draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-04.txt 
MPLS D. Frost, Ed. MPLS D. Frost, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Bryant, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Bryant, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems
Expires: October 22, 2011 April 20, 2011 Expires: January 20, 2012 July 19, 2011
A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-04
Abstract Abstract
Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate
accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks
networks are defined in RFC XXXX. are defined in RFC XXXX.
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol
functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet- functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet-
switched transport networks. switched transport networks.
This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay,
and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the
specific requirements of MPLS-TP. specific requirements of MPLS-TP.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
skipping to change at page 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 20, 2012.
Copyright 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
The use of the profile specified in this document is purely optional. The use of the profile specified in this document is purely optional.
Implementors wishing to provide enhanced functionality that is within Implementors wishing to provide enhanced functionality that is within
the scope of [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] but outside the scope of this the scope of [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] but outside the scope of this
profile may do so, whether or not the implementation is restricted to profile may do so, whether or not the implementation is restricted to
the transport network context. the transport network context.
The assumption of this profile is that the devices involved in a The assumption of this profile is that the devices involved in a
measurement operation are configured for measurement by a means measurement operation are configured for measurement by a means
external to the measurement protocols themselves, for example via a external to the measurement protocols themselves, for example via a
Network Management System (NMS) or separate configuration protocol. Network Management System (NMS) or separate configuration protocol.
The manageability considerations in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] apply,
and further information on MPLS-TP network management can be found in
[RFC5950].
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.
2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations 2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations
Several of the considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] The measurement considerations discussed in Section 2.9 of
can be disregarded in the more restrictive context of MPLS-TP: [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] apply also in the context of MPLS-TP,
except for the following, which pertain to topologies excluded from
MPLS-TP:
o Equal Cost Multipath considerations (Section 2.7.3 of o Equal Cost Multipath considerations (Section 2.9.4 of
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay])
o Considerations for direct LM in the presence of Label Switched o Considerations for direct Loss Measurement (LM) in the presence of
Paths constructed via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or Label Switched Paths constructed via the Label Distribution
utilizing Penultimate Hop Popping (Section 2.7.6 of Protocol (LDP) or utilizing Penultimate Hop Popping (Section 2.9.8
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) of [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay])
3. Packet Loss Measurement (LM) Profile 3. Packet Loss Measurement (LM) Profile
When an LM session is externally configured, the values of several When an LM session is externally configured, the values of several
protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved
in the session, so that negotiation of these parameters is not in the session, so that negotiation of these parameters is not
required. These parameters, and their default values as specified by required. These parameters, and their default values as specified by
this profile, are as follows: this profile, are as follows:
Parameter Default Value Parameter Default Value
----------------------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------
Query control code In-band response requested Query control code In-band response requested
Byte/packet Count (B) Flag Packet count Byte/packet Count (B) Flag Packet count
Traffic-Class-specific (T) Flag Traffic-class-scoped Traffic-Class-specific (T) Flag Traffic-class-scoped
Origin Timestamp Format (OTF) IEEE 1588 version 1 Origin Timestamp Format (OTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
A simple implementation may assume that external configuration will A simple implementation may assume that external configuration will
ensure that both ends of the communication are using the default ensure that both ends of the communication are using the default
values for these parameters. Implementations are, however, strongly values for these parameters. Implementations are, however, strongly
advised to validate the values of these parameters in received advised to validate the values of these parameters in received
messages so that configuration inconsistencies can be detected and messages so that configuration inconsistencies can be detected and
reported. reported.
LM message rates (and test message rates, when inferred LM is used) LM message rates (and test message rates, when inferred LM is used)
should be configurable by the network operator on a per-channel should be configurable by the network operator on a per-channel
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
When a DM session is externally configured, the values of several When a DM session is externally configured, the values of several
protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved
in the session, so that negotiation of these parameters is not in the session, so that negotiation of these parameters is not
required. These parameters, and their default values as specified by required. These parameters, and their default values as specified by
this profile, are as follows: this profile, are as follows:
Parameter Default Value Parameter Default Value
------------------------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------
Query control code In-band response requested Query control code In-band response requested
Querier Timestamp Format (QTF) IEEE 1588 version 1 Querier Timestamp Format (QTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Responder Timestamp Format (RTF) IEEE 1588 version 1 Responder Timestamp Format (RTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Responder's Preferred Timestamp Format IEEE 1588 version 1 Responder's Preferred Timestamp Format Truncated IEEE 1588v2
(RPTF) (RPTF)
This profile uses the MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) Channel Type in the This profile uses the MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) Channel Type in the
Associated Channel Header (ACH). Associated Channel Header (ACH).
A simple implementation may assume that external configuration will A simple implementation may assume that external configuration will
ensure that both ends of the communication are using the default ensure that both ends of the communication are using the default
values for these parameters. Implementations are, however, strongly values for these parameters. Implementations are, however, strongly
advised to validate the values of these parameters in received advised to validate the values of these parameters in received
messages so that configuration inconsistencies can be detected and messages so that configuration inconsistencies can be detected and
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
DM message rates should be configurable by the network operator on a DM message rates should be configurable by the network operator on a
per-channel basis. The following message intervals should be per-channel basis. The following message intervals should be
supported: 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, 10 minutes. supported: 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, 10 minutes.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document delineates a subset of the procedures specified in This document delineates a subset of the procedures specified in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay], and as such introduces no new security [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay], and as such introduces no new security
considerations in itself. The security considerations discussed in considerations in itself. The security considerations discussed in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] apply also to the profile presented in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] apply also to the profile presented in
this document. this document. General considerations for MPLS-TP network security
can be found in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document introduces no new IANA considerations. This document introduces no new IANA considerations.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]
Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", Measurement for MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay-03 (work in progress),
February 2011. June 2011.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework]
Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., and S. Mansfield, "MPLS-TP
Security Framework",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-01 (work in
progress), May 2011.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
RFC 5921, July 2010. RFC 5921, July 2010.
[RFC5950] Mansfield, S., Gray, E., and K. Lam, "Network Management
Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC 5950,
September 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dan Frost (editor) Dan Frost (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: danfrost@cisco.com Email: danfrost@cisco.com
Stewart Bryant (editor) Stewart Bryant (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 37 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/