane must support priority logic to 76. The MPLS-TP control plane must support priority logic to
negotiate and accommodate coexisting requests (i.e., multiple negotiate and accommodate coexisting requests (i.e., multiple
requests) for protection switching (e.g., administrative requests) for protection switching (e.g., administrative
requests and requests due to link/node failures) [RFC5654, requests and requests due to link/node failures) ([RFC5654],
requirement 79]. requirement 79).
77. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the association of 77. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the association of
protection paths and working paths (sometimes known as protection paths and working paths (sometimes known as
protection groups) [RFC5654, requirement 80]. protection groups) ([RFC5654], requirement 80).
78. The MPLS-TP control plane must support pre-calculation of 78. The MPLS-TP control plane must support pre-calculation of
recovery paths [RFC5654, requirement 81]. recovery paths ([RFC5654], requirement 81).
79. The MPLS-TP control plane must support pre-provisioning of 79. The MPLS-TP control plane must support pre-provisioning of
recovery paths [RFC5654, requirement 82]. recovery paths ([RFC5654], requirement 82).
80. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the external commands 80. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the external commands
defined in [RFC4427]. External controls overruled by higher defined in [RFC4427]. External controls overruled by higher
priority requests (e.g., administrative requests and requests priority requests (e.g., administrative requests and requests
due to link/node failures) or unable to be signaled to the due to link/node failures) or unable to be signaled to the
remote end (e.g. because of a protection state coordination remote end (e.g., because of a protection state coordination
fail) must be ignored/dropped [RFC5654, requirement 83]. fail) must be ignored/dropped ([RFC5654], requirement 83).
81. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and 81. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and
validation of the integrity of the protection/recovery validation of the integrity of the protection/recovery
transport path [RFC5654, requirement 84 A]. transport path ([RFC5654], requirement 84 A).
82. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and 82. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and
validation of protection/restoration mechanisms without validation of protection/restoration mechanisms without
triggering the actual protection/restoration [RFC5654, triggering the actual protection/restoration ([RFC5654],
requirement 84 B]. requirement 84 B).
83. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and 83. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and
validation of protection/restoration mechanisms while the validation of protection/restoration mechanisms while the
working path is in service [RFC5654, requirement 84 C]. working path is in service ([RFC5654], requirement 84 C).
84. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and 84. The MPLS-TP control plane must permit the testing and
validation of protection/restoration mechanisms while the validation of protection/restoration mechanisms while the
working path is out of service [RFC5654, requirement 84 D]. working path is out of service ([RFC5654], requirement 84 D).
85. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the establishment and 85. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the establishment and
maintenance of all recovery entities and functions [RFC5654, maintenance of all recovery entities and functions ([RFC5654],
requirement 89 A]. requirement 89 A).
86. The MPLS-TP control plane must support signaling of recovery 86. The MPLS-TP control plane must support signaling of recovery
administrative control [RFC5654, requirement 89 B]. administrative control ([RFC5654], requirement 89 B).
87. The MPLS-TP control plane must support protection state 87. The MPLS-TP control plane must support protection state
coordination (PSC). Since control plane network topology is coordination. Since control-plane network topology is
independent from the data plane network topology, the PSC independent from the data-plane network topology, the
supported by the MPLS-TP control plane may run on resources protection state coordination supported by the MPLS-TP control
different than the data plane resources handled within the plane may run on resources different than the data-plane
recovery mechanism (e.g. backup) [RFC5654, requirement 89 C]. resources handled within the recovery mechanism (e.g., backup)
([RFC5654], requirement 89 C).
88. When present, the MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery 88. When present, the MPLS-TP control plane must support recovery
mechanisms that are optimized for specific network topologies. mechanisms that are optimized for specific network topologies.
These mechanisms must be interoperable with the mechanisms These mechanisms must be interoperable with the mechanisms
defined for arbitrary topology (mesh) networks to enable defined for arbitrary topology (mesh) networks to enable
protection of end-to-end transport paths [RFC5654, requirement protection of end-to-end transport paths ([RFC5654],
91]. requirement 91).
89. When present, the MPLS-TP control plane must support the 89. When present, the MPLS-TP control plane must support the
control of ring topology specific recovery mechanisms [RFC5654, control of ring-topology-specific recovery mechanisms
Section 2.5.6.1]. ([RFC5654], Section 2.5.6.1).
90. The MPLS-TP control plane must include support for 90. The MPLS-TP control plane must include support for
differentiated services and different traffic types with differentiated services and different traffic types with
traffic class separation associated with different traffic traffic class separation associated with different traffic
[RFC5654, requirement 110]. ([RFC5654], requirement 110).
91. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the provisioning of 91. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the provisioning of
services that provide guaranteed Service Level Specifications services that provide guaranteed Service Level Specifications
(SLS), with support for hard ([RFC3209] style) and relative (SLSs), with support for hard ([RFC3209] style) and relative
([RFC3270] style) end-to-end bandwidth guarantees [RFC5654, ([RFC3270] style) end-to-end bandwidth guarantees ([RFC5654],
requirement 111]. requirement 111).
92. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the provisioning of 92. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the provisioning of
services which are sensitive to jitter and delay [RFC5654, services that are sensitive to jitter and delay ([RFC5654],
requirement 112]. requirement 112).
2.2. MPLS-TP Framework Derived Requirements 2.2. Requirements Derived from the MPLS-TP Framework
The following additional requirements are based on [RFC5921], [TP- The following additional requirements are based on [RFC5921],
P2MP-FWK] and [RFC5960]: [TP-P2MP-FWK], and [RFC5960]:
93. Per-packet equal cost multi-path (ECMP) load balancing is 93. Per-packet Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load balancing is
currently outside the scope of MPLS-TP [RFC5960 , section currently outside the scope of MPLS-TP ([RFC5960], Section
3.1.1., paragraph 6]. 3.1.1, paragraph 6).
94. Penultimate hop popping (PHP) must be disabled on MPLS-TP LSPs 94. Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) must be disabled on MPLS-TP LSPs
by default. [RFC5960 , section 3.1.1., paragraph 7]. by default ([RFC5960], Section 3.1.1, paragraph 7).
95. The MPLS-TP control plane must support both E-LSP and L-LSP 95. The MPLS-TP control plane must support both E-LSP (Explicitly
MPLS DiffServ modes as specified in [RFC3270] [RFC5960 , TC-encoded-PSC LSP) and L-LSP (Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP)
section 3.3.2., paragraph 12]. MPLS Diffserv modes as specified in [RFC3270], [RFC5462], and
Section 3.3.2, paragraph 12 of [RFC5960].
96. Both single-segment, see [RFC3985], and multi-segment PWs, see 96. Both Single-Segment PWs (see [RFC3985]) and Multi-Segment PWs
[RFC5659], shall be supported by the MPLS-TP control plane. (see [RFC5659]) shall be supported by the MPLS-TP control
MPLS-TP shall use the definition of multi-segment PWs as plane. MPLS-TP shall use the definition of Multi-Segment PWs
defined by the IETF [RFC5921, section 3.4.4]. as defined by the IETF ([RFC5921], Section 3.4.4).
97. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the control of PWs and 97. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the control of PWs and
their associated labels [RFC5921, section 3.4.4]. their associated labels ([RFC5921], Section 3.4.4).
98. The MPLS-TP control plane must support network layer clients, 98. The MPLS-TP control plane must support network-layer clients,
i.e., clients whose traffic is transported over an MPLS-TP i.e., clients whose traffic is transported over an MPLS-TP
network without the use of PWs [RFC5921, section 3.4.5]. network without the use of PWs ([RFC5921], Section 3.4.5).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the use of network a. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the use of network-
layer protocol-specific LSPs and labels. [RFC5921, layer protocol-specific LSPs and labels ([RFC5921], Section
section 3.4.5.] 3.4.5).
b. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the use of a b. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the use of a client-
client service-specific LSPs and labels. [RFC5921, service-specific LSPs and labels ([RFC5921], Section 3.4.5).
section 3.4.5.]
99. The MPLS-TP control plane for LSPs must be based on the GMPLS 99. The MPLS-TP control plane for LSPs must be based on the GMPLS
control plane. More specifically, GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC3473] and control plane. More specifically, GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC3473] and
related extensions are used for LSP signaling, and GMPLS OSPF- related extensions are used for LSP signaling, and GMPLS OSPF-
TE [RFC5392] and ISIS-TE [RFC5316] are used for routing TE [RFC5392] and ISIS-TE [RFC5316] are used for routing
[RFC5921, section 3.9]. ([RFC5921], Section 3.9).
100. The MPLS-TP control plane for PWs must be based on the MPLS 100. The MPLS-TP control plane for PWs must be based on the MPLS
control plane for PWs, and more specifically, targeted LDP (T- control plane for PWs, and more specifically, targeted LDP (T-
LDP) [RFC4447] is used for PW signaling [RFC5921, section 3.9., LDP) [RFC4447] is used for PW signaling ([RFC5921], Section
paragraph 5]. 3.9, paragraph 5).
101. The MPLS-TP control plane must ensure its own survivability and 101. The MPLS-TP control plane must ensure its own survivability and
to enable it to recover gracefully from failures and be able to recover gracefully from failures and degradations.
degradations. These include graceful restart and hot redundant These include graceful restart and hot redundant configurations
configurations [RFC5921, section 3.9., paragraph 16]. ([RFC5921], Section 3.9, paragraph 16).
102. The MPLS-TP control plane must support linear, ring and meshed 102. The MPLS-TP control plane must support linear, ring, and meshed
protection schemes [RFC5921, section 3.12., paragraph 3]. protection schemes ([RFC5921], Section 3.12, paragraph 3).
103. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the control of SPMEs 103. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the control of SPMEs
(hierarchical LSPs) for new or existing end-to-end LSPs (hierarchical LSPs) for new or existing end-to-end LSPs
[RFC5921, section 3.12., paragraph 7]. ([RFC5921], Section 3.12, paragraph 7).
2.3. OAM Framework Derived Requirements 2.3. Requirements Derived from the OAM Framework
The following additional requirements are based on [RFC5860] and [TP- The following additional requirements are based on [RFC5860] and
OAM]: [RFC6371]:
104. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the capability to 104. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the capability to
enable/disable OAM functions as part of service establishment enable/disable OAM functions as part of service establishment
[RFC5860, section 2.1.6., paragraph 1]. Note that OAM functions ([RFC5860], Section 2.1.6, paragraph 1. Note that OAM
are applicable regardless of the label stack depth (i.e., level functions are applicable regardless of the label stack depth
of LSP hierarchy or PW) [RFC5860, section 2.1.1., paragraph 3]. (i.e., level of LSP hierarchy or PW) ([RFC5860], Section 2.1.1,
paragraph 3).
105. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the capability to 105. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the capability to
enable/disable OAM functions after service establishment. In enable/disable OAM functions after service establishment. In
such cases, the customer must not perceive service degradation such cases, the customer must not perceive service degradation
as a result of OAM enabling/disabling [RFC5860, section 2.1.6., as a result of OAM enabling/disabling ([RFC5860], Section
paragraph 1 and 2]. 2.1.6, paragraphs 1 and 2).
106. The MPLS-TP control plane must support dynamic control of any 106. The MPLS-TP control plane must support dynamic control of any
of the existing IP/MPLS and PW OAM protocols (e.g., LSP-Ping of the existing IP/MPLS and PW OAM protocols, e.g., LSP-Ping
[RFC4379], MPLS-BFD [RFC5884], VCCV [RFC5085], and VCCV-BFD [RFC4379], MPLS-BFD [RFC5884], VCCV [RFC5085], and VCCV-BFD
[RFC5885]) [RFC5860, section 2.1.4., paragraph 2]. [RFC5885] ([RFC5860], Section 2.1.4, paragraph 2).
107. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the ability to support 107. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow for the ability to support
experimental OAM functions. These functions must be disabled experimental OAM functions. These functions must be disabled
by default [RFC5860, section 2.2., paragraph 2]. by default ([RFC5860], Section 2.2, paragraph 2).
108. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the choice of which (if 108. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the choice of which (if
any) OAM function(s) to use and to which PW, LSP or Section it any) OAM function(s) to use and to which PW, LSP or Section it
applies [RFC5860, section 2.2., paragraph 3]. applies ([RFC5860], Section 2.2, paragraph 3).
109. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow (e.g., enable/disable) 109. The MPLS-TP control plane must allow (e.g., enable/disable)
mechanisms that support the localization of faults and the mechanisms that support the localization of faults and the
notification of appropriate nodes. [RFC5860, section 2.2.1., notification of appropriate nodes ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.1,
paragraph 1]. paragraph 1).
110. The MPLS-TP control plane may support mechanisms that permit 110. The MPLS-TP control plane may support mechanisms that permit
the service provider to be informed of a fault or defect the service provider to be informed of a fault or defect
affecting the service(s) it provides, even if the fault or affecting the service(s) it provides, even if the fault or
defect is located outside of his domain [RFC5860, section defect is located outside of his domain ([RFC5860], Section
2.2.1., paragraph 2]. 2.2.1, paragraph 2).
111. Information exchange between various nodes involved in the 111. Information exchange between various nodes involved in the
MPLS-TP control plane should be reliable such that, for MPLS-TP control plane should be reliable such that, for
example, defects or faults are properly detected or that state example, defects or faults are properly detected or that state
changes are effectively known by the appropriate nodes changes are effectively known by the appropriate nodes
[RFC5860, section 2.2.1., paragraph 3]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.1, paragraph 3).
112. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control 112. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control
an End Point's ability to monitor the liveness of a PW, LSP, or an end point's ability to monitor the liveness of a PW, LSP, or
Section [RFC5860, section 2.2.2., paragraph 1]. Section ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.2, paragraph 1).
113. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control 113. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control
an End Point's ability to determine whether or not it is an end point's ability to determine whether or not it is
connected to specific End Point(s) by means of the expected PW, connected to specific end point(s) by means of the expected PW,
LSP, or Section [RFC5860, section 2.2.3., paragraph 1]. LSP, or Section ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.3, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control an End Point's ability to perform this function an end point's ability to perform this function proactively
proactively [RFC5860, section 2.2.3., paragraph 2]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.3, paragraph 2).
b. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to b. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control an End Point's ability to perform this function an end point's ability to perform this function on-demand
on-demand [RFC5860, section 2.2.3., paragraph 3]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.3, paragraph 3).
114. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control 114. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control
diagnostic testing on a PW, LSP or Section [RFC5860, section diagnostic testing on a PW, LSP or Section ([RFC5860], Section
2.2.5., paragraph 1]. 2.2.5, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function on-demand the performance of this function on-demand ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.5., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.5, paragraph 2).
115. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 115. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
an End Point to discover the Intermediate (if any) and End an end point to discover the Intermediate Point(s) (if any) and
Point(s) along a PW, LSP or Section, and more generally to end point(s) along a PW, LSP, or Section, and more generally to
trace (record) the route of a PW, LSP or Section [RFC5860, trace (record) the route of a PW, LSP, or Section ([RFC5860],
section 2.2.4., paragraph 1]. Section 2.2.4, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function on-demand the performance of this function on-demand ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.4., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.4, paragraph 2).
116. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 116. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
an End Point of a PW, LSP or Section to instruct its associated an end point of a PW, LSP, or Section to instruct its
End Point(s) to lock the PW, LSP or Section [RFC5860, section associated end point(s) to lock the PW, LSP, or Section
2.2.6., paragraph 1]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.6, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function on-demand the performance of this function on-demand ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.6., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.6, paragraph 2).
117. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 117. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
an Intermediate Point of a PW or LSP to report, to an End Point an Intermediate Point of a PW or LSP to report, to an end point
of that same PW or LSP, a lock condition indirectly affecting of that same PW or LSP, a lock condition indirectly affecting
that PW or LSP [RFC5860, section 2.2.7., paragraph 1]. that PW or LSP ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.7, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function proactively the performance of this function proactively ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.7., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.7, paragraph 2).
118. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 118. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
an Intermediate Point of a PW or LSP to report, to an End Point an Intermediate Point of a PW or LSP to report, to an end point
of that same PW or LSP, a fault or defect condition affecting of that same PW or LSP, a fault or defect condition affecting
that PW or LSP [RFC5860, section 2.2.8., paragraph 1]. that PW or LSP ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.8, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function proactively the performance of this function proactively ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.8., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.8, paragraph 2).
119. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 119. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
an End Point to report, to its associated End Point, a fault or an end point to report, to its associated end point, a fault or
defect condition that it detects on a PW, LSP or Section for defect condition that it detects on a PW, LSP, or Section for
which they are the End Points [RFC5860, section 2.2.9., which they are the end points ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.9,
paragraph 1]. paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function proactively the performance of this function proactively ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.9., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.9, paragraph 2).
120. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 120. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
the propagation, across an MPLS-TP network, of information the propagation, across an MPLS-TP network, of information
pertaining to a client defect or fault condition detected at an pertaining to a client defect or fault condition detected at an
End Point of a PW or LSP, if the client layer mechanisms do not end point of a PW or LSP, if the client-layer mechanisms do not
provide an alarm notification/propagation mechanism [RFC5860, provide an alarm notification/propagation mechanism ([RFC5860],
section 2.2.10., paragraph 1]. Section 2.2.10, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function proactively the performance of this function proactively ([RFC5860],
[RFC5860, section 2.2.10., paragraph 2]. Section 2.2.10, paragraph 2).
121. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable 121. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to enable
the control of quantification of packet loss ratio over a PW, the control of quantification of packet loss ratio over a PW,
LSP or Section [RFC5860, section 2.2.11., paragraph 1]. LSP, or Section ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.11, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function proactively and the performance of this function proactively and on-demand
on-demand [RFC5860, section 2.2.11., paragraph 4]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.11, paragraph 4).
122. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control 122. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide functionality to control
the quantification and reporting of the one-way, and if the quantification and reporting of the one-way, and if
appropriate, the two-way, delay of a PW, LSP or Section appropriate, the two-way, delay of a PW, LSP, or Section
[RFC5860, section 2.2.12., paragraph 1]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.12, paragraph 1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to control
control the performance of this function proactively and the performance of this function proactively and on-demand
on-demand [RFC5860, section 2.2.12., paragraph 6]. ([RFC5860], Section 2.2.12, paragraph 6).
123. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the configuration of OAM 123. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the configuration of OAM
functional components which include Maintenance Entities (MEs) functional components that include Maintenance Entities (MEs)
and Maintenance Entity Groups (MEGs) as instantiated in MEPs, and Maintenance Entity Groups (MEGs) as instantiated in MEPs,
MIPs and SPMEs [TP-OAM, section 3.6]. MIPs, and SPMEs ([RFC6371], Section 3.6).
124. For dynamically established transport paths, the control plane 124. For dynamically established transport paths, the control plane
must support the configuration of OAM operations [TP-OAM, must support the configuration of OAM operations ([RFC6371],
section 5]. Section 5).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to
configure proactive monitoring for a MEG at, or after, configure proactive monitoring for a MEG at, or after,
transport path creation time. transport path creation time.
b. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to b. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to
configure the operational characteristics of in-band configure the operational characteristics of in-band
measurement transactions (e.g., CV, LM etc.) are measurement transactions (e.g., Connectivity Verification
configured at the MEPs (associated with a transport (CV), Loss Measurement (LM), etc.) at MEPs (associated with
path). a transport path).
c. The MPLS-TP control plane may provide mechanisms to c. The MPLS-TP control plane may provide mechanisms to
configure server layer event reporting by intermediate configure server-layer event reporting by intermediate
nodes. nodes.
d. The MPLS-TP control plane may provide mechanisms to d. The MPLS-TP control plane may provide mechanisms to
configure the reporting of measurements resulting from configure the reporting of measurements resulting from
proactive monitoring. proactive monitoring.
125. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the control of the loss 125. The MPLS-TP control plane must support the control of the loss
of continuity (LOC) traffic block consequent action [TP-OAM, of continuity (LOC) traffic block consequent action ([RFC6371],
section 5.1.2., paragraph 4]. Section 5.1.2, paragraph 4).
126. For dynamically established transport paths that have a 126. For dynamically established transport paths that have a
proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-V) proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-V)
function enabled, the control plane must support the signaling function enabled, the control plane must support the signaling
of the following MEP configuration information [TP-OAM, section of the following MEP configuration information ([RFC6371],
5.1.3]: Section 5.1.3):
a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to
configure the MEG identifier to which the MEP belongs. configure the MEG identifier to which the MEP belongs.
b. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to b. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to
configure a MEP's own identity inside a MEG. configure a MEP's own identity inside a MEG.
c. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to c. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to
configure the list of the other MEPs in the MEG. configure the list of the other MEPs in the MEG.
d. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to d. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to
configure the CC-V transmission rate / reception period configure the CC-V transmission rate / reception period
(covering all application types). (covering all application types).
127. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure 127. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure
the generation of Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) packets for the generation of Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) packets for
each MEG [TP-OAM, section 5.3., paragraph 9]. each MEG ([RFC6371], Section 5.3, paragraph 9).
128. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure 128. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure
the generation of Locked Report (LKR) packets for each MEG [TP- the generation of Lock Report (LKR) packets for each MEG
OAM, section 5.4., paragraph 9]. ([RFC6371], Section 5.4, paragraph 9).
129. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure 129. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure
the use of proactive Packet Loss Measurement (LM), and the the use of proactive Packet Loss Measurement (LM), and the
transmission rate and Per-hop Behavior (PHB) class associated transmission rate and Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) class associated
with the LM OAM packets originating from a MEP [TP-OAM, section with the LM OAM packets originating from a MEP ([RFC6371],
5.5.1., paragraph 1]. Section 5.5.1, paragraph 1).
130. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure 130. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure
the use of proactive Packet Delay Measurement (DM), and the the use of proactive Packet Delay Measurement (DM), and the
transmission rate and PHB class associated with the DM OAM transmission rate and PHB class associated with the DM OAM
packets originating from a MEP [TP-OAM, section 5.6.1., packets originating from a MEP ([RFC6371], Section 5.6.1,
paragraph 1]. paragraph 1).
131. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure 131. The MPLS-TP control plane must provide mechanisms to configure
the use of Client Failure Indication (CFI), and the the use of Client Failure Indication (CFI), and the
transmission rate and PHB class associated with the CFI OAM transmission rate and PHB class associated with the CFI OAM
packets originating from a MEP [TP-OAM, section 5.7.1., packets originating from a MEP ([RFC6371], Section 5.7.1,
paragraph 1]. paragraph 1).
132. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control 132. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control
the use of on-demand CV packets [TP-OAM, section 6.1]. the use of on-demand CV packets ([RFC6371], Section 6.1).
a. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to a. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to
configure the number of packets to be configure the number of packets to be transmitted/received
transmitted/received in each burst of on-demand CV in each burst of on-demand CV packets and their packet size
packets and their packet size [TP-OAM, section 6.1.1, ([RFC6371], Section 6.1.1, paragraph 1).
paragraph 1].
b. When an on-demand CV packet is used to check connectivity b. When an on-demand CV packet is used to check connectivity
toward a target MIP, the MPLS-TP control plane should toward a target MIP, the MPLS-TP control plane should
provide mechanisms to configure the number of hops to provide mechanisms to configure the number of hops to reach
reach the target MIP [TP-OAM, section 6.1.1, paragraph the target MIP ([RFC6371], Section 6.1.1, paragraph 2).
2].
c. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to c. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to
configure the PHB of on-demand CV packets [TP-OAM, configure the PHB of on-demand CV packets ([RFC6371],
section 6.1.1, paragraph 3]. Section 6.1.1, paragraph 3).
133. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control 133. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control
the use of on-demand LM, including configuration of the the use of on-demand LM, including configuration of the
beginning and duration of the LM procedures, the transmission beginning and duration of the LM procedures, the transmission
rate and PHB associated with the LM OAM packets originating rate, and PHB associated with the LM OAM packets originating
from a MEP. [TP-OAM, section 6.2.1.] from a MEP ([RFC6371], Section 6.2.1).
134. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control 134. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control
the use of Throughput estimation [TP-OAM, section 6.3.1]. the use of throughput estimation ([RFC6371], Section 6.3.1).
135. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control 135. The MPLS-TP control plane should provide mechanisms to control
the use of on-demand DM, including configuration of the the use of on-demand DM, including configuration of the
beginning and duration of the DM procedures, the transmission beginning and duration of the DM procedures, the transmission
rate and PHB associated with the DM OAM packets originating rate, and PHB associated with the DM OAM packets originating
from a MEP. [TP-OAM, section 6.5.1.] from a MEP ([RFC6371], Section 6.5.1).
2.4. Security Requirements 2.4. Security Requirements
There are no specific MPLS-TP control plane security requirements. There are no specific MPLS-TP control-plane security requirements.
The existing framework for MPLS and GMPLS security is documented in The existing framework for MPLS and GMPLS security is documented in
[RFC5920] and that document applies equally to MPLS-TP. [RFC5920], and that document applies equally to MPLS-TP.
2.5. Identifier Requirements 2.5. Identifier Requirements
The following are requirements based on [TP-IDENTIFIERS]: The following are requirements based on [RFC6370]:
136. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MPLS-TP point to point 136. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MPLS-TP point-to-point
tunnel identifiers of the forms defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, tunnel identifiers of the forms defined in Section 5.1 of
Section 5.1]. [RFC6370].
137. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MPLS-TP LSP identifiers 137. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MPLS-TP LSP identifiers
of the forms defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section 5.2], and the of the forms defined in Section 5.2 of [RFC6370], and the
mappings to GMPLS as defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section 5.3]. mappings to GMPLS as defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC6370].
138. The MPLS-TP control plane must support Pseudowire path 138. The MPLS-TP control plane must support pseudowire path
identifiers of the form defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section identifiers of the form defined in Section 6 of [RFC6370].
6.].
139. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MEG_IDs for LSPs and PWs 139. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MEG_IDs for LSPs and PWs
as defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section 7.1.1]. as defined in Section 7.1.1 of [RFC6370].
140. The MPLS-TP control plane must support IP compatible MEG_IDs 140. The MPLS-TP control plane must support IP-compatible MEG_IDs
for LSPs and PWs as defined [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section 7.1.2]. for LSPs and PWs as defined in Section 7.1.2 of [RFC6370].
141. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MEP_IDs for LSPs and PWs 141. The MPLS-TP control plane must support MEP_IDs for LSPs and PWs
of the forms defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section 7.2.1]. of the forms defined in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC6370].
142. The MPLS-TP control plane must support IP based MEP_IDs for 142. The MPLS-TP control plane must support IP-based MEP_IDs for
MPLS-TP LSP of the forms defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section MPLS-TP LSP of the forms defined in Section 7.2.2.1 of
7.2.2.1]. [RFC6370].
143. The MPLS-TP control plane must support IP based MEP_IDs for 143. The MPLS-TP control plane must support IP-based MEP_IDs for
Pseudowires of the form defined in [TP-IDENTIFIERS, Section Pseudowires of the form defined in Section 7.2.2.2 of
7.2.2.2]. [RFC6370].
3. Relationship of PWs and TE LSPs 3. Relationship of PWs and TE LSPs
The data plane relationship between PWs and LSPs is inherited from The data-plane relationship between PWs and LSPs is inherited from
standard MPLS and is reviewed in the MPLS-TP Framework [RFC5921]. standard MPLS and is reviewed in the MPLS-TP framework [RFC5921].
Likewise, the control plane relationship between PWs and LSPs is Likewise, the control-plane relationship between PWs and LSPs is
inherited from standard MPLS. This relationship is reviewed in this inherited from standard MPLS. This relationship is reviewed in this
document. The relationship between the PW and LSP control planes in document. The relationship between the PW and LSP control planes in
MPLS-TP is the same as the relationship found in the PWE3 Maintenance MPLS-TP is the same as the relationship found in the PWE3 Maintenance
Reference Model as presented in the PWE3 Architecture, see Figure 6 Reference Model as presented in the PWE3 architecture; see Figure 6
of [RFC3985]. The PWE3 Architecture [RFC3985] states: "the PWE3 of [RFC3985]. The PWE3 architecture [RFC3985] states: "The PWE3
protocol-layering model is intended to minimize the differences protocol-layering model is intended to minimize the differences
between PWs operating over different PSN types." Additionally, PW between PWs operating over different PSN types". Additionally, PW
control (maintenance) takes place separately from LSP signaling. control (maintenance) takes place separately from LSP signaling.
[RFC4447] and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC] provide such extensions for the use of [RFC4447] and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC] provide such extensions for the use of
LDP as the control plane for PWs. This control can provide PW LDP as the control plane for PWs. This control can provide PW
control without providing LSP control. control without providing LSP control.
In the context of MPLS-TP, LSP tunnel signaling is provided via GMPLS In the context of MPLS-TP, LSP tunnel signaling is provided via GMPLS
RSVP-TE. While RSVP-TE could be extended to support PW control much RSVP-TE. While RSVP-TE could be extended to support PW control much
as LDP was extended in [RFC4447], such extensions are out of scope of as LDP was extended in [RFC4447], such extensions are out of scope of
this document. This means that the control of PWs and LSPs will this document. This means that the control of PWs and LSPs will
operate largely independently. The main coordination between LSP and operate largely independently. The main coordination between LSP and
PW control will occur within the nodes that terminate PWs, or PW PW control will occur within the nodes that terminate PWs or PW
segments. See Section 5.3.2 for an additional discussion on such segments. See Section 5.3.2 for an additional discussion on such
coordination. coordination.
It is worth noting that the control planes for PWs and LSPs may be It is worth noting that the control planes for PWs and LSPs may be
used independently, and that one may be employed without the other. used independently, and that one may be employed without the other.
This translates into the four possible scenarios: (1) no control This translates into four possible scenarios: (1) no control plane is
plane is employed; (2) a control plane is used for both LSPs and PWs; employed; (2) a control plane is used for both LSPs and PWs; (3) a
(3) a control plane is used for LSPs, but not PWs; (4) a control control plane is used for LSPs, but not PWs; (4) a control plane is
plane is used for PWs, but not LSPs. used for PWs, but not LSPs.
The PW and LSP control planes, collectively, must satisfy the MPLS-TP The PW and LSP control planes, collectively, must satisfy the MPLS-TP
control plane requirements reviewed in this document. When client control-plane requirements reviewed in this document. When client
services are provided directly via LSPs, all requirements must be services are provided directly via LSPs, all requirements must be
satisfied by the LSP control plane. When client services are satisfied by the LSP control plane. When client services are
provided via PWs, the PW and LSP control planes can operate in provided via PWs, the PW and LSP control planes can operate in
combination and some functions may be satisfied via the PW control combination, and some functions may be satisfied via the PW control
plane while others are provided to PWs by the LSP control plane. For plane while others are provided to PWs by the LSP control plane. For
example, to support the recovery functions described in [TP-SURVIVE] example, to support the recovery functions described in [RFC6372],
this document focuses on the control of the recovery functions at the this document focuses on the control of the recovery functions at the
LSP layer. PW based recovery is under development at this time and LSP layer. PW-based recovery is under development at this time and
may be used once defined. may be used once defined.
4. TE LSPs 4. TE LSPs
MPLS-TP uses Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling and routing, see MPLS-TP uses Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling and routing, see
[RFC3945], as the control plane for LSPs. The GMPLS control plane is [RFC3945], as the control plane for LSPs. The GMPLS control plane is
based on the MPLS control plane. GMPLS includes support for MPLS based on the MPLS control plane. GMPLS includes support for MPLS
labeled data and transport data planes. GMPLS includes most of the labeled data and transport data planes. GMPLS includes most of the
transport centric features required to support MPLS-TP LSPs. This transport-centric features required to support MPLS-TP LSPs. This
section will first review the features of GMPLS relevant to MPLS-TP section will first review the features of GMPLS relevant to MPLS-TP
LSPs, then identify how specific requirements can be met using LSPs, then identify how specific requirements can be met using
existing GMPLS functions, and will conclude with extensions that are existing GMPLS functions, and will conclude with extensions that are
anticipated to support the remaining MPLS-TP control plane anticipated to support the remaining MPLS-TP control-plane
requirements. requirements.
4.1. GMPLS Functions and MPLS-TP LSPs 4.1. GMPLS Functions and MPLS-TP LSPs
This section reviews how existing GMPLS functions can be applied to This section reviews how existing GMPLS functions can be applied to
MPLS-TP. MPLS-TP.
4.1.1. In-Band and Out-Of-Band Control 4.1.1. In-Band and Out-of-Band Control
GMPLS supports both in-band and out-of-band control. The terms in- GMPLS supports both in-band and out-of-band control. The terms "in-
band and out-of-band, in the context of this document, refer to the band" and "out-of-band", in the context of this document, refer to
relationship of the control plane relative to the management and data the relationship of the control plane relative to the management and
planes. The terms may be used to refer to the control plane data planes. The terms may be used to refer to the control plane
independent of the management plane, or to both of them in concert. independent of the management plane, or to both of them in concert.
The remainder of this section describes the relationship of the The remainder of this section describes the relationship of the
control plane to the management and data planes. control plane to the management and data planes.
There are multiple uses of both terms in-band and out-of-band. The There are multiple uses of both terms "in-band" and "out-of-band".
terms may relate to a channel, a path or a network. Each of these The terms may relate to a channel, a path, or a network. Each of
can be used independently or in combination. Briefly, some typical these can be used independently or in combination. Briefly, some
usage of the terms are as follows: typical usage of the terms is as follows:
o In-band o In-band
This term is used to refer to cases where control plane traffic This term is used to refer to cases where control-plane traffic is
is sent in the same communication channel used to transport sent in the same communication channel used to transport
associated user data or management traffic. IP, MPLS, and associated user data or management traffic. IP, MPLS, and
Ethernet networks are all examples where control traffic is Ethernet networks are all examples where control traffic is
typically sent in-band with the data traffic. An example of this typically sent in-band with the data traffic. An example of this
case in the context of MPLS-TP is where control plane traffic is case in the context of MPLS-TP is where control-plane traffic is
sent via the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh), see sent via the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh), see
[RFC5586], using the same LSP as controlled user traffic. [RFC5586], using the same LSP as controlled user traffic.
o Out-of-band, in-fiber (same physical connection) o Out-of-band, in-fiber (same physical connection)
This term is used to refer to cases where control plane traffic This term is used to refer to cases where control-plane traffic is
is sent using a different communication channel from the sent using a different communication channel from the associated
associated data or management traffic, and the control data or management traffic, and the control communication channel
communication channel resides in the same fiber as either the resides in the same fiber as either the management or data
management or data traffic. An example of this case in the traffic. An example of this case in the context of MPLS-TP is
context of MPLS-TP is where control plane traffic is sent via the where control-plane traffic is sent via the G-ACh using a
G-ACh using a dedicated LSP on the same link (interface) which dedicated LSP on the same link (interface) that carries controlled
carries controlled user traffic. user traffic.
o Out-of-band, aligned topology o Out-of-band, aligned topology
This term is used to refer to the cases where control plane This term is used to refer to the cases where control-plane
traffic is sent using a different communication channel from the traffic is sent using a different communication channel from the
associated data or management traffic, and the control traffic associated data or management traffic, and the control traffic
follows the same node-to-node path as either the data or follows the same node-to-node path as either the data or
management traffic. management traffic.
Such topologies are usually supported using a parallel fiber or Such topologies are usually supported using a parallel fiber or
other configurations where multiple data channels are available other configurations where multiple data channels are available
and one is (dynamically) selected as the control channel. An and one is (dynamically) selected as the control channel. An
example of this case in the context of MPLS-TP is where control example of this case in the context of MPLS-TP is where control-
plane traffic is sent along the same nodal path, but not plane traffic is sent along the same nodal path, but not
necessarily the same links (interfaces), as the corresponding necessarily the same links (interfaces), as the corresponding
controlled user traffic. controlled user traffic.
o Out-of-band, independent topology o Out-of-band, independent topology
This term is used to refer to the cases where control plane This term is used to refer to the cases where control-plane
traffic is sent using a different communication channel from the traffic is sent using a different communication channel from the
associated data or management traffic, and the control traffic associated data or management traffic, and the control traffic may
may follow a path that is completely independent of the data follow a path that is completely independent of the data traffic.
traffic.
Such configurations are a superset of the other cases and do not Such configurations are a superset of the other cases and do not
preclude the use of in-fiber or aligned topology links, but preclude the use of in-fiber or aligned topology links, but
alignment is not required. An example of this case in the alignment is not required. An example of this case in the context
context of MPLS-TP is where control plane traffic is sent between of MPLS-TP is where control-plane traffic is sent between
controlling nodes using any available path and links, completely controlling nodes using any available path and links, completely
without regard for the path(s) taken by corresponding management without regard for the path(s) taken by corresponding management
or user traffic. or user traffic.
In the context of MPLS-TP requirements, requirement 14 (see Section 2 In the context of MPLS-TP requirements, requirement 14 (see Section 2
above) can be met using out-of-band in-fiber or aligned topology above) can be met using out-of-band in-fiber or aligned topology
types of control. Requirement 15 can only be met by using Out-of- types of control. Requirement 15 can only be met by using out-of-
band, independent topology. G-ACh is likely to be used extensively band, independent topology. G-ACh is likely to be used extensively
in MPLS-TP networks to support the MPLS-TP control (and management) in MPLS-TP networks to support the MPLS-TP control (and management)
planes. planes.
4.1.2. Addressing 4.1.2. Addressing
MPLS-TP reuses and supports the addressing mechanisms supported by MPLS-TP reuses and supports the addressing mechanisms supported by
MPLS. The MPLS-TP Identifiers document, see [TP-IDENTIFIERS], MPLS. The MPLS-TP identifiers document (see [RFC6370]) provides
provides additional context on how IP addresses are used within MPLS- additional context on how IP addresses are used within MPLS-TP.
TP. MPLS, and consequently MPLS-TP, uses the IPv4 and IPv6 address MPLS, and consequently MPLS-TP, uses the IPv4 and IPv6 address
families to identify MPLS-TP nodes by default for network management families to identify MPLS-TP nodes by default for network management
and signaling purposes. The address spaces and neighbor adjacencies and signaling purposes. The address spaces and neighbor adjacencies
in the control, management and data planes used in an MPLS-TP network in the control, management, and data planes used in an MPLS-TP
may be completely separated or combined at the discretion of an MPLS- network may be completely separated or combined at the discretion of
TP operator and based on the equipment capabilities of a vendor. The an MPLS-TP operator and based on the equipment capabilities of a
separation of the control and management planes from the data plane vendor. The separation of the control and management planes from the
allows each plane to be independently addressable. Each plane may data plane allows each plane to be independently addressable. Each
use addresses that are not mutually reachable, e.g., it is likely plane may use addresses that are not mutually reachable, e.g., it is
that the data plane will not be able to reach an address from the likely that the data plane will not be able to reach an address from
management or control planes and vice versa. Each plane may also use the management or control planes and vice versa. Each plane may also
a different address family. It is even possible to reuse addresses use a different address family. It is even possible to reuse
in each plane, but this is not recommended as it may lead to addresses in each plane, but this is not recommended as it may lead
operational confusion. As previously mentioned, the G-ACh mechanism to operational confusion. As previously mentioned, the G-ACh
defined in [RFC5586] is expected to be used extensively in MPLS-TP mechanism defined in [RFC5586] is expected to be used extensively in
networks to support the MPLS-TP control (and management) planes. MPLS-TP networks to support the MPLS-TP control (and management)
planes.
4.1.3. Routing 4.1.3. Routing
Routing support for MPLS-TP LSPs is based on GMPLS routing. GMPLS Routing support for MPLS-TP LSPs is based on GMPLS routing. GMPLS
routing builds on TE routing and has been extended to support routing builds on TE routing and has been extended to support
multiple switching technologies per [RFC3945] and [RFC4202] as well multiple switching technologies per [RFC3945] and [RFC4202] as well
as multiple levels of packet switching (PSC) within a single network. as multiple levels of packet switching within a single network. IS-
IS-IS extensions for GMPLS are defined in [RFC5307] and [RFC5316], IS extensions for GMPLS are defined in [RFC5307] and [RFC5316], which
which build on the TE extensions to IS-IS defined in [RFC5305]. OSPF build on the TE extensions to IS-IS defined in [RFC5305]. OSPF
extensions for GMPLS are defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5392], which extensions for GMPLS are defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5392], which
build on the TE extensions to OSPF defined in [RFC3630]. The listed build on the TE extensions to OSPF defined in [RFC3630]. The listed
RFCs should be viewed as a starting point rather than an RFCs should be viewed as a starting point rather than a comprehensive
comprehensive list as there are other IS-IS and OSPF extensions, as list as there are other IS-IS and OSPF extensions, as defined in IETF
defined in IETF RFCs, that can be used within an MPLS-TP network. RFCs, that can be used within an MPLS-TP network.
4.1.4. TE LSPs and Constraint-Based Path Computation 4.1.4. TE LSPs and Constraint-Based Path Computation
Both MPLS and GMPLS allow for traffic engineering and constraint- Both MPLS and GMPLS allow for traffic engineering and constraint-
based path computation. MPLS path computation provides paths for based path computation. MPLS path computation provides paths for
MPLS-TE unidirectional P2P and P2MP LSPs. GMPLS path computation MPLS-TE unidirectional P2P and P2MP LSPs. GMPLS path computation
adds bidirectional LSPs, explicit recovery path computation as well adds bidirectional LSPs, explicit recovery path computation, as well
as support for the other functions discussed in this section. as support for the other functions discussed in this section.
Both MPLS and GMPLS path computation allow for the restriction of Both MPLS and GMPLS path computation allow for the restriction of
path selection based on the use of Explicit Route Objects (EROs) and path selection based on the use of Explicit Route Objects (EROs) and
other LSP attributes, see [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. In all cases, no other LSP attributes; see [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. In all cases, no
specific algorithm is standardized by the IETF. This is anticipated specific algorithm is standardized by the IETF. This is anticipated
to continue to be the case for MPLS-TP LSPs. to continue to be the case for MPLS-TP LSPs.
4.1.4.1. Relation to PCE 4.1.4.1. Relation to PCE
Path Computation Element (PCE)-based approaches, see [RFC4655], may Path Computation Element (PCE)-based approaches, see [RFC4655], may
be used for path computation of a GMPLS LSP, and consequently an be used for path computation of a GMPLS LSP, and consequently an
MPLS-TP LSP, across domains and in a single domain. In cases where MPLS-TP LSP, across domains and in a single domain. In cases where
PCE is used, the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP), see [RFC5440], PCE is used, the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP), see [RFC5440],
will be used to communicate PCE related requests and responses. MPLS- will be used to communicate PCE-related requests and responses.
TP specific extensions to PCEP are currently out of scope of the MPLS-TP-specific extensions to PCEP are currently out of scope of the
MPLS-TP project and this document. MPLS-TP project and this document.
4.1.5. Signaling 4.1.5. Signaling
GMPLS signaling is defined in [RFC3471] and [RFC3473], and is based GMPLS signaling is defined in [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] and is based on
on RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. CR-LDP based GMPLS, [RFC3472] is no longer RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. Constraint-based Routed LDP (CR-LDP) GMPLS (see
under active development within the IETF, i.e., it is deprecated, see [RFC3472]) is no longer under active development within the IETF,
[RFC3468], and must not be used for MPLS and consequently also MPLS- i.e., it is deprecated (see [RFC3468]) and must not be used for MPLS
TP. In general, all RSVP-TE extensions that apply to MPLS may also nor MPLS-TP consequently. In general, all RSVP-TE extensions that
be used for GMPLS and consequently MPLS-TP. Most notably this apply to MPLS may also be used for GMPLS and consequently MPLS-TP.
includes support for P2MP signaling as defined in [RFC4875]. Most notably, this includes support for P2MP signaling as defined in
[RFC4875].
GMPLS signaling includes a number of MPLS-TP required functions. GMPLS signaling includes a number of MPLS-TP required functions --
Notably support for out-of-band control, bidirectional LSPs, and notably, support for out-of-band control, bidirectional LSPs, and
independent control and data plane fault management. There are also independent control- and data-plane fault management. There are also
numerous other GMPLS and MPLS extensions that can be used to provide numerous other GMPLS and MPLS extensions that can be used to provide
specific functions in MPLS-TP networks. Specific references are specific functions in MPLS-TP networks. Specific references are
provided below. provided below.
4.1.6. Unnumbered Links 4.1.6. Unnumbered Links
Support for unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not have IP Support for unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not have IP
addresses) is permitted in MPLS-TP and its usage is at the discretion addresses) is permitted in MPLS-TP and its usage is at the discretion
of the network operator. Support for unnumbered links is included of the network operator. Support for unnumbered links is included
for routing in [RFC4203] for OSPF and [RFC5307] for IS-IS, and for for routing using OSPF [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307], and for
signaling in [RFC3477]. signaling in [RFC3477].
4.1.7. Link Bundling 4.1.7. Link Bundling
Link bundling provides a local construct that can be used to improve Link bundling provides a local construct that can be used to improve
scaling of TE routing when multiple data links are shared between scaling of TE routing when multiple data links are shared between
node pairs. Link bundling for MPLS and GMPLS networks is defined in node pairs. Link bundling for MPLS and GMPLS networks is defined in
[RFC4201]. Link bundling may be used in MPLS-TP networks and its use [RFC4201]. Link bundling may be used in MPLS-TP networks, and its
is at the discretion of the network operator. use is at the discretion of the network operator.
4.1.8. Hierarchical LSPs 4.1.8. Hierarchical LSPs
This section reuses text from [RFC6107]. This section reuses text from [RFC6107].
[RFC3031] describes how MPLS labels may be stacked so that LSPs may [RFC3031] describes how MPLS labels may be stacked so that LSPs may
be nested with one LSP running through another. This concept of be nested with one LSP running through another. This concept of
Hierarchical LSPs (H-LSPs) is formalized in [RFC4206] with a set of hierarchical LSPs (H-LSPs) is formalized in [RFC4206] with a set of
protocol mechanisms for the establishment of a hierarchical LSP that protocol mechanisms for the establishment of a hierarchical LSP that
can carry one or more other LSPs. can carry one or more other LSPs.
[RFC4206] goes on to explain that a hierarchical LSP may carry other [RFC4206] goes on to explain that a hierarchical LSP may carry other
LSPs only according to their switching types. This is a function of LSPs only according to their switching types. This is a function of
the way labels are carried. In a packet switch capable (PSC) network, the way labels are carried. In a packet switch capable network, the
the hierarchical LSP can carry other PSC LSPs using the MPLS label hierarchical LSP can carry other packet switch capable LSPs using the
stack. MPLS label stack.
Signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC4206] allow a hierarchical LSP to Signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC4206] allow a hierarchical LSP to
be treated as a single hop in the path of another LSP. This be treated as a single hop in the path of another LSP. This
mechanism is also sometimes known as "non-adjacent signaling", see mechanism is also sometimes known as "non-adjacent signaling", see
[RFC4208]. [RFC4208].
A Forwarding Adjacency (FA) is defined in [RFC4206] as a data link A Forwarding Adjacency (FA) is defined in [RFC4206] as a data link
created from an LSP and advertised in the same instance of the created from an LSP and advertised in the same instance of the
control plane that advertises the TE links from which the LSP is control plane that advertises the TE links from which the LSP is
constructed. The LSP itself is called an FA-LSP. FA LSPs are constructed. The LSP itself is called an FA-LSP. FA-LSPs are
analogous to MPLS-TP Sections as discussed in [RFC5960]. analogous to MPLS-TP Sections as discussed in [RFC5960].
Thus, a hierarchical LSP may form an FA such that it is advertised as Thus, a hierarchical LSP may form an FA such that it is advertised as
a TE link in the same instance of the routing protocol as was used to a TE link in the same instance of the routing protocol as was used to
advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses. advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.
As observed in [RFC4206] the nodes at the ends of an FA would not As observed in [RFC4206], the nodes at the ends of an FA would not
usually have a routing adjacency. usually have a routing adjacency.
LSP hierarchy is expected to play an important role in MPLS-TP LSP hierarchy is expected to play an important role in MPLS-TP
networks, particularly in the context of scaling and recovery as well networks, particularly in the context of scaling and recovery as well
as supporting SPMEs. as supporting SPMEs.
4.1.9. LSP Recovery 4.1.9. LSP Recovery
GMPLS defines RSVP-TE extensions in support for end-to-end GMPLS LSPs GMPLS defines RSVP-TE extensions in support for end-to-end GMPLS LSPs
recovery in [RFC4872], and segment recovery in [RFC4873] . GMPLS recovery in [RFC4872] and segment recovery in [RFC4873]. GMPLS
segment recovery provides a superset of the function in end-to-end segment recovery provides a superset of the function in end-to-end
recovery. End-to-end recovery can be viewed as a special case of recovery. End-to-end recovery can be viewed as a special case of
segment recovery where there is a single recovery domain whose segment recovery where there is a single recovery domain whose
borders coincide with the ingress and egress of the LSP, although borders coincide with the ingress and egress of the LSP, although
specific procedures are defined. specific procedures are defined.
The five defined types of recovery defined in GMPLS are: The five defined types of recovery defined in GMPLS are:
- 1+1 bidirectional protection for P2P LSPs - 1+1 bidirectional protection for P2P LSPs
- 1+1 unidirectional protection for P2MP LSPs - 1+1 unidirectional protection for P2MP LSPs
- 1:n (including 1:1) protection with or without extra traffic - 1:n (including 1:1) protection with or without extra traffic
- Rerouting without extra traffic (sometimes known as soft - Rerouting without extra traffic (sometimes known as soft
rerouting), including shared mesh restoration rerouting), including shared mesh restoration
- Full LSP rerouting - Full LSP rerouting
Recovery for MPLS-TP LSPs, as discussed in [TP-SURVIVE], is signaled Recovery for MPLS-TP LSPs, as discussed in [RFC6372], is signaled
using the mechanism defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. Note that using the mechanism defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. Note that
when MEPs are required for the OAM CC function and the MEPs exist at when MEPs are required for the OAM CC function and the MEPs exist at
LSP transit nodes, each MEP is instantiated at a hierarchical LSP end LSP transit nodes, each MEP is instantiated at a hierarchical LSP end
point, and protection is provided end-to-end for the hierarchical point, and protection is provided end-to-end for the hierarchical
LSP. (Protection can be signaled using either [RFC4872] or [RFC4873] LSP. (Protection can be signaled using either [RFC4872] or [RFC4873]
defined procedures.) The use of Notify messages to trigger protection defined procedures.) The use of Notify messages to trigger
switching and recovery is not required in MPLS-TP as this function is protection switching and recovery is not required in MPLS-TP, as this
expected to be supported via OAM. However, its use is not precluded. function is expected to be supported via OAM. However, its use is
not precluded.
4.1.10. Control Plane Reference Points (E-NNI, I-NNI, UNI) 4.1.10. Control-Plane Reference Points (E-NNI, I-NNI, UNI)
The majority of GMPLS control plane related RFCs define the control The majority of RFCs about the GMPLS control plane define the control
plane from the context of an internal network-to-network interface plane from the context of an internal Network-to-Network Interface
(I-NNI). In the MPLS-TP context, some operators may choose to deploy (I-NNI). In the MPLS-TP context, some operators may choose to deploy
signaled interfaces across user-to-network (UNI) interfaces and signaled interfaces across User-to-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and
across inter-provider, external network-to-network (E-NNI), across inter-provider, external Network-to-Network Interfaces
interfaces. Such support is embodied in [RFC4208] for UNIs and (E-NNIs). Such support is embodied in [RFC4208] for UNIs and in
[RFC5787] for routing areas in support of E-NNIs. This work may [RFC5787] for routing areas in support of E-NNIs. This work may
require extensions in order to meet the specific needs of an MPLS-TP require extensions in order to meet the specific needs of an MPLS-TP
UNI and E-NNI. UNI and E-NNI.
4.2. OAM, MEP (Hierarchy), MIP Configuration and Control 4.2. OAM, MEP (Hierarchy), MIP Configuration and Control
MPLS-TP is defined to support a comprehensive set of MPLS-TP OAM MPLS-TP is defined to support a comprehensive set of MPLS-TP OAM
functions. The MPLS-TP control plane will not itself provide OAM functions. The MPLS-TP control plane will not itself provide OAM
functions, but it will be used to instantiate and otherwise control functions, but it will be used to instantiate and otherwise control
MPLS-TP OAM functions. MPLS-TP OAM functions.
Specific OAM requirements for MPLS-TP are documented in [RFC5860]. Specific OAM requirements for MPLS-TP are documented in [RFC5860].
This document also states that it is also required that the control This document also states that it is required that the control plane
plane be able to configure and control OAM entities. This be able to configure and control OAM entities. This requirement is
requirement is not yet addressed by the existing RFCs, but such work not yet addressed by the existing RFCs, but such work is now under
is now underway, e.g., [CCAMP-OAM-FWK] and [CCAMP-OAM-EXT]. way, e.g., [CCAMP-OAM-FWK] and [CCAMP-OAM-EXT].
Many OAM functions occur on a per-LSP basis, are typically in-band, Many OAM functions occur on a per-LSP basis, are typically in-band,
and are initiated immediately after LSP establishment. Hence, it is and are initiated immediately after LSP establishment. Hence, it is
desirable that such functions be established and activated via the desirable that such functions be established and activated via the
same control plane signaling used to set up the LSP, as this same control-plane signaling used to set up the LSP, as this
effectively synchronizes OAM with the LSP lifetime and avoids the effectively synchronizes OAM with the LSP lifetime and avoids the
extra overhead and potential errors associated with separate OAM extra overhead and potential errors associated with separate OAM
configuration mechanisms. configuration mechanisms.
4.2.1. Management Plane Support 4.2.1. Management-Plane Support
There is no MPLS-TP requirement for a standardized management There is no MPLS-TP requirement for a standardized management
interface to the MPLS-TP control plane. That said, MPLS and GMPLS interface to the MPLS-TP control plane. That said, MPLS and GMPLS
support a number of standardized management functions. These include support a number of standardized management functions. These include
the MPLS-TE/GMPLS TE Database Management Information Base (MIB), [TE- the MPLS-TE/GMPLS TE Database Management Information Base [TE-MIB];
MIB]; the MPLS-TE MIB, [RFC3812]; the MPLS LSR MIB, [RFC3813]; the the MPLS-TE MIB [RFC3812]; the MPLS LSR MIB [RFC3813]; the GMPLS TE
GMPLS TE MIB [RFC4802]; and the GMPLS LSR MIB, [RFC4803]. These MIB MIB [RFC4802]; and the GMPLS LSR MIB [RFC4803]. These MIB modules
modules may be used in MPLS-TP networks. A general overview of MPLS- may be used in MPLS-TP networks. A general overview of MPLS-TP
TP related MIB modules can be found in [TP-MIB]. Network management related MIB modules can be found in [TP-MIB]. Network management
requirements for MPLS-based transport networks are provided in requirements for MPLS-based transport networks are provided in
[RFC5951] [RFC5951].
4.2.1.1. Recovery Triggers 4.2.1.1. Recovery Triggers
The GMPLS control plane allows for management plane recovery triggers The GMPLS control plane allows for management-plane recovery triggers
and directly supports control plane recovery triggers. Support for and directly supports control-plane recovery triggers. Support for
control plane recovery triggers is defined in [RFC4872] which refers control-plane recovery triggers is defined in [RFC4872], which refers
to the triggers as "Recovery Commands". These commands can be used to the triggers as "Recovery Commands". These commands can be used
with both end-to-end and segment recovery, but are always controlled with both end-to-end and segment recovery, but are always controlled
on an end-to-end basis. The recovery triggers/commands defined in on an end-to-end basis. The recovery triggers/commands defined in
[RFC4872] are: [RFC4872] are:
a. Lockout of recovery LSP a. Lockout of recovery LSP
b. Lockout of normal traffic b. Lockout of normal traffic
c. Forced switch for normal traffic c. Forced switch for normal traffic
d. Requested switch for normal traffic d. Requested switch for normal traffic
e. Requested switch for recovery LSP e. Requested switch for recovery LSP
Note that control plane triggers are typically invoked in response to Note that control-plane triggers are typically invoked in response to
a management plane request at the ingress. a management-plane request at the ingress.
4.2.1.2. Management Plane / Control Plane Ownership Transfer 4.2.1.2. Management-Plane / Control-Plane Ownership Transfer
In networks where both control plane and management plane are In networks where both the control plane and management plane are
provided, LSP provisioning can be done either by control plane or provided, LSP provisioning can be done either by the control plane or
management plane. As mentioned in the requirements section above, it management plane. As mentioned in the requirements section above, it
must be possible to transfer, or handover, a management plane created must be possible to transfer, or handover, a management-plane-created
LSP to the control plane domain and vice versa. [RFC5493] defines the LSP to the control-plane domain and vice versa. [RFC5493] defines
specific requirements for an LSP ownership handover procedure. It the specific requirements for an LSP ownership handover procedure.
must be possible for the control plane to provide the management It must be possible for the control plane to provide the management
plane, in a reliable manner, with the status or result of an plane, in a reliable manner, with the status or result of an
operation performed by the management plane. This notification may operation performed by the management plane. This notification may
be either synchronous or asynchronous with respect to the operation. be either synchronous or asynchronous with respect to the operation.
Moreover, it must be possible for the management plane to monitor the Moreover, it must be possible for the management plane to monitor the
status of the control plane, for example the status of a TE Link, its status of the control plane, for example, the status of a TE link,
available resources, etc. This monitoring may be based on queries its available resources, etc. This monitoring may be based on
initiated by the management plane or on notifications generated by queries initiated by the management plane or on notifications
the control plane. A mechanism must be made available by the control generated by the control plane. A mechanism must be made available
plane to the management plane to log control plane LSP related by the control plane to the management plane to log operation of a
operation, that is, it must be possible from the NMS to have a clear control-plane LSP; that is, it must be possible from the NMS to have
view of the life (traffic hit, action performed, signaling, etc.) of a clear view of the life (traffic hit, action performed, signaling,
a given LSP. The LSP handover procedure for MPLS-TP LSPs is supported etc.) of a given LSP. The LSP handover procedure for MPLS-TP LSPs is
via [RFC5852]. supported via [RFC5852].
4.3. GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table 4.3. GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table
The following table shows how the MPLS-TP control plane requirements The following table shows how the MPLS-TP control-plane requirements
can be met using the existing GMPLS control plane (which builds on can be met using the existing GMPLS control plane (which builds on
the MPLS control plane). Areas where additional specifications are the MPLS control plane). Areas where additional specifications are
required are also identified. The table lists references based on required are also identified. The table lists references based on
the control plane requirements as identified and numbered above in the control-plane requirements as identified and numbered above in
section 2. Section 2.
+=======+===========================================================+ +=======+===========================================================+
| Req # | References | | Req # | References |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs | | 1 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs |
| 2 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 2 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 3 | [RFC5145] + Formal Definition (See Section 4.4.1) | | 3 | [RFC5145] + Formal Definition (See Section 4.4.1) |
| 4 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs | | 4 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs |
| 5 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 5 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 6 | [RFC3471], [RFC3473], [RFC4875] | | 6 | [RFC3471], [RFC3473], [RFC4875] |
| 7 | [RFC3471], [RFC3473] + | | 7 | [RFC3471], [RFC3473] + |
| | Associated bidirectional LSPs (See Section 4.4.2) | | | Associated bidirectional LSPs (See Section 4.4.2) |
| 8 | [RFC4875] | | 8 | [RFC4875] |
| 9 | [RFC3473] | | 9 | [RFC3473] |
| 10 | Associated bidirectional LSPs (See Section 4.4.2) | | 10 | Associated bidirectional LSPs (See Section 4.4.2) |
| 11 | Associated bidirectional LSPs (See Section 4.4.2) | | 11 | Associated bidirectional LSPs (See Section 4.4.2) |
| 12 | [RFC3473] | | 12 | [RFC3473] |
| 13 | [RFC5467] (Currently Experimental, See Section 4.4.3) | | 13 | [RFC5467] (Currently Experimental; See Section 4.4.3) |
| 14 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 14 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 15 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 15 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 16 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 16 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 17 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202] + proper vendor implementation | | 17 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202] + proper vendor implementation |
| 18 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202] + proper vendor implementation | | 18 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202] + proper vendor implementation |
| 19 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202] | | 19 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202] |
| 20 | [RFC3473] | | 20 | [RFC3473] |
| 21 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], | | 21 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], |
| | [RFC5151] | | | [RFC5151] |
| 22 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], | | 22 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], |
skipping to change at page 34, line 17 skipping to change at page 35, line 25
| 28 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] | | 28 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] |
| 29 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 29 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 30 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] | | 30 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] |
| 31 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] | | 31 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] |
| 32 | [RFC4208], [RFC4974], [RFC5787], [RFC6001] | | 32 | [RFC4208], [RFC4974], [RFC5787], [RFC6001] |
| 33 | [RFC3473], [RFC4875] | | 33 | [RFC3473], [RFC4875] |
| 34 | [RFC4875] | | 34 | [RFC4875] |
| 35 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 35 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 36 | [RFC3473], [RFC3209] (Make-before-break) | | 36 | [RFC3473], [RFC3209] (Make-before-break) |
| 37 | [RFC3473], [RFC3209] (Make-before-break) | | 37 | [RFC3473], [RFC3209] (Make-before-break) |
| 38 | |
| 38 | [RFC4139], [RFC4258], [RFC5787] | | 38 | [RFC4139], [RFC4258], [RFC5787] |
| 39 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 39 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 40 | [RFC3473], [RFC5063] | | 40 | [RFC3473], [RFC5063] |
| 41 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202], [RFC4208] | | 41 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202], [RFC4208] |
| 42 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] | | 42 | [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4202] |
| 43 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] | | 43 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] |
| 44 | [RFC6107], [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] | | 44 | [RFC6107], [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] |
| 45 | [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], [RFC5063] | | 45 | [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], [RFC5063] |
| 46 | [RFC5493] | | 46 | [RFC5493] |
| 47 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873] | | 47 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873] |
skipping to change at page 35, line 27 skipping to change at page 36, line 37
| 86 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873] | | 86 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873] |
| 87 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873] | | 87 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873] |
| 88 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [TP-RING] | | 88 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [TP-RING] |
| 89 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [TP-RING] | | 89 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [TP-RING] |
| 90 | [RFC3270], [RFC3473], [RFC4124] + GMPLS Usage (See 4.4.6) | | 90 | [RFC3270], [RFC3473], [RFC4124] + GMPLS Usage (See 4.4.6) |
| 91 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] | | 91 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] |
| 92 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC2210], [RFC2211], [RFC2212] | | 92 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC2210], [RFC2211], [RFC2212] |
| 93 | Generic requirement on data plane (correct implementation)| | 93 | Generic requirement on data plane (correct implementation)|
| 94 | [RFC3473], [NO-PHP] | | 94 | [RFC3473], [NO-PHP] |
| 95 | [RFC3270], [RFC3473], [RFC4124] + GMPLS Usage (See 4.4.6) | | 95 | [RFC3270], [RFC3473], [RFC4124] + GMPLS Usage (See 4.4.6) |
| 96 | PW only requirement, see PW Requirements Table (5.2) | | 96 | PW only requirement; see PW Requirements Table (5.2) |
| 97 | PW only requirement, see PW Requirements Table (5.2) | | 97 | PW only requirement; see PW Requirements Table (5.2) |
| 98 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC6107] | | 98 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC6107] |
| 99 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] + | | 99 | [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307] + |
| | [RFC5392] and [RFC5316] | | | [RFC5392] and [RFC5316] |
| 100 | PW only requirement, see PW Requirements Table (5.2) | | 100 | PW only requirement; see PW Requirements Table (5.2) |
| 101 | [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], [RFC5063] | | 101 | [RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC5307], [RFC5063] |
| 102 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [TP-RING] | | 102 | [RFC4872], [RFC4873], [TP-RING] |
| 103 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC6107] | | 103 | [RFC3945], [RFC3473], [RFC6107] |
| 104 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] | | 104 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] |
| 105 | [RFC3473], [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] | | 105 | [RFC3473], [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] |
| 106 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] | | 106 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] |
| 107 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) | | 107 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) |
| 108 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] | | 108 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] |
| 109 | [RFC3473], [RFC4872], [RFC4873] | | 109 | [RFC3473], [RFC4872], [RFC4873] |
| 110 | [RFC3473], [RFC4872], [RFC4873] | | 110 | [RFC3473], [RFC4872], [RFC4873] |
skipping to change at page 36, line 11 skipping to change at page 37, line 24
| 120 | [RFC3473], [RFC4783] | | 120 | [RFC3473], [RFC4783] |
| 121 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) | | 121 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) |
| 122 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) | | 122 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) |
| 123 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT], [RFC6107] | | 123 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT], [RFC6107] |
| 124 - | | | 124 - | |
| 135 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) | | 135 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.5) |
| 136a | [RFC3473] | | 136a | [RFC3473] |
| 136b | [RFC3473] + (See Sec. 4.4.7) | | 136b | [RFC3473] + (See Sec. 4.4.7) |
| 137a | [RFC3473] | | 137a | [RFC3473] |
| 137b | [RFC3473] + (See Sec. 4.4.7) | | 137b | [RFC3473] + (See Sec. 4.4.7) |
| 138 | PW only requirement, see PW Requirements Table (5.2) | | 138 | PW only requirement; see PW Requirements Table (5.2) |
| 139 - | | | 139 - | |
| 143 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.8) | | 143 | [CCAMP-OAM-FWK], [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] + (See Sec. 4.4.8) |
+=======+===========================================================+ +=======+===========================================================+
Table 1: GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table Table 1: GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table
4.4. Anticipated MPLS-TP Related Extensions and Definitions 4.4. Anticipated MPLS-TP-Related Extensions and Definitions
This section identifies the extensions and other documents that have This section identifies the extensions and other documents that have
been identified as likely to be needed to support the full set of been identified as likely to be needed to support the full set of
MPLS-TP control plane requirements. MPLS-TP control-plane requirements.
4.4.1. MPLS-TE to MPLS-TP LSP Control Plane Interworking 4.4.1. MPLS-TE to MPLS-TP LSP Control-Plane Interworking
While no interworking function is expected in the data-plane to While no interworking function is expected in the data plane to
support the interconnection of MPLS-TE and MPLS-TP networking, this support the interconnection of MPLS-TE and MPLS-TP networking, this
is not the case for the control plane. MPLS-TE networks typically is not the case for the control plane. MPLS-TE networks typically
use LSP signaling based on [RFC3209] while MPLS-TP LSPs will be use LSP signaling based on [RFC3209], while MPLS-TP LSPs will be
signaled using GMPLS RSVP-TE, i.e., [RFC3473]. [RFC5145] identifies signaled using GMPLS RSVP-TE, i.e., [RFC3473]. [RFC5145] identifies
a set of solutions that are aimed to aid in the interworking of MPLS- a set of solutions that are aimed to aid in the interworking of MPLS-
TE and GMPLS control planes. [RFC5145] work will serve as the TE and GMPLS control planes. [RFC5145] work will serve as the
foundation for a formal definition of MPLS to MPLS-TP control plane foundation for a formal definition of MPLS to MPLS-TP control-plane
interworking. interworking.
4.4.2. Associated Bidirectional LSPs 4.4.2. Associated Bidirectional LSPs
GMPLS signaling, [RFC3473], supports unidirectional, and co-routed GMPLS signaling, [RFC3473], supports unidirectional and co-routed,
bidirectional point-to-point LSPs. MPLS-TP also requires support for bidirectional point-to-point LSPs. MPLS-TP also requires support for
associated bidirectional point-to-point LSPs. Such support will associated bidirectional point-to-point LSPs. Such support will
require an extension or a formal definition of how the LSP endpoints require an extension or a formal definition of how the LSP end points
supporting an associated bidirectional service will coordinate the supporting an associated bidirectional service will coordinate the
two LSPs used to provide such a service. Per requirement 11, transit two LSPs used to provide such a service. Per requirement 11, transit
nodes that support an associated bidirectional service should be nodes that support an associated bidirectional service should be
aware of the association of the LSPs used to support the service when aware of the association of the LSPs used to support the service when
both LSPs are supported on that transit node. There are several both LSPs are supported on that transit node. There are several
existing protocol mechanisms on which to base such support, existing protocol mechanisms on which to base such support,
including, but not limited to: including, but not limited to:
o GMPLS calls, [RFC4974]. o GMPLS calls [RFC4974].
o The ASSOCIATION object, [RFC4872]. o The ASSOCIATION object [RFC4872].
o The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object, [RFC6107]. o The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object [RFC6107].
4.4.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth LSPs 4.4.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth LSPs
[RFC5467] defines support for bidirectional LSPs which have different [RFC5467] defines support for bidirectional LSPs that have different
(asymmetric) bandwidth requirements for each direction. This RFC can (asymmetric) bandwidth requirements for each direction. That RFC can
be used to meet the related MPLS-TP technical requirement, but this be used to meet the related MPLS-TP technical requirement, but it is
RFC is currently an Experimental RFC. To fully satisfy the MPLS-TP currently an Experimental RFC. To fully satisfy the MPLS-TP
requirement this document will need to become a Standards Track RFC. requirement, RFC 5467 will need to become a Standards Track RFC.
4.4.4. Recovery for P2MP LSPs 4.4.4. Recovery for P2MP LSPs
The definitions of P2MP, [RFC4875], and GMPLS recovery, [RFC4872] and The definitions of P2MP, [RFC4875], and GMPLS recovery, [RFC4872] and
[RFC4873], do not explicitly cover their interactions. MPLS-TP [RFC4873], do not explicitly cover their interactions. MPLS-TP
requires a formal definition of recovery techniques for P2MP LSPs. requires a formal definition of recovery techniques for P2MP LSPs.
Such a formal definition will be based on existing RFCs and may not Such a formal definition will be based on existing RFCs and may not
require any new protocol mechanisms but, nonetheless, must be require any new protocol mechanisms but, nonetheless, must be
documented. documented.
4.4.5. Test Traffic Control and other OAM functions 4.4.5. Test Traffic Control and Other OAM Functions
[CCAMP-OAM-FWK] and [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] are examples of OAM-related [CCAMP-OAM-FWK] and [CCAMP-OAM-EXT] are examples of OAM-related
control extensions to GMPLS. These extensions cover a portion, but control extensions to GMPLS. These extensions cover a portion of,
not all OAM-related control functions that have been identified in but not all, OAM-related control functions that have been identified
the context of MPLS-TP. As discussed above, the MPLS-TP control in the context of MPLS-TP. As discussed above, the MPLS-TP control
plane must support the selection of which (if any) OAM function(s) to plane must support the selection of which OAM function(s) (if any) to
use (including support to select experimental OAM functions) and what use (including support to select experimental OAM functions) and what
OAM functionality to run, including, continuity check (CC), OAM functionality to run, including Continuity Check (CC),
connectivity verification (CV), packet loss and delay quantification, Connectivity Verification (CV), packet loss, delay quantification,
and diagnostic testing of a service. Such support may be included in and diagnostic testing of a service. Such support may be included in
the listed documents or in other documents. the listed documents or in other documents.
4.4.6. DiffServ Object usage in GMPLS 4.4.6. Diffserv Object Usage in GMPLS
[RFC3270] and [RFC4124] define support for DiffServ-enabled MPLS [RFC3270] and [RFC4124] define support for Diffserv-enabled MPLS
LSPs. While [RFC4124] references GMPLS signaling, there is no LSPs. While [RFC4124] references GMPLS signaling, there is no
explicit discussion on the use of the DiffServ-related objects in explicit discussion on the use of the Diffserv-related objects in
GMPLS signaling. A (possibly Informational) document on how GMPLS GMPLS signaling. A (possibly Informational) document on how GMPLS
supports DiffServ LSPs is likely to prove useful in the context of supports Diffserv LSPs is likely to prove useful in the context of
MPLS-TP. MPLS-TP.
4.4.7. Support for MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers 4.4.7. Support for MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers
MPLS-TP uses two forms of LSP identifiers, see [TP-IDENTIFIERS]. One MPLS-TP uses two forms of LSP identifiers, see [RFC6370]. One form
form is based on existing GMPLS fields. The other form is based on is based on existing GMPLS fields. The other form is based on either
either the globally unique Attachment Interface Identifier (AII) the globally unique Attachment Interface Identifier (AII) defined in
defined in [RFC5003], or the M.1400 defined the ITU Carrier Code [RFC5003] or the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) defined in ITU-T
(ICC). Neither form is currently supported in GMPLS and such Recommendation M.1400. Neither form is currently supported in GMPLS,
extensions will need to be documented. and such extensions will need to be documented.
4.4.8. Support for MPLS-TP Maintenance Identifiers 4.4.8. Support for MPLS-TP Maintenance Identifiers
MPLS-TP defines several forms of maintenance entity-related MPLS-TP defines several forms of maintenance-entity-related
identifiers. Both node unique and global forms are defined. identifiers. Both node-unique and global forms are defined.
Extensions will be required to GMPLS to support these identifiers. Extensions will be required to GMPLS to support these identifiers.
These extensions may be added to existing works in progress, such as These extensions may be added to existing works in progress, such as
[CCAMP-OAM-FWK] and [CCAMP-OAM-EXT], or may be defined in independent [CCAMP-OAM-FWK] and [CCAMP-OAM-EXT], or may be defined in independent
documents. documents.
5. Pseudowires 5. Pseudowires
5.1. LDP Functions and Pseudowires 5.1. LDP Functions and Pseudowires
MPLS PWs are defined in [RFC3985] and [RFC5659], and provide for MPLS PWs are defined in [RFC3985] and [RFC5659], and provide for
emulated services over an MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN). emulated services over an MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN).
Several types of PWs have been defined: (1) Ethernet PWs providing Several types of PWs have been defined: (1) Ethernet PWs providing
for Ethernet port or Ethernet VLAN transport over MPLS [RFC4448], (2) for Ethernet port or Ethernet VLAN transport over MPLS [RFC4448], (2)
HDLC/PPP PW providing for HDLC/PPP leased line transport over High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) / PPP PW providing for HDLC/PPP
MPLS[RFC4618], (3) ATM PWs [RFC4816], (4) Frame Relay PWs [RFC4619], leased line transport over MPLS [RFC4618], (3) ATM PWs [RFC4816], (4)
and (5) circuit Emulation PWs [RFC4553]. Frame Relay PWs [RFC4619], and (5) circuit Emulation PWs [RFC4553].
Today's transport networks based on PDH, WDM, or SONET/SDH provide Today's transport networks based on Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy
transport for PDH or SONET (e.g., ATM over SONET or Packet PPP over (PDH), WDM, or SONET/SDH provide transport for PDH or SONET (e.g.,
SONET) client signals with no payload awareness. Implementing PW ATM over SONET or Packet PPP over SONET) client signals with no
capability allows for the use of an existing technology to substitute payload awareness. Implementing PW capability allows for the use of
the TDM transport with packet based transport, using well-defined PW an existing technology to substitute the Time-Division Multiplexing
(TDM) transport with packet-based transport, using well-defined PW
encapsulation methods for carrying various packet services over MPLS, encapsulation methods for carrying various packet services over MPLS,
and providing for potentially better bandwidth utilization. and providing for potentially better bandwidth utilization.
There are two general classes of PWs: (1) Single-Segment Pseudowires There are two general classes of PWs: (1) Single-Segment Pseudowires
(SS-PW) [RFC3985], and (2) Multi-segment Pseudowires (MS-PW) (SS-PWs) [RFC3985] and (2) Multi-segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs)
[RFC5659]. An MPLS-TP network domain may transparently transport a [RFC5659]. An MPLS-TP network domain may transparently transport a
PW whose endpoints are within a client network. Alternatively, an PW whose end points are within a client network. Alternatively, an
MPLS-TP edge node may be the Terminating PE (T-PE) for a PW, MPLS-TP edge node may be the Terminating PE (T-PE) for a PW,
performing adaptation from the native attachment circuit technology performing adaptation from the native attachment circuit technology
(e.g. Ethernet 802.1Q) to an MPLS PW which is then transported in an (e.g., Ethernet 802.1Q) to an MPLS PW that is then transported in an
LSP over an MPLS-TP network. In this way, the PW is analogous to a LSP over an MPLS-TP network. In this way, the PW is analogous to a
transport channel in a TDM network and the LSP is equivalent to a transport channel in a TDM network, and the LSP is equivalent to a
container of multiple non-concatenated channels, albeit they are container of multiple non-concatenated channels, albeit they are
packet containers. An MPLS-TP network may also contain Switching PEs packet containers. An MPLS-TP network may also contain Switching PEs
(S-PEs) for a multi-segment PW whereby the T-PEs may be at the edge (S-PEs) for a Multi-Segment PW whereby the T-PEs may be at the edge
of an MPLS-TP network or in a client network. In this latter case, a of an MPLS-TP network or in a client network. In the latter case, a
T-PE in a client network is a T-PE performing the adaptation of the T-PE in a client network performs the adaptation of the native
native service to MPLS and an MPLS-TP network performs pseudowire service to MPLS and the MPLS-TP network performs pseudowire
switching. switching.
The SS-PW signaling control plane is based on targeted LDP (T-LDP) The SS-PW signaling control plane is based on targeted LDP (T-LDP)
with specific procedures defined in [RFC4447]. The MS-PW signaling with specific procedures defined in [RFC4447]. The MS-PW signaling
control plane is also based on T-LDP as allowed for in [RFC5659], control plane is also based on T-LDP as allowed for in [RFC5659],
[RFC6073] and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC]. An MPLS-TP network shall use the same [RFC6073], and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC]. An MPLS-TP network shall use the
PW signaling protocols and procedures for placing SS-PWs and MS-PWs. same PW signaling protocols and procedures for placing SS-PWs and
This will leverage existing technology as well as facilitate MS-PWs. This will leverage existing technology as well as facilitate
interoperability with client networks with native attachment circuits interoperability with client networks with native attachment circuits
or PW segments that are switched across an MPLS-TP network. or PW segments that are switched across an MPLS-TP network.
5.1.1. Management Plane Support 5.1.1. Management-Plane Support
There is no MPLS-TP requirement for a standardized management There is no MPLS-TP requirement for a standardized management
interface to the MPLS-TP control plane. A general overview of MPLS- interface to the MPLS-TP control plane. A general overview of MPLS-
TP related MIB modules can be found in [TP-MIB]. Network management TP-related MIB modules can be found in [TP-MIB]. Network management
requirements for MPLS-based transport networks are provided in requirements for MPLS-based transport networks are provided in
[RFC5951]. [RFC5951].
5.2. PW Control (LDP) and MPLS-TP Requirements Table 5.2. PW Control (LDP) and MPLS-TP Requirements Table
The following table shows how the MPLS-TP control plane requirements The following table shows how the MPLS-TP control-plane requirements
can be met using the existing LDP control plane for Pseudowires can be met using the existing LDP control plane for pseudowires
(targeted LDP). Areas where additional specifications are required (targeted LDP). Areas where additional specifications are required
are also identified. The table lists references based on the control are also identified. The table lists references based on the
plane requirements as identified and numbered above in section 2. control-plane requirements as identified and numbered above in
Section 2.
In the table below, several of the requirements shown are addressed - In the table below, several of the requirements shown are addressed
in part or in full - by the use of MPLS-TP LSPs to carry pseudowires. -- in part or in full -- by the use of MPLS-TP LSPs to carry
This is reflected by including "TP-LSPs" as a reference for those pseudowires. This is reflected by including "TP-LSPs" as a reference
requirements. Section 5.3.2 provides additional context for the for those requirements. Section 5.3.2 provides additional context
binding of PWs to TP-LSPs. for the binding of PWs to TP-LSPs.
+=======+===========================================================+ +=======+===========================================================+
| Req # | References | | Req # | References |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs | | 1 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs |
| 2 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], Together with TP-LSPs (Sec. 4.3) | | 2 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], Together with TP-LSPs (Sec. 4.3) |
| 3 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] | | 3 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] |
| 4 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs | | 4 | Generic requirement met by using Standards Track RFCs |
| 5 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], Together with TP-LSPs | | 5 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], Together with TP-LSPs |
| 6 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [PW-P2MPR], [PW-P2MPE] + TP-LSPs | | 6 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [PW-P2MPR], [PW-P2MPE] + TP-LSPs |
| 7 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], + TP-LSPs | | 7 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], + TP-LSPs |
| 8 | [PW-P2MPR], [PW-P2MPE] | | 8 | [PW-P2MPR], [PW-P2MPE] |
| 9 | [RFC3985], end-node only involvement for PW | | 9 | [RFC3985], end-node only involvement for PW |
| 10 | [RFC3985], proper vendor implementation | | 10 | [RFC3985], proper vendor implementation |
| 11 | [RFC3985], end-node only involvement for PW | | 11 | [RFC3985], end-node only involvement for PW |
| 12-13 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], See Section 5.3.4 | | 12-13 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], See Section 5.3.4 |
| 14 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] | | 14 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] |
| 15 | [RFC4447], [RFC3478], proper vendor implementation | | 15 | [RFC4447], [RFC3478], proper vendor implementation |
| 16 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] | | 16 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] |
| 17-18 | [RFC3985], proper vendor implementation | | 17-18 | [RFC3985], proper vendor implementation |
| 19-26 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [RFC5659], implementation | | 19-26 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [RFC5659], implementation |
| 27 | [RFC4448], [RFC4816], [RFC4618], [RFC4619], [RFC4553] | | 27 | [RFC4448], [RFC4816], [RFC4618], [RFC4619], [RFC4553] |
| | [RFC4842], [RFC5287] | | | [RFC4842], [RFC5287] |
| 28 | [RFC3985] | | 28 | [RFC3985] |
| 29-31 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] | | 29-31 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] |
| 32 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [RFC5659], See Section 5.3.6. | | 32 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [RFC5659], See Section 5.3.6 |
| 33 | [RFC4385], [RFC4447], [RFC5586] | | 33 | [RFC4385], [RFC4447], [RFC5586] |
| 34 | [PW-P2MPR], [PW-P2MPE] | | 34 | [PW-P2MPR], [PW-P2MPE] |
| 35 | [RFC4863] | | 35 | [RFC4863] |
| 36-37 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], See Section 5.3.4 | | 36-37 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], See Section 5.3.4 |
| 38 | Provided by TP-LSPs | | 38 | Provided by TP-LSPs |
| 39 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], + TP-LSPs | | 39 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], + TP-LSPs |
| 40 | [RFC3478] | | 40 | [RFC3478] |
| 41-42 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] | | 41-42 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447] |
| 43-44 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], + TP-LSPs - See Section 5.3.5 | | 43-44 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], + TP-LSPs - See Section 5.3.5 |
| 45 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [RFC5659] + TP-LSPs | | 45 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [RFC5659] + TP-LSPs |
skipping to change at page 41, line 22 skipping to change at page 43, line 25
| 109 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 109 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| | fault reporting and protection triggering is a local | | | fault reporting and protection triggering is a local |
| | matter for PW | | | matter for PW |
| 110 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 110 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| | fault reporting and protection triggering is a local | | | fault reporting and protection triggering is a local |
| | matter for PW | | | matter for PW |
| 111 | [RFC4447] | | 111 | [RFC4447] |
| 112 | [RFC4447], [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 112 | [RFC4447], [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| 113 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 113 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| 114 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 114 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| 115 | path traversed by PW is determined by LSP path, see | | 115 | path traversed by PW is determined by LSP path; see |
| | GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table, 4.3 | | | GMPLS and MPLS-TP Requirements Table, Section 4.3 |
| 116 | [PW-RED], [PW-REDB], administrative control of redundant | | 116 | [PW-RED], [PW-REDB], administrative control of redundant |
| | PW is a local matter at the PW head-end | | | PW is a local matter at the PW head-end |
| 117 | [PW-RED], [PW-REDB], [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 117 | [PW-RED], [PW-REDB], [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| 118 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [PW-RED], [PW-REDB], Section 5.3.5 | | 118 | [RFC3985], [RFC4447], [PW-RED], [PW-REDB], Section 5.3.5 |
| 119 | [RFC4447] | | 119 | [RFC4447] |
| 120 - | | | 120 - | |
| 125 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] | | 125 | [RFC5085], [RFC5586], [RFC5885] |
| 126 - | | | 126 - | |
| 130 | [PW-OAM] | | 130 | [PW-OAM] |
| 131 | Section 5.3.5 | | 131 | Section 5.3.5 |
skipping to change at page 42, line 5 skipping to change at page 44, line 5
| 135 | [PW-OAM] | | 135 | [PW-OAM] |
| 136 | Not Applicable to PW | | 136 | Not Applicable to PW |
| 137 | Not Applicable to PW | | 137 | Not Applicable to PW |
| 138 | [RFC4447], [RFC5003], [MS-PW-DYNAMIC] | | 138 | [RFC4447], [RFC5003], [MS-PW-DYNAMIC] |
| 139 - | | | 139 - | |
| 143 | [PW-OAM] | | 143 | [PW-OAM] |
+=======+===========================================================+ +=======+===========================================================+
Table 2: PW Control (LDP) and MPLS-TP Requirements Table Table 2: PW Control (LDP) and MPLS-TP Requirements Table
5.3. Anticipated MPLS-TP Related Extensions 5.3. Anticipated MPLS-TP-Related Extensions
Existing control protocol and procedures will be reused as much as Existing control protocol and procedures will be reused as much as
possible to support MPLS-TP. However, when using PWs in MPLS-TP, a possible to support MPLS-TP. However, when using PWs in MPLS-TP, a
set of new requirements are defined which may require extensions of set of new requirements is defined that may require extensions of the
the existing control mechanisms. This section clarifies the areas existing control mechanisms. This section clarifies the areas where
where extensions are needed based on the PW Control Plane related extensions are needed based on the requirements that are related to
requirements documented in [RFC5654]. the PW control plane and documented in [RFC5654].
Table 2 lists how requirements defined in [RFC5654] are expected to Table 2 lists how requirements defined in [RFC5654] are expected to
be addressed. be addressed.
The baseline requirement for extensions to support transport The baseline requirement for extensions to support transport
applications is that any new mechanisms and capabilities must be able applications is that any new mechanisms and capabilities must be able
to interoperate with existing IETF MPLS [RFC3031] and IETF PWE3 to interoperate with existing IETF MPLS [RFC3031] and IETF PWE3
[RFC3985] control and data planes where appropriate. Hence, [RFC3985] control and data planes where appropriate. Hence,
extensions of the PW Control Plane must be in-line with the extensions of the PW control plane must be in-line with the
procedures defined in [RFC4447], [RFC6073] and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC]. procedures defined in [RFC4447], [RFC6073], and [MS-PW-DYNAMIC].
5.3.1. Extensions to Support Out-of-Band PW Control 5.3.1. Extensions to Support Out-of-Band PW Control
For MPLS-TP, it is required that the data and control planes can be For MPLS-TP, it is required that the data and control planes can be
both logically and physically separated. That is, the PW Control both logically and physically separated. That is, the PW control
Plane must be able to operate out-of-band (OOB). This separation plane must be able to operate out-of-band (OOB). This separation
ensures, among other things, that in the case of control plane ensures, among other things, that in the case of control-plane
failures the data plane is not affected and can continue to operate failures the data plane is not affected and can continue to operate
normally. This was not a design requirement for the current PW normally. This was not a design requirement for the current PW
Control Plane. However, due to the PW concept, i.e., PWs are control plane. However, due to the PW concept, i.e., PWs are
connecting logical entities ('forwarders'), and the operation of the connecting logical entities ('forwarders'), and the operation of the
PW control protocol, i.e., only edge PE nodes (T-PE, S-PE) take part PW control protocol, i.e., only edge PE nodes (T-PE, S-PE) take part
in the signaling exchanges: moving T-LDP out-of-band seems to be, in the signaling exchanges: moving T-LDP out-of-band seems to be,
theoretically, a straightforward exercise. theoretically, a straightforward exercise.
In fact, as a strictly local matter, ensuring that targeted LDP (T- In fact, as a strictly local matter, ensuring that targeted LDP
LDP) uses out-of-band signaling requires only that the local (T-LDP) uses out-of-band signaling requires only that the local
implementation is configured in such a way that reachability for a implementation is configured in such a way that reachability for a
target LSR address is via the out-of-band channel. target LSR address is via the out-of-band channel.
More precisely, if IP addressing is used in the MPLS-TP control plane More precisely, if IP addressing is used in the MPLS-TP control
then T-LDP addressing can be maintained, although all addresses will plane, then T-LDP addressing can be maintained, although all
refer to control plane entities. Both, the PWid FEC and Generalized addresses will refer to control-plane entities. Both the PWid
PWid FEC Elements can possibly be used in an OOB case as well. Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) and Generalized PWid FEC Elements
(Detailed evaluation is outside the scope of this document). The PW can possibly be used in an OOB case as well. (Detailed evaluation is
Label allocation and exchange mechanisms should be reused without outside the scope of this document.) The PW label allocation and
change. exchange mechanisms should be reused without change.
5.3.2. Support for Explicit Control of PW-to-LSP Binding 5.3.2. Support for Explicit Control of PW-to-LSP Binding
Binding a PW to an LSP, or PW segments to LSPs is left to nodes Binding a PW to an LSP, or PW segments to LSPs, is left to nodes
acting as T-PEs and S-PEs or a control plane entity that may be the acting as T-PEs and S-PEs or a control-plane entity that may be the
same one signaling the PW. However, an extension of the PW signaling same one signaling the PW. However, an extension of the PW signaling
protocol is required to allow the LSR at signal initiation end to protocol is required to allow the LSR at the signal initiation end to
inform the targeted LSR (at the signal termination end) which LSP the inform the targeted LSR (at the signal termination end) to which LSP
resulting PW is to be bound to, in the event that more than one such the resulting PW is to be bound, in the event that more than one such
LSP exists and the choice of LSPs is important to the service being LSP exists and the choice of LSPs is important to the service being
setup (for example, if the service requires co-routed bidirectional setup (for example, if the service requires co-routed bidirectional
paths). This is also particularly important to support transport path paths). This is also particularly important to support transport
(symmetric and asymmetric) bandwidth requirements. path (symmetric and asymmetric) bandwidth requirements.
For transport services, MPLS-TP requires support for bidirectional For transport services, MPLS-TP requires support for bidirectional
traffic which follows congruent paths. Currently, each direction of a traffic that follows congruent paths. Currently, each direction of a
PW or a PW segment is bound to a unidirectional LSP that extends PW or a PW segment is bound to a unidirectional LSP that extends
between two T-PEs, S-PEs, or a T-PE and an S-PE. The unidirectional between two T-PEs, two S-PEs, or a T-PE and an S-PE. The
LSPs in both directions are not required to follow congruent paths, unidirectional LSPs in both directions are not required to follow
and therefore both directions of a PW may not follow congruent paths, congruent paths, and therefore both directions of a PW may not follow
i.e., they are associated bidirectional paths. The only requirement congruent paths, i.e., they are associated bidirectional paths. The
in [RFC5659] is that a PW or a PW segment shares the same T-PEs in only requirement in [RFC5659] is that a PW or a PW segment shares the
both directions, and same S-PEs in both directions. same T-PEs in both directions and the same S-PEs in both directions.
MPLS-TP imposes new requirements on the PW Control Plane, in MPLS-TP imposes new requirements on the PW control plane, in
requiring that both end points map the PW or PW segment to the same requiring that both end points map the PW or PW segment to the same
transport path for the case where this is an objective of the transport path for the case where this is an objective of the
service. When a bidirectional LSP is selected on one end to service. When a bidirectional LSP is selected on one end to
transport the PW, a mechanism is needed that signals to the remote transport the PW, a mechanism is needed that signals to the remote
end which LSP has been selected locally to transport the PW. This end which LSP has been selected locally to transport the PW. This
would be accomplished by adding a new TLV to PW signaling. would be accomplished by adding a new TLV to PW signaling.
Note that this coincides with the gap identified for OOB support: a Note that this coincides with the gap identified for OOB support: a
new mechanism is needed to allow explicit binding of a PW to the new mechanism is needed to allow explicit binding of a PW to the
supporting transport LSP. supporting transport LSP.
The case of unidirectional transport paths may also require The case of unidirectional transport paths may also require
additional protocol mechanisms as today's PWs are always additional protocol mechanisms, as today's PWs are always
bidirectional. One potential approach for providing a unidirectional bidirectional. One potential approach for providing a unidirectional
PW based transport path is for the PW to associate different PW-based transport path is for the PW to associate different
(asymmetric) bandwidths in each direction, with a zero or minimal (asymmetric) bandwidths in each direction, with a zero or minimal
bandwidth for the return path. This approach is consistent with bandwidth for the return path. This approach is consistent with
Section 3.8.2 of [RFC5921] but does not address P2MP paths. Section 3.8.2 of [RFC5921] but does not address P2MP paths.
5.3.3. Support for Dynamic Transfer of PW Control/Ownership 5.3.3. Support for Dynamic Transfer of PW Control/Ownership
In order to satisfy requirement 47 (as defined in section 2) it will In order to satisfy requirement 47 (as defined in Section 2), it will
be necessary to specify methods for transfer of PW ownership from the be necessary to specify methods for transfer of PW ownership from the
management to the control plane (and vice versa). management to the control plane (and vice versa).
5.3.4. Interoperable Support for PW/LSP Resource Allocation 5.3.4. Interoperable Support for PW/LSP Resource Allocation
Transport applications may require resource guarantees. For such Transport applications may require resource guarantees. For such
transport LSPs, resource reservation mechanisms are provided via transport LSPs, resource reservation mechanisms are provided via
RSVP-TE and the use of DiffServ. If multiple PWs are multiplexed into RSVP-TE and the use of Diffserv. If multiple PWs are multiplexed
the same transport LSP resources, contention may occur. However, into the same transport LSP resources, contention may occur.
local policy at PEs should ensure proper resource sharing among PWs However, local policy at PEs should ensure proper resource sharing
mapped into a resource guaranteed LSP. In the case of MS-PWs, among PWs mapped into a resource-guaranteed LSP. In the case of
signaling carries the PW traffic parameters [MS-PW-DYNAMIC] to enable MS-PWs, signaling carries the PW traffic parameters [MS-PW-DYNAMIC]
admission control of a PW segment over a resource-guaranteed LSP. to enable admission control of a PW segment over a resource-
guaranteed LSP.
In conjunction with explicit PW-to-LSP binding, existing mechanisms In conjunction with explicit PW-to-LSP binding, existing mechanisms
may be sufficient, however this needs to be verified in detailed may be sufficient; however, this needs to be verified in detailed
evaluation. evaluation.
5.3.5. Support for PW Protection and PW OAM Configuration 5.3.5. Support for PW Protection and PW OAM Configuration
Many of the requirements listed in section 2 are intended to support Many of the requirements listed in Section 2 are intended to support
connectivity and performance monitoring (grouped together as OAM) and connectivity and performance monitoring (grouped together as OAM), as
protection conformant with the transport services model. well as protection conformant with the transport services model.
In general, protection of MPLS-TP transported services is provided by In general, protection of MPLS-TP transported services is provided by
way of protection of transport LSPs. PW protection requires that way of protection of transport LSPs. PW protection requires that
mechanisms be defined to support redundant Pseudowires, including a mechanisms be defined to support redundant pseudowires, including a
mechanism already described above for associating such Pseudowires mechanism already described above for associating such pseudowires
with specific protected ("working" and "protection") LSPs. Also with specific protected ("working" and "protection") LSPs. Also
required are definitions of local protection control functions, to required are definitions of local protection control functions, to
include test/verification operations, and protection status signals include test/verification operations, and protection status signals
needed to ensure that PW termination points are in agreement as to needed to ensure that PW termination points are in agreement as to
which of a set of redundant Pseudowires are in use for which which of a set of redundant pseudowires are in use for which
transport services at any given point in time. transport services at any given point in time.
Much of this work is currently being done in drafts [PW-RED] and [PW- Much of this work is currently being done in documents [PW-RED] and
REDB] that define - respectively - how to establish redundant [PW-REDB] that define, respectively, how to establish redundant
Pseudowires and how to indicate which is in use. Additional work may pseudowires and how to indicate which is in use. Additional work may
be required. be required.
Protection switching may be triggered manually by the operator, or as Protection switching may be triggered manually by the operator, or as
a result of loss of connectivity (detected using the mechanisms of a result of loss of connectivity (detected using the mechanisms of
[RFC5085] and [RFC5586]), or service degradation (detected using [RFC5085] and [RFC5586]), or service degradation (detected using
mechanisms yet to be defined). mechanisms yet to be defined).
Automated protection switching is just one of the functions for which Automated protection switching is just one of the functions for which
a transport service requires OAM. OAM is generally referred to as a transport service requires OAM. OAM is generally referred to as
either "proactive" or "on-demand", where the distinction is whether a either "proactive" or "on-demand", where the distinction is whether a
specific OAM tool is being used continuously over time (for the specific OAM tool is being used continuously over time (for the
purpose of detecting a need for protection switching, for example) or purpose of detecting a need for protection switching, for example) or
is only used - either a limited number of times, or over a short is only used -- either a limited number of times or over a short
period of time - when explicitly enabled (for diagnostics, for period of time -- when explicitly enabled (for diagnostics, for
example). example).
PW OAM currently consists of connectivity verification defined by PW OAM currently consists of connectivity verification defined by
[RFC5085]. Work is currently in progress to extend PW OAM to include [RFC5085]. Work is currently in progress to extend PW OAM to include
bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) in [RFC5885], and work has bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) in [RFC5885], and work has
begun on extending BFD to include performance-related monitor begun on extending BFD to include performance-related monitor
functions. functions.
5.3.6. Client Layer and Cross-Provider Interfaces to PW Control 5.3.6. Client-Layer and Cross-Provider Interfaces to PW Control
Additional work is likely to be required to define consistent access Additional work is likely to be required to define consistent access
by a client layer network, as well as between provider networks, to by a client-layer network, as well as between provider networks, to
control information available to each type of network, for example, control information available to each type of network, for example,
about the topology of an MS-PW. This information may be required by about the topology of an MS-PW. This information may be required by
the client layer network in order to provide hints that may help to the client-layer network in order to provide hints that may help to
avoid establishment of fate-sharing alternate paths. Such work will avoid establishment of fate-sharing alternate paths. Such work will
need to fit within the ASON architecture, see requirement 39 above. need to fit within the ASON architecture; see requirement 38 above.
5.4. ASON Architecture Considerations 5.4. ASON Architecture Considerations
MPLS-TP PWs are always transported using LSPs, and these LSP will MPLS-TP PWs are always transported using LSPs, and these LSPs will
either have been statically provisioned or signaled using GMPLS. either have been statically provisioned or signaled using GMPLS.
For LSPs signaled using the MPLS-TP LSP control plane (GMPLS), For LSPs signaled using the MPLS-TP LSP control plane (GMPLS),
conformance with the ASON architecture is as described in Section 1.2 conformance with the ASON architecture is as described in Section 1.2
("Basic Approach"), bullet 4, of this framework document. ("Basic Approach"), bullet 4, of this framework document.
As discussed above in Section 5.3, there are anticipated extensions As discussed above in Section 5.3, there are anticipated extensions
in the following areas that may be related to ASON architecture: in the following areas that may be related to ASON architecture:
- PW-to-LSP binding (Section 5.3.2) - PW-to-LSP binding (Section 5.3.2)
- PW/LSP resource allocation (Section 5.3.4) - PW/LSP resource allocation (Section 5.3.4)
- PW protection and OAM configuration (Section 5.3.5) - PW protection and OAM configuration (Section 5.3.5)
- Client layer Interfaces for PW control (Section 5.3.6) - Client-layer interfaces for PW control (Section 5.3.6)
This work is expected to be consistent with ASON architecture and may This work is expected to be consistent with ASON architecture and may
require additional specification in order to achieve this goal. require additional specification in order to achieve this goal.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document primarily describes how existing mechanisms can be used This document primarily describes how existing mechanisms can be used
to meet the MPLS-TP control plane requirements. The documents that to meet the MPLS-TP control-plane requirements. The documents that
describe each mechanism contain their own security considerations describe each mechanism contain their own security considerations
sections. For a general discussion on MPLS- and GMPLS-related sections. For a general discussion on MPLS- and GMPLS-related
security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. As security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. As
mentioned above in Section 2.4., there are no specific MPLS-TP mentioned above in Section 2.4, there are no specific MPLS-TP
control plane security requirements. control-plane security requirements.
This document also identifies a number of needed control plane This document also identifies a number of needed control-plane
extensions. It is expected that the documents that define such extensions. It is expected that the documents that define such
extensions will also include any appropriate security considerations. extensions will also include any appropriate security considerations.
7. IANA Considerations 7. Acknowledgments
There are no new IANA considerations introduced by this document.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Yannick The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Yannick
Brehon, Diego Caviglia, Nic Neate, Dave Mcdysan, Dan Frost, and Eric Brehon, Diego Caviglia, Nic Neate, Dave Mcdysan, Dan Frost, and Eric
Osborne to this work. We also thank Dan Frost in his help responding Osborne to this work. We also thank Dan Frost in his help responding
to last call comments. to Last Call comments.
9. References 8. References
9.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with Integrated [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled Load [RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Quality of Service", RFC 2211, September 1997. Network Element Service", RFC 2211, September 1997.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R Guerin, "Specification [RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September
1997. 1997.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
January 2003. 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L. Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
3473, January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M, et al, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for [RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful
Label Distribution Protocol", RFC 3478, February 2003. Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", RFC
3478, February 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
3630, September 2003. 2003.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed. "Protocol Extensions for Support of [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June
2005. 2005.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
October 2005.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., et al, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
(PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
February 2006. Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance [RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
April 2006. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., "Encapsulation Methods for Transport [RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
Ethernet over MPLS Network", RFC 4448, April 2006. "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC4842] Malis, A., et al, "Synchronous Optical Network/ [RFC4842] Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., Ed., and D. Zelig,
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
Emulation over Packet (CEP)", RFC 4842, April 2007. (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)", RFC
4842, April 2007.
[RFC4863] Martini, L. and G. Swallow, "Wildcard Pseudowire Type", [RFC4863] Martini, L. and G. Swallow, "Wildcard Pseudowire Type",
RFC 4863, May 2007. RFC 4863, May 2007.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and Papadimitriou, D., "RSVP-TE [RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
May 2007. Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A., [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4929] Andersson, L. and A. Farrel, "Change Process for [RFC4929] Andersson, L., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Change Process
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures", BCP 129, RFC MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures", BCP 129, RFC 4929,
4929, June 2007. June 2007.
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC
4974, August 2007. 4974, August 2007.
[RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed., "Extensions to GMPLS Resource [RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed., and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful Restart", RFC 5063, GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
September 2007. Restart", RFC 5063, October 2007.
[RFC5287] Vainshtein, A. and Y. Stein, "Control Protocol [RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
Extensions for the Setup of Time-Division Multiplexing Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
(TDM) Pseudowires in MPLS Networks", RFC 5287, August Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
2008. Extensions", RFC 5151, February 2008.
[RFC5305] Smit, H. and T. Li, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5287] Vainshtein, A. and Y(J). Stein, "Control Protocol
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. Extensions for the Setup of Time-Division Multiplexing
(TDM) Pseudowires in MPLS Networks", RFC 5287, August
2008.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS Extensions in [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and Duan, X., "ISIS Extensions in [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, December 2008. (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and Duan, X., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, January 2009. Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, December 2008.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., "Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic [RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 5151, February Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, January 2009.
2008.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., et al, "Requirements of an MPLS [RFC5467] Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009. Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5467, March 2009.
[RFC5467] Berger, L., et al, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5467, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
March 2009.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., et al, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
5586, June 2009. Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., "Requirements for [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and
MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860,
May 2010.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., Berger, [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
5921, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.
[RFC5960] Frost, D., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., "MPLS Transport [RFC5960] Frost, D., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., and M. Bocci, Ed., "MPLS
Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960, August 2010. Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960,
August 2010.
[TP-IDENTIFIERS] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., "MPLS-TP Identifiers", [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers. Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.
[TP-OAM] Busi, I., Ed., Allan, D., Ed., "Operations, [RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed., and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,
Administration and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based
Transport Networks", work in progress, Transport Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011.
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework.
[TP-SURVIVE] Sprecher, N., et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport
Transport Profile Survivability Framework", work in Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372,
progress, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk. September 2011.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[CCAMP-OAM-FWK] A. Takacs, D. Fedyk, and J. He, "OAM Configuration [CCAMP-OAM-EXT]
Framework and Requirements for GMPLS RSVP-TE", Bellagamba, E., Ed., Andersson, L., Ed., Skoldstrom, P.,
work in progress, Ed., Ward, D., and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active
draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-
TE", Work in Progress, July 2011.
[CCAMP-OAM-EXT] Bellagamba, E., et.al., "RSVP-TE Extensions for [CCAMP-OAM-FWK]
MPLS-TP OAM Configuration", work in progress, Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
draft-bellagamba-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext. extensions for OAM Configuration", Work in Progress, July
2011.
[GMPLS-PS] Takacs, A., et al, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Recovery Extension [GMPLS-PS] Takacs, A., Fondelli, F., and B. Tremblay, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
for data plane initiated reversion and protection timer Recovery Extension for data plane initiated reversion and
signalling", work in progress, protection timer signalling", Work in Progress, April
draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps. 2011.
[TE-MIB] T Otani, et.al., "Traffic Engineering Database Management [ITU.G8080.2006]
Information Base in support of MPLS-TE/GMPLS", work in International Telecommunication Union, "Architecture for
progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib. the automatically switched optical network (ASON)", ITU-T
Recommendation G.8080, June 2006.
[MS-PW-DYNAMIC] L. Martini, M Bocci, and F Balus "Dynamic [ITU.G8080.2008]
Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires", work in International Telecommunication Union, "Architecture for
progress, draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw. the automatically switched optical network (ASON)
Amendment 1", ITU-T Recommendation G.8080 Amendment 1,
March 2008.
[ITU.G8080.2006] International Telecommunications Union, [MS-PW-DYNAMIC]
"Architecture for the automatically switched Martini, L., Ed., Bocci, M., Ed., and F. Balus, Ed.,
optical network (ASON)", ITU- T Recommendation "Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowires", Work in
G.8080, June 2006. Progress, July 2011.
[ITU.G8080.2008] International Telecommunications Union, [NO-PHP] Ali, z., et al, "Non Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and
"Architecture for the automatically switched out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths",
optical network (ASON) Amendment 1", ITU-T Work in Progress, August 2011.
Recommendation G.8080 Amendment 1, March 2008.
[NO-PHP] Ali, z., et al, "Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping [PW-OAM] Zhang, F., Ed., Wu, B., Ed., and E. Bellagamba, Ed., "
for RSVP-TE LSPs", work in progress, Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Proactive
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping Operations, Administration and Maintenance Configuration
of Dynamic MPLS Transport Profile PseudoWire", Work in
Progress, August 2011.
[PW-RED] Muley, P., et al, "Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy", work in [PW-P2MPE] Aggarwal, R. and F. Jounay, "Point-to-Multipoint Pseudo-
progress, draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy. Wire Encapsulation", Work in Progress, March 2010.
[PW-REDB] Muley, P., et al, "Preferential Forwarding Status bit [PW-P2MPR] Jounay, F., Ed., Kamite, Y., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
definition", work in progress, "Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint
draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit. Pseudowire", Work in Progress, July 2011.
[PW-OAM] Zhang, F., et al, "LDP Extensions for MPLS-TP PW OAM [PW-RED] Muley, P., Ed., Aissaoui, M., Ed., and M. Bocci,
configuration", work in progress, "Pseudowire Redundancy", Work in Progress, July 2011.
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config.
[PW-P2MPE] Aggarwal, R. and F. Jounay, "Point-to-Multipoint [PW-REDB] Muley, P., Ed., and M. Aissaoui, Ed., "Preferential
Pseudo-Wire Encapsulation", work in progress, Forwarding Status Bit", Work in Progress, March 2011.
draft-raggarwa-pwe3-p2mp-pw-encaps.
[PW-P2MPR] Jounay, F., et al, "Requirements for [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire", work in progress, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements. Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., et al, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3468] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
(MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
May 2002. protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
[RFC3468] Andersson, L., Swallow, G., "The Multiprotocol Label [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P., Ed., and L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized
Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
signaling protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003. Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-
LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003.
[RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P., Ed, Berger, L. Ed., "Generalized [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
(CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June
2004.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful [RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", RFC "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
3478, February 2003. Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813,
June 2004.
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC
3812, June 2004.
[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
(LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC
3813, June 2004.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC4139] Papadimitriou, D., Drake, J., Ash, J., Farrel, A., and L.
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. Ong, "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling
Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)", RFC 4139, July 2005.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge- [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4139] Papadimitriou, D., et al, "Requirements for Generalized [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage and Extensions for "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC4139, Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
July 2005. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in [RFC4258] Brungard, D., Ed., "Requirements for Generalized Multi-
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005. Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC 4258,
November 2005.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Y., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
(GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI) : Resource February 2006.
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October
2005.
[RFC4258] Brungard, D., et al, "Requirements for Generalized [RFC4426] Lang, J., Ed., Rajagopalan, B., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC4258, Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426, March 2006.
November 2005.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol [RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
February 2006. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March
2006.
[RFC4426] Lang, J., Rajagopalan B., and D.Papadimitriou, Editors, [RFC4553] Vainshtein, A., Ed., and YJ. Stein, Ed., "Structure-
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet
Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426, March (SAToP)", RFC 4553, June 2006.
2006.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Recovery (Protection and [RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,
Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4427, March 2006. Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618,
September 2006.
[RFC4553] Vainshtein, A., Ed., and Stein, YJ., Ed.,"Structure- [RFC4619] Martini, L., Ed., Kawa, C., Ed., and A. Malis, Ed.,
Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over
(SAToP)", RFC 4553, June 2006. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4619,
September 2006.
[RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and Malis, A., [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High- Level Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618, August 2006.
September 2006.
[RFC4619] Martini, L., Ed., Kawa, C., Ed., and Malis, A., Ed., [RFC4783] Berger, L., Ed., "GMPLS - Communication of Alarm
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over Information", RFC 4783, December 2006.
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
September 2006.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., Ash, J., "A Path Computation [RFC4802] Nadeau, T., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
2006. Management Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007.
[RFC4783] Berger, L.,Ed., "GMPLS - Communication of Alarm [RFC4803] Nadeau, T., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
Information", RFC 4763, December 2006. Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching
Router (LSR) Management Information Base", RFC 4803,
February 2007.
[RFC4802] T. D. Nadeu and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol [RFC4816] Malis, A., Martini, L., Brayley, J., and T. Walsh,
Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Asynchronous
Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007. Transfer Mode (ATM) Transparent Cell Transport Service",
RFC 4816, February 2007.
[RFC4803] T. D. Nadeu and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Management Information Base", RFC 4803, February 2007. Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May
2007.
[RFC4816] Malis, A., Martini, L., Brayley, J., and Walsh, T., [RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Asynchronous "Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Transfer Mode (ATM) Transparent Cell Transport Service", Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
RFC 4816, February 2007.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., Yasukawa, S., [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., Sugimoto, J., [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007. Control Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., I. Minei and B. Thomas, Editors, "LDP [RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., Ed., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. Migration", RFC 5145, March 2008.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Connectivity Verification (VCCV) : A Control Channel for Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007. March 2009.
[RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS [RFC5493] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan,
Migration", RFC 5145, March 2008. "Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent
Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493,
April 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Le, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
October 2009.
[RFC5493] Caviglia, D., et al, "Requirements for the Conversion [RFC5787] Papadimitriou, D., "OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions
between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing", RFC 5787, March 2010.
Network", RFC 5493, April 2009.
[RFC5659] Bocci, M., and Bryant, B., "An Architecture for [RFC5852] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and S.
Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC Bardalai, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for LSP Handover
5659, October 2009. from the Management Plane to the Control Plane in a GMPLS-
Enabled Transport Network", RFC 5852, April 2010.
[RFC5787] Papadimitriou, D., "OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
for ASON Routing", RFC 5787, March 2010. "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
[RFC5852] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., [RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Bardalai, S., "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for LSP Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Handover from the Management Plane to the Control Plane Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June
in a GMPLS-Enabled Transport Network", RFC 5852, April 2010.
2010.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) For MPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional [RFC5951] Lam, K., Mansfield, S., and E. Gray, "Network Management
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC 5951,
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", September 2010.
RFC 5885, June 2010.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
(MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC5951] Lam, K., Mansfield, S., Gray, E., "Network Management [RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, January 2011.
5951, September 2010.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC6107] Shiomoto, K., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Procedures for
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths",
Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC RFC 6107, February 2011.
6001, October 2010.
[RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., Aissaoui, M., [RFC6215] Bocci, M., Levrau, L., and D. Frost, "MPLS Transport
"Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, January 2011. Profile User-to-Network and Network-to-Network
Interfaces", RFC 6215, April 2011.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K., Farrel, A., "Procedures for Dynamically [TE-MIB] Miyazawa, M., Otani, T., Kumaki, K., and T. Nadeau,
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107, "Traffic Engineering Database Management Information Base
February 2011. in support of MPLS-TE/GMPLS", Work in Progress, July 2011.
[TP-MIB] Farrel, A., King, D., Mahalingam, V., Ryoo, J., Koushik, [TP-MIB] King, D., Ed., and M. Venkatesan, Ed., "Multiprotocol
K., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-based
(MPLS-TP) MIB-based Management Overview", work in Management Overview", Work in Progress, August 2011.
progress, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview.
[TP-P2MP-FWK] D. Frost, M. Bocci, and L. Berger, "A Framework for [TP-P2MP-FWK]
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks", Frost, D., Ed., Bocci, M., Ed., and L. Berger, Ed., "A
draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework. Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport
Networks", Work in Progress, July 2011.
[TP-RING] Weingarten, Y., Ed., "MPLS-TP Ring Protection", work in [TP-RING] Weingarten, Y., Ed., "MPLS-TP Ring Protection", Work in
progress, draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-ring-protection. Progress, June 2011
[TP-UNI] Bocci, M., Levrau, L., Frost, D., "MPLS Transport Profile 9. Contributing Authors
User-to-Network and Network-to-Network Interfaces", work
in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni.
10. Authors' Addresses Attila Takacs
Ericsson
1. Laborc u.
Budapest 1037
HUNGARY
EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent
EMail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr
Elisa Bellagamba
Ericsson
Farogatan, 6
164 40, Kista, Stockholm
SWEDEN
EMail: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson (editor) Loa Andersson (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Phone: +46 10 717 52 13 Phone: +46 10 717 52 13
Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com EMail: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
Lou Berger (editor) Lou Berger (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net EMail: lberger@labn.net
Luyuan Fang (editor) Luyuan Fang (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road 111 Wood Avenue South
Boxborough, MA 01719 Iselin, NJ 08830
USA USA
Email: lufang@cisco.com EMail: lufang@cisco.com
Nabil Bitar (editor) Nabil Bitar (editor)
Verizon Verizon
117 West Street 60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451 Waltham, MA 02451
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com USA
EMail: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Eric Gray (editor) Eric Gray (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street 900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA, 01851 Lowell, MA 01851
USA
Phone: +1 978 275 7470 Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Email: Eric.Gray@Ericsson.com EMail: Eric.Gray@Ericsson.com
Attila Takacs
Ericsson
1. Laborc u.
Budapest, HUNGARY 1037
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr
Elisa Bellagamba
Ericsson
Farogatan, 6
164 40, Kista, Stockholm, SWEDEN
Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Generated on: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 9:01:05 AM
 End of changes. 518 change blocks. 
1246 lines changed or deleted 1272 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/