--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-01.txt 2009-02-23 14:12:10.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02.txt 2009-02-23 14:12:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,22 +1,24 @@ -MPLS M. Bocci, Ed. + +MPLS Working Group M. Bocci, Ed. Internet-Draft M. Vigoureux, Ed. Updates: 3032, 4385, 5085 Alcatel-Lucent (if approved) G. Swallow Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward -Expires: July 10, 2009 Cisco +Expires: August 27, 2009 S. Bryant + Cisco R. Aggarwal Juniper Networks - January 6, 2009 + February 23, 2009 - MPLS Generic Associated Channel - draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-01 + MPLS Generic Associated Channel header + draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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. @@ -25,595 +27,760 @@ 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 July 10, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Abstract - This document generalises the applicability of the pseudowire + This document generalises the applicability of the pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header (ACH), enabling the realization of a - control channel associated to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSP), MPLS - pseudowires (PW) and MPLS Sections. In order to identify the - presence of the Generic ACH (G-ACH), this document also assigns of - one of the reserved MPLS label values to the 'Generic Associated - channel header Label (GAL)', to be used as a label based exception - mechanism. + control channel associated to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and + MPLS Sections in addition to MPLS pseudowires. In order to identify + the presence of this Associated Channel Header in the label stack, + this document also assigns one of the reserved MPLS label values to + the Generic Associated channel Label (GAL), to be used as a label + based exception mechanism. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Generic Associated Channel Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.1. Allocation of Channel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3. Generalised Exception Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms . . . 8 - 3.2. GAL Applicability and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.2.1. GAL Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.3. Relationship wth RFC 3429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4. Compatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6. Security Consderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.2. Allocation of Channel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3. ACH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.1. ACH TLV Payload Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.2. ACH TLV Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.3. ACH TLV Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4. Generalised Exception Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.1. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms . . . 10 + 4.2. GAL Applicability and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.2.1. GAL Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.3. Relationship wth RFC 3429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5. Compatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction There is a need for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) - mechanisms that can be used for edge-to-edge (i.e. between - originating and terminating LSRs or T-PEs) and segment (e.g. between - any two LSRs or T-PEs/S-PEs along the path of a LSP or PW [15]) fault - detection, diagnostics, maintenance and other functions for a PW and - a LSP. Some of these functions can be supported using tools such as - VCCV [2], BFD [3], or LSP-Ping [4]. However, a requirement has been - indicated to augment the set of maintenance functions, in particular - where MPLS networks are used for packet transport services and - network operations [16]. Examples include performance monitoring, - automatic protection switching, and support for management and - signaling communication channels. These tools must be applicable to, - and function in essentially the same manner (from an operational - point of view) on both MPLS PWs and MPLS LSPs. They must also - operate in-band on the PW or LSP such that they do not depend on PSN - routing, user data traffic or ultimately on PSN or other dynamic - control plane functions. + mechanisms that can be used for fault detection, diagnostics, + maintenance and other functions on a PW and an LSP. These functions + can be used between any two Label Edge Routers (LERs) / Label + Switching Router (LSRs) or Terminating Provider Edge routers (T-PEs) + / Switching Provider Edge routers (S-PEs) along the path of an LSP or + PW respectively [15]. Some of these functions can be supported using + existing tools such as Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification + (VCCV) [2], Bidirectional Forwarding Detection for MPLS LSPs (BFD- + MPLS)[3], LSP-Ping [4], or BFD-VCCV [5]. However, a requirement has + been indicated to augment this set of maintenance functions, in + particular when MPLS networks are used for packet transport services + and transport network operations [16]. Examples of these functions + include performance monitoring, automatic protection switching, and + support for management and signaling communication channels. These + tools MUST be applicable to, and function in essentially the same + manner (from an operational point of view) on MPLS PWs, MPLS LSPs and + MPLS Sections. They MUST also operate in-band on the PW or LSP such + that they do not depend on Packet Switched Network (PSN) routing or + on user data traffic, and MUST also not depend on dynamic control + plane functions. - Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) can use an - associated channel to provide a control channel between a PW's - ingress and egress points and over which OAM and other control - messages can be exchanged. In this document, we propose a generic - associated channel header (G-ACH) to enable the same control channel - mechanism be used for MPLS Sections, LSPs and PWs. The associated - channel header (ACH) specified in RFC 4385 [5] is used with - additional code points to support additional MPLS maintenance - functions. + VCCV can use an Associated Channel Header (ACH) to provide a PW- + associated control channel between a PW's end points, over which OAM + and other control messages can be exchanged. This document + generalises the use of the ACH to enable the same associated control + channel mechanism to be used for Sections, LSPs and PWs. The + associated control channel thus generalized is known as the Generic + Associated Channel (G-ACh). The ACH, specified in RFC 4385 [6], may + be used with additional code points to support additional MPLS + maintenance functions on the G-ACh. - Generalizing the ACH mechanism to MPLS LSPs and MPLS Sections also - requires a method to identify that a packet contains a G-ACH followed - by a non-service payload. This document therefore also defines a - label based exception mechanism (the Generic Associated channel - header Label, or GAL) that serves to inform an LSR that a packet that - it receives on an LSP or section belongs to an associated channel. + Generalizing the associated control channel mechanism to LSPs and + Sections also requires a method to identify that a packet contains an + ACH followed by a non-service payload. Therefore, this document also + defines a label based exception mechanism that serves to inform an + LSR (or LER) that a packet it receives on an LSP or Section belongs + to an associated control channel for that LSP or Section. - RFC 4379 [4] and BFD for MPLS LSPs [3] have defined alert mechanisms - that enable a MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when - the OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert - mechanisms are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination - address in the range 127/8. These mechanisms are the default - mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM packets when the OAM packets are + RFC 4379 [4] and BFD-MPLS [3] define alert mechanisms that enable an + MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when these are + encapsulated in an IP header. These alert mechanisms are based on + MPLS or PW label Time to Live (TTL) expiration and/or on the use of + an IP destination address in the range 127/8. These mechanisms are + the default mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM packets when encapsulated in an IP header. However it may not always be possible - to use these mechanisms in some MPLS applications, (e.g. MPLS-TP - [15]) particularly when IP based demultiplexing cannot be used. This - document proposes an OPTIONAL mechanism that is RECOMMENDED for - identifying and demultiplexing MPLS OAM and other maintenance - messages when IP based mechanisms such as those in [4] and [3] are - not available. + to use these mechanisms in some MPLS applications, e.g. MPLS + Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [15], particularly when IP based + demultiplexing cannot be used. This document defines a mechanism + that is RECOMMENDED for identifying and encapsulating MPLS OAM and + other maintenance messages when IP based mechanisms such as those in + [4] and [3] are not available. This mechanism MAY be used in + addition to IP-based mechanisms. - The G-ACH and GAL mechanisms are defined to work together. + The GAL mechanism is defined to work together with the ACH for LSPs + and MPLS Sections. - Note that, in this document, maintenace functions and packets should - be understood in the broad sense, that is, as a set of FCAPS - mechanisms that include OAM, Automatic Protection Switching (APS), - Signalling Communication Channel (SCC) and Management Communication - Channel (MCC) messages. + Note that, in this document, maintenance functions and packets should + be understood in the broad sense. That is, a set of maintenance and + management mechanisms that include OAM, Automatic Protection + Switching (APS), Signalling Communication Channel (SCC) and + Management Communication Channel (MCC) messages. - Note that the GAL and G-ACH are applicable to MPLS in general. Their - applicability to specific applications is outside the scope of this - document. For example, the applicability of the GAL and G-ACH to - MPLS-TP is described in [15] and [17]. + Also note that the GAL and ACH are applicable to MPLS in general. + Their applicability to specific applications of MPLS is outside the + scope of this document. 1.1. Contributing Authors - The editors gratefully acknowledge the contibution of Stewart Bryant, - Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, and Lieven Levrau. + The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Sami Boutros, + Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, Lieven Levrau and Siva Sivabalan 1.2. Objectives - This document proposes a mechanism to provide for the extended - maintenance needs of emerging applications for MPLS. It creates a - generic control channel identification mechanism that may be applied - to all MPLS LSPs, while maintaining compatibility with the PW - associated channel header (ACH) . It also normalizes the use of the - ACH for PWs in a transport context. + This document defines a mechanism that provides a solution to the + extended maintenance needs of emerging applications for MPLS. It + creates a generic control channel mechanism that may be applied to + MPLS LSPs and Sections, while maintaining compatibility with the PW + associated channel. It also normalises the use of the ACH for PWs in + a transport context, and defines a label based exception mechanism to + alert LERs/LSRs of the presence of an ACH after the bottom of the + stack. 1.3. Scope This document defines the encapsulation header for LSP, MPLS Section and PW associated channel messages. - It does not define how associated channel capabilities are signaled - or negotiated between LSRs or PEs, the operation of various OAM - functions, nor how the messages transmitted on the associated - channel. + It does not define how associated control channel capabilities are + signaled or negotiated between LERs/LSRs or PEs, or the operation of + various OAM functions. This document does not deprecate existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms. 1.4. Terminology - G-ACH: Generic Associated Channel Header + ACH: Associated Channel Header - GAL: Generic Associated Channel Header Label - MPLS Section: A network segment between two LSRs that are immediately - adjacent at the MPLS layer + G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel - Maintenance Packet: Any packet containing a message belonging to a - maintenace protocol that is carried on a PW, LSP or MPLS Section - associated channel. Examples of such maintenance protocols include - OAM functions, signaling communications or management communications. + GAL: G-ACh Label + + Maintenance packet: Any packet containing a message belonging to a + maintenance protocol that is carried on a PW, LSP or MPLS Section + associated control channel. Examples of such maintenance protocols + include OAM functions, signaling communications or management + communications. + + The terms 'Section' and 'Concatenated Segment' are defined in [17]. 2. Generic Associated Channel Header VCCV [2] defines three MPLS Control Channel (CC) Types that may be - used to multiplex OAM messages onto a PW: CC Type 1 uses an - associated channel header and is referred to as "In-band VCCV"; CC - Type 2 uses the MPLS Router Alert Label to indicate VCCV packets and - is referred to as "Out of Band VCCV"; CC Type 3 uses the TTL to force - the packet to be processed by the targeted router control plane and - is referred to as "MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1". + used to exchange OAM messages through a PW: CC Type 1 uses an ACH and + is referred to as "In-band VCCV"; CC Type 2 uses the MPLS Router + Alert Label to indicate VCCV packets and is referred to as "Out of + Band VCCV"; CC Type 3 uses the TTL to force the packet to be + processed by the targeted router control plane and is referred to as + "MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1". - The use of the CC Type 1, currently limited to MPLS PWs, is here - extended to apply to MPLS LSPs as well as to MPLS Sections. This - associated channel header is called the Generic Associated Channel - Header (G- ACH). The PWE3 control word MUST be present in the - encapsulation of user packets when the G-ACH is used to demultiplex - the associated channel packet on a PW. +2.1. Definition - The CC Type 1 channel header is depicted in figure below: + The use of the CC Type 1, previously limited to PWs, is here extended + to also apply to LSPs and to Sections. Note that for PWs, the PWE3 + control word [6] MUST be present in the encapsulation of user packets + when the ACH is used to realize the associated control channel. + + The CC Type 1 control channel header is depicted in figure below: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |0 0 0 1|Version|A| Reserved | Channel Type | + |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Figure 1: Generic Associated Channel Header + Figure 1: Associated Channel Header In the above figure, the first nibble is set to 0001b to indicate a - channel associated with a PW, a LSP or a Section. The Version field - is set to 0, as specified in RFC 4385 [5]. This draft allocates Bit - 8 of the ACH to the ACH TLV bit. This bit is set to 1 to indicate - that an object defined in the ACH TLV registry immediately follows - the G-ACH, otherwise it is set to 0. Bits 8 to 14 of the G-ACH are - reserved and MUST be set to 0.. + control channel associated with a PW, an LSP or a Section. The + Version field is set to 0, as specified in RFC 4385 [6]. Bits 8 to + 14 of the G-ACH are reserved and MUST be set to 0 and ignored on + reception. Note that VCCV also includes mechanisms for negotiating the Control Channel and Connectivity Verification (i.e. OAM functions) Types between PEs. It is anticipated that similar mechanisms will be - applied to existing MPLS LSPs. Such application will require further + applied to LSPs. Such application will require further specification. However, such specification is beyond the scope of this document. -2.1. Allocation of Channel Types +2.2. Allocation of Channel Types The Channel Type field indicates the type of message carried on the - associated channel e.g. IPv4 or IPv6 if IP demultiplexing is used - for messages on the G-ACH, or OAM or other FCAPS function if IP - demultiplexing is not used. For G-ACH packets where IP is not used - as the multiplexer, the Channel Type SHOULD indicate the specific - maintenance protocol carried in the associated channel. + associated control channel e.g. IPv4 or IPv6 if IP demultiplexing is + used for messages sent on the associated control channel, or OAM or + other maintenance function if IP demultiplexing is not used. For + associated control channel packets where IP is not used as the + multiplexer, the Channel Type SHOULD indicate the specific + maintenance protocol carried in the associated control channel. Values for the Channel Type field currently used for VCCV are - specified in RFC 4446 [6]. The functionality of any additional - channel types will be defined in another document. Each associated - channel protocol solution document must specify the value to use for - any additional channel types. + specified elsewhere, e.g. in RFC 4446 [7]and RFC 4385[6] . + Additional Channel Type values and the associated maintenance + functionality will be defined in other documents. Each document + specifying a protocol solution relying on the ACH MUST also specify + the applicable Channel Type field value. Note that these values are allocated from the PW Associated Channel Type registry, but this document modifies the existing policy to - accomodate a level of experimentation. See Section 7 for further + accommodate a level of experimentation. See Section 8 for further details. -3. Generalised Exception Mechanism +3. ACH TLVs - The above mechanism enables the multiplexing of various maintenace - packets onto a PW, LSP or Section and provides information on the - type of function being performed. In the case of a PW, the use of a - control word is negotiated or configured at the time of the PW - establishment. A special case of the control word (the G-ACH) is - used to identify packets belonging to a PW associated channel. + In some applications of the "In-band VCCV" associated control channel + it is necessary to include one or more ACH TLVs to provide additional + context information to the maintenance packet. One use of these ACH + TLVs might be to identify the source and/or intended destination of + the associated control channel maintenance message. However, the use + of this construct is not limited to providing addressing information + nor is the applicability restricted to transport network + applications. - Generalizing the ACH mechanism to MPLS LSPs and MPLS Sections also - requires a method to identify that a packet contains a G-ACH followed - by a non-service payload. This document specifies that a label be - used and calls this special label the 'Generic Associated channel - header Label (GAL)'. One of the reserved label values defined in RFC - 3032 [7] is assigned for this purpose. The value of the label is to - be allocated by IANA; this document suggests the value 13. + If the maintenance message MAY be preceded by one or more ACH TLVs, + then this MUST be explicitly specified in the definition of an ACH + Channel Type. If the ACH Channel Type definition does state that one + or more ACH TLVs MAY precede the maintenance message, an ACH TLV + Header MUST follow the ACH. If no ACH TLVs are required in a + specific associated control channel packet, but the Channel Type + nevertheless defines that ACH TLVs MAY be used, an ACH TLV Header + MUST be present but with a length field set to zero to indicate that + no ACH TLV follow this header. - The GAL provides a generalised exception mechanism to: + If a channel type specification does not explicitly specify that ACH + TLVs MAY be used, then an ACH TLV Header MUST NOT be used. - o Differentiate specific packets (e.g. those containing OAM - messages) from others, such as normal user-plane ones, +3.1. ACH TLV Payload Structure - o Indicate that the Generic Associated Channel Header (G-ACH) - appears immediately after the bottom of the label stack. + This section defines and describes the structure of an ACH payload + when an ACH TLV Header is present. The structure of ACH TLVs that + MAY follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in the + following sections. - The 'Generic Associated channel header Label (GAL)' MUST only be used - where both of these purposes are applicable. + The following figure (Figure 2) shows the structure of a G-ACh packet + payload. -3.1. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ACH | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ACH TLV Header | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ zero or more ACH TLVs ~ + ~ | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ Maintenance Message ~ + ~ | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - RFC 4379 [4] and BFD for MPLS LSPs [3] have defined alert mechanisms - that enable a MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when - the OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert - mechanisms are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination - address in the range 127/8. + Figure 2: ACH TLV Payload Structure - These alert mechanisms SHOULD preferably be used in non MPLS-TP - environments. The mechanism defined in this document MAY also be - used. +3.2. ACH TLV Header -3.2. GAL Applicability and Usage + The ACH TLV Header defines the length of the set of ACH TLVs that + follow. - The 'Generic Associated channel header Label (GAL)' MUST only be used - with Label Switched Paths (LSPs), with their associated Tandem - Connection Monitoring Entities (see [17] for definitions of TCMEs) - and with MPLS Sections. + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Length | Reserved | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - The GAL applies to both P2P and P2MP LSPs, unless otherwise stated. + Figure 3: ACH TLV Header + + The length field specifies the length in octets of the complete set + of TLVs including TLVs that follow the ACH TLV header. A length of + zero indicates that no ACH TLV follow this header. + + The reserved field is for future use and MUST be set to zero on + transmission and ignored on reception. + +3.3. ACH TLV Object + + An ACH TLV consists of a 16-bit Type field, followed by a 16-bit + Length field which specifies the number of octets of the Value field + which follows the Length field. This 32-bit word is followed by zero + or more octets of Value information. The format and semantics of the + value information are defined by the TLV Type as recorded in the TLV + Type registry. See Section 8 for further details. Note that the + Value field of ACH TLVs MAY contain sub-TLV objects. + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | TLV Type | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ Value ~ + ~ | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 4: ACH TLV Format + +4. Generalised Exception Mechanism + + Generalizing the associated channel mechanism to LSPs and Sections + also requires a method to identify that a packet contains an ACH + followed by a non-service payload. This document specifies that a + label is used for that purpose and calls this special label the G-ACh + Label (GAL). One of the reserved label values defined in RFC 3032 + [8] is assigned for this purpose. The value of the label is to be + allocated by IANA; this document suggests the value 13. + + The GAL provides an alert based exception mechanism to: + + o differentiate specific packets (e.g. maintenance messages) from + others, such as normal user-plane ones, + + o indicate that the ACH appears immediately after the bottom of the + label stack. + + The GAL MUST only be used where both of these purposes apply. + +4.1. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms + + RFC 4379 [4] and BFD-MPLS [3] have defined alert mechanisms that + enable a MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when the + OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert mechanisms + are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination address in + the range 127/8. + + These alert mechanisms SHOULD be used in non MPLS-TP environments, + although the mechanism defined in this document MAY also be used. + +4.2. GAL Applicability and Usage + + The GAL MUST only be used with LSPs, concatenated segments of LSPs, + and with Sections. In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack (i.e. S bit set to 1). However, in other MPLS environments, this document places no restrictions on where the GAL may appear within the label stack. The GAL MUST NOT appear in the label stack when transporting normal - user-plane packets. Furthermore, the GAL MUST only appear once in - the label stack for packets on the generic associated channel. + user-plane packets. Furthermore, when present, the GAL MUST only + appear once in the label stack. -3.2.1. GAL Processing +4.2.1. GAL Processing The Traffic Class (TC) field (formerly known as the EXP field) of the label stack entry containing the GAL follows the definition and - processing rules specified and referenced in [8]. + processing rules specified and referenced in [9]. The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the label stack entry that contains - the GAL follows the definition and processing rules specified in [9]. + the GAL follows the definition and processing rules specified in + [10]. -3.2.1.1. MPLS Section +4.2.1.1. MPLS Label Switched Paths and Segments - The following figure (Figure 2) depicts two MPLS LSRs immediately - adjacent at the MPLS layer. + The following figure (Figure 5) depicts two LERs (A and D) and two + LSRs (B and C) for a given LSP which is established from A to D and + switched in B and C. - +---+ +---+ - | A |-------------| Z | - +---+ +---+ + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------------| D | + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ - Figure 2: Maintenance over an MPLS Section Associated Channel + Figure 5: MPLS-TP maintenance over a LSP - With regards to the MPLS Section, both LERs are Maintenance End - Points (see [17] for definitions of MEPs). + In this example, a G-ACh exists on an LSP that extends between LERs A + and D, via LSRs B and C. Only these nodes may insert, extract or + process packets on this G-ACh. - The following figure (Figure 3) depicts the format of a labelled OAM - packet on an associated channel when used for MPLS Section - maintenance. + The following figure (Figure 6) depicts the format of a MPLS-TP + maintenance message when used for an LSP. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | LSP Label | TC |S| TTL | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | GAL | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Generic-ACH | + | ACH | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | . - . Maintenance Message . - . | + | ACH TLV Header (if present) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ Zero or more ACH TLVs ~ + ~ (if present) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ Maintenance Message ~ + ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Figure 3: Maintenance Packet Format for MPLS Section + Figure 6: MPLS-TP maintenance message format for a LSP - To send a MPLS-TP maintenance packet on an associated channel of the - MPLS Section, the head-end LSR (A) of the MPLS Section generates a - maintenance packet with a G-ACH to which it pushes a GAL. + Note that it is possible that the LSP may be tunnelled in another LSP + (e.g. if a MPLS Tunnel exists between B and C), and as such other + labels may be present in the label stack. - o The TTL field of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1. + To send a maintenance message on the LSP associated control channel, + the LER (A) generates a maintenance message, to which it MAY + prepended an ACH TLV header and appropriate ACH TLVs, and with a ACH + to which it pushes a GAL and finally the LSP label. - o The S bit of the GAL MUST be set to 1 in MPLS-TP. + o The TTL field of the GAL MUST be set to at least 1. The exact + value of the TTL is application specific. - The maintenance packet, the G-ACH and the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified - towards the tail-end LSR (Z). Upon reception of the labelled packet, - the tail-end LSR (Z), after having checked the GAL fields, SHOULD - pass the whole packet to the appropriate processing entity. + o The S bit of the GAL MUST be set according to its position in the + label stack. -3.2.1.2. Label Switched Paths + o The setting of the TC field is application specific. - The following figure (Figure 4) depicts four LSRs. A LSP is - established from A to D and switched in B and C. + The maintenance message, the ACH or the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified + towards the targeted destination. Upon reception of the labelled + packet, the targeted destination, after having checked both the LSP + label and GAL fields, SHOULD pass the whole maintenance message to + the appropriate processing entity. - +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ - | A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------------| D | - +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +4.2.1.2. MPLS Section - Figure 4: Maintenance over an LSP Associated Channel + The following figure (Figure 7) depicts an example of a MPLS Section. - LERs A and D are Maintenance End Points (MEPs) with respect to this - LSP. Furthermore, LSRs B and C could also be Maintenance - Intermediate Points (MIPs) with respect to this LSP (see [17] for - definitions of MEPs and MIPs). + +---+ +---+ + | A |-------------| Z | + +---+ +---+ - The following figure (Figure 5) depicts the format of a labelled - maintenance packet when used for a MPLS-TP LSP. + Figure 7: Maintenance over an MPLS Section + + With regard to the MPLS Section, a G-ACh exists between A and Z. Only + A and Z can insert, extract or process packets on this G-ACh. + + The following figure (Figure 8) depicts the format of a maintenance + message when used for a MPLS Section. The GAL MAY provide the + exception mechanism for a control channel in its own right without + being associated with a specific LSP, thus providing maintenance + related communications across a specific link interconnecting two + LSRs. In this case, the GAL is the only label in the stack. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LSP Label | TC |S| TTL | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | GAL | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Generic-ACH | + | ACH | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | . - . Maintenance Message . - . | + | ACH TLV Header (if present) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ Zero or more ACH TLVs ~ + ~ (if present) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ~ + ~ Maintenance Message ~ + ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Figure 5: Maintenance Packet Format for MPLS-TP LSP - - Note that it is possible that the LSP MAY also be tunnelled in - another LSP (e.g. if a MPLS Tunnel exists between B and C), and as - such other labels MAY be present above it in the label stack. - - To send a maintenance packet on the LSP associated channel, the head- - end LSR (A) generates a OAM message with a G-ACH on which it first - pushes a GAL followed by the LSP label. + Figure 8: Maintenance message format for a MPLS Section - o The TTL field of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1. + To send a maintenance message on a control channel associated to the + Section, the head-end LSR (A) of the Section generates a maintenance + message, to which it MAY prepend an ACH TLV Header and appropriate + ACH TLVs, and with a ACH to which it pushes a GAL. - o The S bit of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1 in MPLS-TP. + o The TTL field of the GAL MUST be set to at least 1. The exact + value of the TTL is application specific. - The maintenance message, the G-ACH or the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified - towards the targeted destination. Upon reception of the labelled - packet, the targeted destination, after having checked both the LSP - label and GAL fields, SHOULD pass the whole packet to the appropriate - processing entity. + o The S bit of the GAL MUST be set according to its position in the + label stack. For MPLS Sections, the S bit MUST be set to 1. -3.2.1.3. Tandem Connection Monitoring Entity + o The setting of the TC field is application specific. - Tandem Connection Monitoring will be specified in a separate - document. + The maintenance message, the ACH and the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified + towards the tail-end LSR (Z). Upon reception of the labelled packet, + the tail-end LSR (Z), after having checked the GAL fields, SHOULD + pass the whole packet to the appropriate processing entity. -3.3. Relationship wth RFC 3429 +4.3. Relationship wth RFC 3429 RFC 3429 [18] describes the assignment of one of the reserved label - values, defined in RFC 3032 [7], to the 'OAM Alert Label' that is + values, defined in RFC 3032 [8], to the 'OAM Alert Label' that is used by user-plane MPLS OAM functions for the identification of MPLS OAM packets. The value of 14 is used for that purpose. Both this document and RFC 3429 [18] therefore describe the assignment of reserved label values for similar purposes. The rationale for the assignment of a new reserved label can be summarized as follows: o Unlike the mechanisms described and referenced in RFC 3429 [18], - MPLS-TP OAM packet payloads will not reside immediately after the - GAL but instead behind the G-ACH, which itself resides immediately - after the bottom of the label stack when the GAL is present. This - ensures that OAM using the generic associated channel complies - with RFC 4928 [10]. + MPLS-TP maintenance messages will not reside immediately after the + GAL but instead behind the ACH, which itself resides after the + bottom of the label stack. This ensures that OAM, using the + G-ACh, complies with RFC 4928 [11]. o The set of maintenance functions potentially operated in the - context of the generic associated channel is wider than the set of - OAM functions referenced in RFC 3429 [18]. + context of the G-ACh is wider than the set of OAM functions + referenced in RFC 3429 [18]. o It has been reported that there are existing implementations and running deployments using the 'OAM Alert Label' as described in RFC 3429 [18]. It is therefore not possible to modify the 'OAM Alert Label' allocation, purpose or usage. Nevertheless, it is RECOMMENDED by this document that no further OAM extensions based on 'OAM Alert Label' (Label 14) usage be specified or developed. -4. Compatability +5. Compatability - An LER, LSR or PE MUST discard received G-ACH packets if it is not G- - ACH capable, if it is not capable of processing packets on the - indicated G-ACH channel, or if it has not, through means outside the - scope of this document, indicated to the sending LSR, LER or PE that - it will process G-ACH packets received on the indicated channel. The - LER, LSR or PE MAY increment an error counter and MAY also optionally - issue a system and/or SNMP notification. + Procedures for handling a packet received with an invalid incoming + label are specified in RFC 3031[12]. -5. Congestion Considerations + An LER, LSR or PE MUST discard received associated channel packets on + which all of the MPLS or PW labels have been popped if any one of the + following conditions is true: + + o It is not capable of processing packets on the Channel Type + indicated by the ACH of the received packet. + + o It has not, through means outside the scope of this document, + indicated to the sending LSR, LER or PE that it will process + associated channel packets on the Channel Type indicated by the + ACH of the received packet. + + o If the ACH was indicated by the presence of a GAL, and the first + nibble of the ACH of the received packet is not 0b0001. + + o The ACH version is not recognised. + + In addition, it MAY increment an error counter and MAY also + optionally issue a system and/or SNMP notification. + +6. Congestion Considerations The congestion considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [2] apply. - Further generic associated channel-specific congestion considerations - will be detailed in a future revision of this document. -6. Security Consderations +7. Security Considerations - The security considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [2], the MPLS - architecture [11], the PWE3 architecture [12] and the MPLS-TP - framework [15] apply. + The security considerations for the associated control channel are + described in RFC 4385[6]. Further security considerations MUST be + described in the relevant associated channel type specification. -7. IANA Considerations + RFC 5085 [2] provides data plane related security considerations. + These also apply to a G-ACh, whether the alert mechanism uses a GAL + or only an ACH. - This document requests that IANA allocates a Label value, to the - 'Generic Associated channel header Label (GAL)', from the pool of - reserved labels, and suggests this value to be 13. +8. IANA Considerations - Channel Types for the Generic Associated Channel are allocated from - the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry [6]. The PW Associated + This document requests that IANA allocates a label value, to the GAL, + from the pool of reserved labels, and suggests this value to be 13. + + Channel Types for the Associated Channel Header are allocated from + the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry [7]. The PW Associated Channel Type registry is currently allocated based on the IETF consensus process, described in[13]. This allocation process was chosen based on the consensus reached in the PWE3 working group that pseudowire associated channel mechanisms should be reviewed by the IETF and only those that are consistent with the PWE3 architecture and requirements should be allocated a code point. However, a requirement has emerged (see [16]) to allow for optimizations or extensions to OAM and other control protocols - running in an associated channel to be experimented with without - resorting to the IETF standards process, by supporting experimental - code points. This would prevent code points used for such functions - from being used from the range allocated through the IETF standards - and thus protects an installed base of equipment from potential + running in an associated channel to be experimented without resorting + to the IETF standards process, by supporting experimental code + points. This would prevent code points used for such functions from + being used from the range allocated through the IETF standards and + thus protects an installed base of equipment from potential inadvertent overloading of code points. In order to support this - requirement, this document requests that the code-point allocation + requirement, this document requests that the code point allocation scheme for the PW Associated Channel Type be changed as follows: 0 - 32751 : IETF Consensus 32752 - 32767 : Experimental Code points in the experimental range MUST be used according to the guidelines of RFC 3692 [14]. Experimental OAM functions MUST be - disabled by default. The channel type value used for a given + disabled by default. The Channel Type value used for a given experimental OAM function MUST be configurable, and care MUST be - taken to ensure that different OAM functions that are not - interoperable are configured to use different channel type values. + taken to ensure that different OAM functions that are not inter- + operable are configured to use different Channel Type values. -8. Acknowledgements + The PW Associated Channel Type registry needs to be updated to + include a column indicating whether the ACH is followed by a ACH TLV + header (Yes/No). There are two ACH Channel Type code-points + currently assigned and in both cases no ACH TLV header is used. Thus + the new format of the PW Channel Type registry is: + + Registry: + Value Description TLV Follows Reference + ----- ---------------------------- ----------- --------- + 0x21 ACH carries an IPv4 packet No [RFC4385] + 0x57 ACH carries an IPv6 packet No [RFC4385] + + Figure 9: PW Channel Type registry + + IANA is requested create a new registry called the Associated Channel + TLV Registry. The allocation policy for this registry is IETF + consensus. This registry MUST record the following information. + There are no initial entries. + + Name Type Length Description Reference + (octets) + + Figure 10: PW ACH TLV registry + +9. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the - T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and + MPLS-TP Ad-Hoc Team in ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of MPLS Transport Profile. -9. References +10. References -9.1. Normative References +10.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007. [3] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, "BFD For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2008. [4] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006. - [5] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, + [5] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding + Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit + Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03 + (work in progress), February 2009. + + [6] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006. - [6] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge + [7] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006. - [7] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, + [8] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. - [8] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching + [9] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label stack entry: "EXP" field renamed to "Traffic Class" field", draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-08 (work in progress), December 2008. - [9] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in + [10] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443, January 2003. - [10] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal Cost + [11] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC 4928, June 2007. - [11] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label + [12] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. - [12] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge - (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. - [13] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA - Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, - October 1998. + Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [14] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. -9.2. Informative References +10.2. Informative References [15] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and L. Levrau, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00 (work in progress), November 2008. [16] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-00 (work in progress), December 2008. - [17] Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and - Overview", draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-00 (work in - progress), October 2008. + [17] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and + S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements", + draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-04 (work in progress), + February 2009. [18] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002. Authors' Addresses Matthew Bocci (editor) Alcatel-Lucent + Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road + Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ + UK Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Martin Vigoureux (editor) Alcatel-Lucent + Route de Villejust + Nozay, 91620 + France Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com George Swallow Cisco Email: swallow@cisco.com David Ward Cisco Email: dward@cisco.com + Stewart Bryant + Cisco + + Email: stbryant@cisco.com + Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks Email: rahul@juniper.net