draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-07.txt 
Network Working Group A. Farrel Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Informational H. Endo Intended status: Informational H. Endo
Expires: October 5, 2013 Hitachi, Ltd. Expires: October 24, 2013 Hitachi, Ltd.
R. Winter R. Winter
NEC NEC
Y. Koike Y. Koike
NTT NTT
M. Paul M. Paul
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
April 3, 2013 April 22, 2013
Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-06 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-07
Abstract Abstract
The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how Maintenance within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how Maintenance
Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within
network nodes at the incoming and outgoing interfaces. network nodes at the incoming and outgoing interfaces.
This document elaborates on important considerations for internal MIP This document elaborates on important considerations for internal MIP
addressing. More precisely it describes important restrictions for addressing. More precisely it describes important restrictions for
any mechanism that specifies a way of forming OAM messages so that any mechanism that specifies a way of forming OAM messages so that
they can be targeted at MIPs on incoming or MIPs on outgoing they can be targeted at MIPs on incoming or MIPs on outgoing
interfaces and forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine. interfaces and forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine.
Furthermore, the document includes considerations for node Furthermore, the document includes considerations for node
implementations where there is no distinction between the incoming implementations where there is no distinction between the incoming
and outgoing MIP. and outgoing MIP.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 5, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Summary of the Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Summary of the Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Requirements and Design Considerations for Internal-MIP 5. Requirements and Design Considerations for Internal-MIP
Adressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Adressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)(the MPLS-TP OAM within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)(the MPLS-TP OAM
Framework, [RFC6371]) distinguishes two configurations for Framework, [RFC6371]) distinguishes two configurations for
Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) on a node. It Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) on a node. It
defines per-node MIPs and per-interface MIPs, where a per-node MIP is defines per-node MIPs and per-interface MIPs, where a per-node MIP is
a single MIP per node in an unspecified location within the node and a single MIP per node in an unspecified location within the node and
per-interface MIPs are two (or more) MIPs per node on each side of per-interface MIPs are two (or more) MIPs per node on each side of
skipping to change at page 5, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
directed maintenance action to resume normal network operation. directed maintenance action to resume normal network operation.
The following two figures illustrate the fundamental difference of The following two figures illustrate the fundamental difference of
using per-node and per-interface MEPs and MIPs for OAM. Figure 2 using per-node and per-interface MEPs and MIPs for OAM. Figure 2
depicts OAM using per-node MIPs and MEPs. For reasons of exposition depicts OAM using per-node MIPs and MEPs. For reasons of exposition
we pick a location for the MIPs on the nodes but the standard does we pick a location for the MIPs on the nodes but the standard does
not mandate the exact location for the per-node model. Figure 3 on not mandate the exact location for the per-node model. Figure 3 on
the other hand shows the same basic network but for OAM operations the other hand shows the same basic network but for OAM operations
per-interface maintenance points are configured. Note that these per-interface maintenance points are configured. Note that these
figures are merely examples. It is important to note that per- figures are merely examples. It is important to note that per-
interface MEPs or per-interface MIPs have to logically be placed at a interface MEPs or per-interface MIPs MUST logically be placed at a
point before (for in-MIP) or after (for out-MIP) passing the point before (for in-MIP) or after (for out-MIP) passing the
forwarding engine as defined in [RFC6371]. It has to be assured that forwarding engine as defined in [RFC6371]. It MUST be assured that
all traffic for which the MEP/MIP is associated with must pass all traffic for which the MEP/MIP is associated with must pass
through or be terminated at that point. through or be terminated at that point.
Customer| Operator's administrative | Customer Customer| Operator's administrative | Customer
Domain | Domain | Domain Domain | Domain | Domain
------> |<--------------------------------------->| <------ ------> |<--------------------------------------->| <------
CE1 | T-PE/PE1 S-PE/P1 T-PE/PE2 | CE2 CE1 | T-PE/PE1 S-PE/P1 T-PE/PE2 | CE2
| <--------> <--------> <--------> | | <--------> <--------> <--------> |
+---+ | +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ | +---+ +---+ | +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ | +---+
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 18 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/