--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-11.txt 2014-04-28 22:14:18.857147929 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-12.txt 2014-04-28 22:14:18.893148793 -0700 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Network Working Group A. Takacs Internet-Draft B. Gero Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson -Expires: September 2, 2014 H. Long +Expires: October 31, 2014 H. Long Huawei - March 2014 + April 29, 2014 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration - draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-11 + draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-12 Abstract The GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) work extended GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the establishment of Ethernet LSPs. IEEE Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) specifies an adjunct OAM flow to check connectivity in Ethernet networks. CFM can be also used with Ethernet LSPs for fault detection and triggering recovery mechanisms. The ITU-T Y.1731 specification builds on CFM and specifies additional OAM mechanisms, including Performance @@ -38,21 +38,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -209,21 +209,22 @@ Configuration Sub-TLV (see Section 3.3) within the OAM Configuration TLV. o A unique MAID must be allocated for the PBB-TE connection and both MEPs must be configured with the same information. The MAID consists of an optional Maintenance Domain Name (MD Name) and a mandatory Short Maintenance Association Name (Short MA Name). Various formatting rules for these names have been defined in [IEEE.802.1Q-2011]. Since this information is also carried in all CCM messages, the combined length of the Names is limited to 44 - bytes. How these parameters are determined is out of scope of + bytes, see [IEEE.802.1Q-2011] for the details of the message + format. How these parameters are determined is out of scope of this document. o Each MEP must be provisioned with a MEP ID. The MEP ID uniquely identifies a given MEP within a Maintenance Association. That is, the combination of MAID and MEP ID must uniquely identify a MEP. How the value of the MEP ID is determined is out of scope of this document. o The Maintenance Domain Level (MD Level) allows hierarchical separation of monitoring entities. [IEEE.802.1Q-2011] allows @@ -232,30 +233,30 @@ for all Ethernet LSPs a single (default) MD Level will be used within a network domain. o The desired CCM Interval must be specified by the management system based on service requirements or operator policy. The same CCM Interval must be set in each of the MEPs monitoring a given Ethernet LSP. How the value of the CCM Interval is determined is out of scope of this document. o The desired forwarding priority to be set by MEPs for the CCM - frames can be specified. The same CCM priority must be set in + frames may be specified. The same CCM priority must be set in each of the MEPs monitoring a given Ethernet LSP. How CCM priority is determined is out of scope of this document. Note that the highest priority should be used as the default CCM priority. - o MEPs must be aware of their own and the reachability parameters of - the remote MEP. In the case of bidirectional point-to-point PBB- - TE connections, this requires that the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC A, ESP- - MAC B, ESP-VID1] and [ESP-MAC B, ESP-MAC A, ESP-VID2] are + o MEPs must be aware of the reachability parameters of their own and + that of the remote MEP. In the case of bidirectional point-to- + point PBB-TE connections, this requires that the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC + A, ESP-MAC B, ESP-VID1] and [ESP-MAC B, ESP-MAC A, ESP-VID2] are configured in each MEP, where the ESP-MAC A is the same as the local MEP's MAC address and ESP-MAC B is the same as remote MEP's MAC address. The GMPLS Ethernet Label format, as defined in [RFC6060], consists of the ESP-MAC DA and ESP-VID. Hence the necessary reachability parameters for the MEPs can be obtained from the Ethernet Labels (i.e., carried in the downstream and upstream labels). In the case of point-to-point VLAN connections, MEPs need to be provisioned with the VLAN identifiers only, which can be derived similarly from the Ethernet Labels. @@ -395,21 +396,21 @@ If an undefined Format is specified an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MD Name Format". Also the combined length of MD Name and Short MA Name MUST be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is violated an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length Problem". Note it is allowed to have no MD Name, therefore the MD Name Sub-TLV is optional. In this case the MA Name must uniquely identify a Maintenance Association. 3.3.2. Short MA Name Sub-TLV - The Short MA Name Sub-TLV is depicted below, this sub-TLV MUST be + The Short MA Name Sub-TLV is depicted below. This sub-TLV MUST be present in the Ethernet OAM Configuration Sub-TLV. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (2) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Format | Name Length | Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | @@ -435,22 +436,22 @@ If an undefined Format is specified an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MA Name Format". Also the combined length of MD Name and Short MA Name MUST be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is violated an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length Problem". Note it is allowed to have no MD Name, in this case the MA Name MUST uniquely identify a Maintenance Association. 3.3.3. MEP ID Sub-TLV - The MEP ID Sub-TLV is depicted below, this sub-TLV MUST be present in - the Ethernet OAM Configuration Sub-TLV. + The MEP ID Sub-TLV is depicted below. This sub-TLV MUST be present + in the Ethernet OAM Configuration Sub-TLV. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (3) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local MEP ID |T|R| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote MEP ID |T|R| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -471,21 +472,21 @@ new MAID is assigned to each PBB-TE connection, and MEP IDs must be only unique within the scope of the MAID. Two flags are defined Transmit (T) and Receive (R). When T is set the corresponding MEP MUST send OAM packets. When R is set the corresponding MEP MUST expect to receive OAM packets. These flags are used to configure the role of MEPs. 3.3.4. Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV - The Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV is depicted below, this sub-TLV + The Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV is depicted below. This sub-TLV MUST be present in the Ethernet OAM Configuration Sub-TLV. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (4) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prio | CCM I | Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -643,35 +644,35 @@ those discussed in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and [RFC6060]. 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Francesco Fondelli, Adrian Farrel, Loa Andersson, Eric Gray and Dimitri Papadimitriou for their useful comments. 7. Contributors - - Don Fedyk - - Dinesh Mohan + - Don Fedyk, don.fedyk@hp.com + - Dinesh Mohan, dinmohan@hotmail.com 8. References 8.1. Normative References [IEEE.802.1Q-2011] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q, 2011. [OAM-CONF-FWK] - Attila Takacs, Don Fedyk, and Jia He, "OAM Configuration - Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", Internet Draft, work in + Attila Takacs, Don Fedyk, and Jia He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE + extensions for OAM Configuration", Internet Draft, work in progress, 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB- TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.