--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-01.txt 2010-07-09 16:12:32.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-02.txt 2010-07-09 16:12:32.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,140 +1,136 @@ CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba, Ed. Internet-Draft L. Andersson, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson -Expires: September 6, 2010 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. +Expires: January 10, 2011 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. Acreo AB D. Ward Juniper - March 5, 2010 + A. Takacs + Ericsson + July 9, 2010 Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and - Maintenance (OAM) Functions Using RSVP-TE or LSP Ping - draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-01 + Maintenance (OAM) Functions Using RSVP-TE + draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-02 Abstract This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a - given LSP using a common set of TLVs that is carried on either - RSVP-TE or LSP Ping. + given LSP using a common set of TLVs that can be carried on RSVP-TE + protocol. Status of this Memo - This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the + 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. + 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." - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2010. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as - described in the BSD License. + described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications . . . . . . . 4 3. Theory of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 3.7. MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID TLV for LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. BFD OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Introduction This document describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a - given LSP using a common set of TLVs carried on either RSVP-TE - [RFC3209] or LSP Ping [BFD-Ping]. In particular it specifies the - mechanisms necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities monitoring an - LSP and defines information elements and procedures to configure pro- - active MPLS OAM functions. Initialization and control of on-demand - MPLS OAM functions are expected to be carried out by directly - accessing network nodes via a management interface; hence - configuration and control of on-demand OAM functions are out-of-scope - for this document. - - Because the Transport Profile of MPLS, by definition [RFC5654], must - be capable of operating without a control plane, there are two - options for in-band OAM: by using an NMS or by using LSP-Ping if a - control plane is not instantiated. + given LSP using a common set of TLVs carried on RSVP-TE [RFC3209] but + reusable also for LSP Ping [BFD-Ping] as defined in [LSP-PING CONF]. + In particular it specifies the mechanisms necessary to establish + MPLS-TP OAM entities monitoring an LSP and defines information + elements and procedures to configure pro-active MPLS OAM functions. + Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS OAM functions are + expected to be carried out by directly accessing network nodes via a + management interface; hence configuration and control of on-demand + OAM functions are out-of-scope for this document. Pro-active MPLS OAM is based on the Bidirectional Forwarding - Detection (BFD) protocol [BFD]. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection - (BFD), as described in [BFD], defines a protocol that provides low- - overhead, short-duration detection of failures in the path between - two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data link(s), and - to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves. BFD can be - used to track the liveliness and detect data plane failures of - MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also be extended to p2mp - connections. + Detection (BFD) protocol [RFC5880]. Bidirectional Forwarding + Detection (BFD), as described in [RFC5880], defines a protocol that + provides low- overhead, short-duration detection of failures in the + path between two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data + link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines + themselves. BFD can be used to track the liveliness and detect data + plane failures of MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also be extended + to p2mp connections. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational models typical in transport networks, while providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance functions not currently supported by MPLS. [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ] defines the requirements for the OAM functionality of MPLS-TP. BFD has been chosen to be the basis of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions. MPLS-TP OAM extensions for transport applications, for which this document specifies the configuration, are specified in [BFD-CCCV], [MPLS-PM], and [MPLS-FMS]. 1.1. Contributing Authors - The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of John Drake, - Attila Takacs and Benoit Tremblay. + This document is the result of a large team of authors and + contributors. The following is a list of the co-authors: + + John Drake + + Attila Takacs + + Benoit Tremblay 1.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation BFD is a simple hello protocol that in many respects is similar to @@ -202,76 +198,69 @@ MEP Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these defect conditions, the following consequent actions may be configurable: 1) whether or not the LOC defect should result in blocking the outgoing data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period Misconfiguration defect" should result a signal fail condition. 3. Theory of Operations 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview - RSVP-TE or LSP Ping can be used to simply establish (i.e., bootstrap) - a BFD session or it can selectively enable and configure all pro- - active MPLS OAM functions. For this specification, BFD MUST be run - in asynchronous mode and both sides should be in active mode. + RSVP-TE, or in alternative LSP Ping [LSP-PING CONF], can be used to + simply establish (i.e., bootstrap) a BFD session or it can + selectively enable and configure all pro-active MPLS OAM functions. + For this specification, BFD MUST be run in asynchronous mode and both + sides should be in active mode. - In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE or LSP Ping is used only to - bootstrap the BFD session. In this case the initiating node includes - an 'OAM Configuration TLV' in the message it sends to the receiving - node at the other end of the LSP. The OAM Type in the 'OAM - Configuration TLV' is set to 'MPLS OAM', the CC OAM Function flag is - set, and a 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' is included. The sub-TLV - carries a 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV' with the discriminator value - selected by the initiating node for the BFD session associated with - the LSP. The N flag in the 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' MUST be set - to enable timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD Control Messages. + In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE, or in alternative LSP Ping [LSP- + PING CONF], is used only to bootstrap the BFD session. In this case + the initiating node includes an 'OAM Configuration TLV' in the + message it sends to the receiving node at the other end of the LSP. + The OAM Type in the 'OAM Configuration TLV' is set to 'MPLS OAM', the + CC OAM Function flag is set, and a 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' is + included. The sub-TLV carries a 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV' with + the discriminator value selected by the initiating node for the BFD + session associated with the LSP. The N flag in the 'BFD + Configuration sub-TLV' MUST be set to enable timer negotiation/ + re-negotiation via BFD Control Messages. The receiving node MUST use the Local Discriminator value it receives to identify the remote end of the BFD session. The receiving node must send a message to the initiating node that includes an 'OAM Configuration TLV' containing the same values as it received, except for the 'Local Discriminator sub-TLV', which contains the local discriminator value selected by the receiving node for the BFD session. Timer negotiation is performed in subsequent BFD control messages. This operation is similar to LSP Ping based bootstrapping described - in [BFD-MPLS]. + in [RFC5884]. If timer negotiation is to be done using the TLVs defined in this document rather than with BFD Control Messages, the N flag MUST be cleared and a 'Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV' MUST be present in the 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV'. In this case, there are two configuration options, symmetric and asymmetric. If symmetric configuration is used, the S flag in 'BFD Configuration sub-TLV' MUST be set. If the flag is cleared, the configuration is completed asymmetrically in the two directions. Section 3.3.2 includes a detailed explanation of such configuration. In the case of the "CV/CC mode" OAM [BFD-CCCV], the "CV" flag MUST be set in addition to the CC flag in the "OAM Configuration TLV". The information required to support this functionality is defined in [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. If RSVP-TE is used, this information is found respectively in the SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE object with no need of further sub-TLV as described in section 3.2. In case of LSP Ping - configuration this information is supplied by an additional sub-TLV - as described in section 3.2. - - Additional OAM functions can be requested by setting the PM/Loss and - PM/Delay OAM Function flags in the "OAM Configuration TLV". If these - flags are set, corresponding sub-TLVs may be included in the "OAM - Configuration TLV". - - If Fault Management Signals [MPLS-FMS] are required, the Fault - Management Signals (FMS) OAM Function is set in the 'OAM - Configuration TLV'. If this flag is set, the corresponding sub-TLV - may be included in the 'OAM Configuration TLV'. + configuration this information is supplied by an additional sub-TLV, + but this is defined in [LSP-PING CONF] and it is outside the scope of + this document. 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV The "OAM Configuration TLV" is depicted in the following figure. It specifies the OAM functions that are to be used for the subject LSP and it is defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. For RSVP-TE, the "OAM Configuration TLV" is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path and Resv messages. 0 1 2 3 @@ -314,22 +303,24 @@ not included, default configuration values are used. - "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/ Delay OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub- TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used. - "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the FMS OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used. - - "Unique MEP-ID of Source", which MUST be included in case the - configuration is done with LSP Ping and CV flag is set. + - Moreover, 'Unique MEP-ID of Source', MUST be included in case + the configuration is done with LSP Ping and CV flag is set as + defined in [LSP-PING CONF]. But this is outside the scope of this + document. Moreover, if the CV flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set at the same time. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [BFD-CCCV] and it requires, together with the BFD control packet information, the "Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet". [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] defines the composition of such identifier as: <"Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet"> ::= @@ -347,22 +338,24 @@ - LSP ID = LSP_Num "Tunnel ID" and "Tunnel Sender Address" are included in the "SESSION" object [RFC 3209], which is mandatory in both Path and Resv messages. "LSP ID" will be the same on both directions and it is included in the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" object [RFC 3209] which is mandatory in Path messages. - In case the configuration is done via LSP Ping the "Unique MEP-ID of - Source" is needed to supply this information. + In case the configuration is done via LSP Ping [LSP-PING CONF] the + 'Unique MEP-ID of Source' is needed to supply this information but + this is defined in [LSP-PING CONF] and it is outside the scope of + this document. [Author's note: the same "Unique MEP-ID of source" will be likely required for Performance monitoring purposes. However for the moment in [MPLS-PM] it is stated: "The question of ACH TLV usage and the manner of supporting metadata such as authentication keys and node identifiers is deliberately omitted. These issues will be addressed in a future version of the document."] 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV @@ -485,21 +479,22 @@ it expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at which edge LSRs can receive BFD periodic control packets. In case this value is greater than the "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" received from the other edge LSR, such edge LSR MUST adopt the interval expressed in this "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval". Required Echo TX Interval: the minimum interval, in microseconds, between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in - [BFD] sect. 6.8.9. This value is also an indication for the + + [RFC5880] sect. 6.8.9. This value is also an indication for the receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo packets. If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not support the receipt of BFD Echo packets. If the receiving system can not support this value an error MUST be generated "Unsupported BFD TX rate interval". Detection time multiplier: The negotiated transmit interval, multiplied by this value, provides the Detection Time for the receiving system in Asynchronous mode. @@ -625,49 +620,20 @@ - E: used to enable/disable explicitly clearing faults - PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault management information Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer (in microseconds) of fault indication messages. If the edge LSR receiving the Path message can not support such value, it can reply back with a higher interval. -3.7. MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID TLV for LSP Ping - - The "MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID TLV for LSP Ping" depicted below is - carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV" in case LSP Ping - is used. - - 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 (6) (IANA) | Length = 12 | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | SRC NODE ID | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | TUNNEL ID | LSP ID | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Type: indicates a new type, the "MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID" (IANA to - define). - - Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. - - SRC NODE ID: 32-bit node identifier as defined in [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. - - TUNNEL ID: a 16-bit unsigned integer unique to the node as defined in - [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. - - LSP ID: a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID as - defined in [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. - 4. IANA Considerations This document specifies the following new TLV types: - "BFD Configuration" type: 2; - "MPLS OAM PM Loss" type: 3; - "MPLS OAM PM Delay" type: 4; @@ -704,23 +670,20 @@ liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high number of LSPs, targeting a single network element. Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent versions of this document. 8. References 8.1. Normative References - [BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding - Detection", 2009, . - [MPLS-CSF] He, J. and H. Li, "Indication of Client Failure in MPLS-TP", 2009, . [MPLS-FMS] Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., and M. Vigoureux, "MPLS Fault Management OAM", 2009, . [MPLS-PM] Bryant, S. and D. Frost, "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for the MPLS Transport Profile", 2009, @@ -736,31 +699,46 @@ . [OAM-CONF-FWK] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. van He, "OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., + and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP + Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. + [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. + [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic + Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. + [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009. + [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection + (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010. + + [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, + "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label + Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010. + 8.2. Informative References [BFD-CCCV] Fulignoli, A., Boutros, S., and M. Vigoreux, "MPLS-TP BFD for Proactive CC-CV and RDI", 2009, . [BFD-Ping] Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher, N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation @@ -769,20 +747,27 @@ [ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., Fedyk, D., Mohan, D., and D. Long, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM", 2009, . [LSP Ping] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", 2006, . + [LSP-PING CONF] + Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., and P. + Skoelstroem, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP + Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) + Functions Using LSP Ping", 2010, + . + [MPLS-TP OAM Analysis] Sprecher, N., Nadeau, T., van Helvoort, H., and Weingarten, "MPLS-TP OAM Analysis", 2006, . [MPLS-TP-FWK] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, . @@ -810,24 +795,33 @@ Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com Loa Andersson (editor) Ericsson Farogatan 6 Kista, 164 40 Sweden Phone: Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com + Pontus Skoldstrom (editor) Acreo AB Electrum 236 Kista, 164 40 Sweden Phone: +46 8 6327731 Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se - Dave Ward Juniper Phone: Email: dward@juniper.net + + Attila Takacs + Ericsson + 1. Laborc u. + Budapest, + HUNGARY + + Phone: + Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com