draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-05.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Mansfield, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force S. Mansfield, Ed.
Internet-Draft E. Gray, Ed. Internet-Draft E. Gray, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Ericsson Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: July 23, 2010 H. Lam, Ed. Expires: August 26, 2010 K. Lam, Ed.
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
January 19, 2010 February 22, 2010
MPLS-TP Network Management Framework MPLS-TP Network Management Framework
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-04 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-05
Abstract Abstract
This document provides the network management framework for the This document provides the network management framework for the
Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to
describe the management architecture that could be used for an describe the management architecture that could be used for an
MPLS-TP management network. MPLS-TP management network.
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 BSD License. described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Network Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Network Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Element Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Element Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Standard Management Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3. Standard Management Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Management and Control specific terminology . . . . . . . 12 2.4. Management and Control specific terminology . . . . . . . 12
2.5. Management Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5. Management Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.1. Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Alarm Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3. Alarm Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. LSP ownership handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. LSP ownership handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document provides the network management framework for the This document provides the network management framework for the
Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
Requirements for network management in an MPLS-TP network are Requirements for network management in an MPLS-TP network are
documented in MPLS-TP NM requirements [3], and this document explains documented in MPLS-TP NM requirements [3], and this document explains
how network elements and networks that support MPLS-TP can be managed how network elements and networks that support MPLS-TP can be managed
using solutions that satisfy those requirements. using solutions that satisfy those requirements. The relationship
between OAM, management and other framework documents is described in
the MPLS-TP framework [4] document.
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 PWE3 architectures to support the Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network. capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to
describe the management architecture that could be used for an describe the management architecture that could be used for an
MPLS-TP management network. The terminology listed below are taken MPLS-TP management network. The terminology listed below are taken
from/based on the definitions found in ITU-T G.7710 [6], ITU-T G.7712 from/based on the definitions found in ITU-T G.7710 [6], ITU-T G.7712
[7] and ITU-T M.3013 [11]. [7] and ITU-T M.3013 [13].
o Communication Channel (CCh): A logical channel between network o Communication Channel (CCh): A logical channel between network
elements (NEs) that can be used in (for example) management plane elements (NEs) that can be used in (for example) management plane
applications or control plane applications. For MPLS-TP, the applications or control plane applications. For MPLS-TP, the
physical channel supporting the CCh is the MPLS-TP Management physical channel supporting the CCh is the MPLS-TP Management
Communication Channel (MCC). Communication Channel (MCC).
o Data Communication Network (DCN): A network that supports Layer 1 o Data Communication Network (DCN): A network that supports Layer 1
(physical), Layer 2 (data-link), and Layer 3 (network) (physical), Layer 2 (data-link), and Layer 3 (network)
functionality for distributed management communications related to functionality for distributed management communications related to
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 14
MPLS-TP framework [4]. MPLS-TP framework [4].
o Management Application Function (MAF): An application process that o Management Application Function (MAF): An application process that
participates in system management. See ITU-T G.7710 [6]. participates in system management. See ITU-T G.7710 [6].
o Management Communication Channel (MCC): A CCh dedicated for o Management Communication Channel (MCC): A CCh dedicated for
management plane communications. See ITU-T G.7712 [7]. management plane communications. See ITU-T G.7712 [7].
o Message Communication Function (MCF): The communications process o Message Communication Function (MCF): The communications process
that performs functions such as information interchange and relay. that performs functions such as information interchange and relay.
See ITU-T M.3013 [11]. See ITU-T M.3013 [13].
o Management Communication Network (MCN): A DCN supporting o Management Communication Network (MCN): A DCN supporting
management plane communication is referred to as a Management management plane communication is referred to as a Management
Communication Network (MCN). See ITU-T G.7712 [7]. Communication Network (MCN). See ITU-T G.7712 [7].
o MPLS-TP NE: A network element (NE) that supports MPLS-TP o MPLS-TP NE: A network element (NE) that supports MPLS-TP
functions. Another term that is used for a network element is functions. Another term that is used for a network element is
node. In terms of this document, the term node is equivalent to node. In terms of this document, the term node is equivalent to
NE. NE.
o MPLS-TP network: A network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed. o MPLS-TP network: A network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed.
o Network Element Function (NEF): The set of functions necessary to o Network Element Function (NEF): The set of functions necessary to
manage a network element. See ITU-T M.3010 [9]. manage a network element. See ITU-T M.3010 [11].
o Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM): For the MPLS-TP
effort the term OAM means the set of tools that consist of
"operation" activities that are undertaken to keep the network up
and running, "administration" activities that keep track of
resources in the network and how they are used, and "maintenance"
activities that facilitate repairs and upgrades. For a complete
expansion of the acronym see The OAM Acronym Soup [15].
o Operations System (OS): A system that performs the functions that o Operations System (OS): A system that performs the functions that
support processing of information related to operations, support processing of information related to operations,
administration, maintenance, and provisioning (OAM&P) (see The OAM administration, maintenance, and provisioning (OAM&P) (see The OAM
Acronym Soup [13]) for the networks, including surveillance and Acronym Soup [15]) for the networks, including surveillance and
testing functions to support customer access maintenance. See testing functions to support customer access maintenance. See
ITU-T M.3010 [9]. ITU-T M.3010 [11].
o Signaling Communication Network (SCN): A DCN supporting control o Signaling Communication Network (SCN): A DCN supporting control
plane communication is referred to as a Signaling Communication plane communication is referred to as a Signaling Communication
Network (SCN). See ITU-T G.7712 [7]. Network (SCN). See ITU-T G.7712 [7].
o Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): A CCh dedicated for control o Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): A CCh dedicated for control
plane communications. The SCC may be used for GMPLS/ASON plane communications. The SCC may be used for GMPLS/ASON
signaling and/or other control plane messages (e.g., routing signaling and/or other control plane messages (e.g., routing
messages). See ITU-T G.7712 [7]. messages). See ITU-T G.7712 [7].
2. Management Architecture 2. Management Architecture
The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on a multi- The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on a multi-
tiered distributed management systems, for example as described in tiered distributed management systems, for example as described in
ITU-T M.3010 [9] and ITU-T M.3060/Y.2401 [10]. Each tier provides a ITU-T M.3010 [11] and ITU-T M.3060/Y.2401 [12]. Each tier provides a
predefined level of network management capabilities. The lowest tier predefined level of network management capabilities. The lowest tier
of this organization model includes the MPLS-TP Network Element that of this organization model includes the MPLS-TP Network Element that
provides the transport service and the Operations System (OS) at the provides the transport service and the Operations System (OS) at the
Element Management Level. The Management Application Function (MAF) Element Management Level. The Management Application Function (MAF)
within the NEs and OSs provides the management support. The MAF at within the NEs and OSs provides the management support. The MAF at
each entity can include agents only, managers only, or both agents each entity can include agents only, managers only, or both agents
and managers. The MAF that include managers are capable of managing and managers. The MAF that include managers are capable of managing
an agent included in other MAF. an agent included in other MAF.
The management communication to peer NEs and/or Operations Systems The management communication to peer NEs and/or Operations Systems
skipping to change at page 14, line 33 skipping to change at page 14, line 33
to turn fault causes (events) into failures (alarms). to turn fault causes (events) into failures (alarms).
3.3. Alarm Handling 3.3. Alarm Handling
Within an element management system, it is important to consider Within an element management system, it is important to consider
mechanisms to support severity assignment, alarm reporting control, mechanisms to support severity assignment, alarm reporting control,
and logging. and logging.
4. Configuration Management 4. Configuration Management
Configuration management provides the mechanisms to provision the Configuration management provides the mechanisms to:
MPLS-TP services, setup security for the MPLS-TP services and MPLS-TP
network elements, and provides the destination for fault
notifications and performance parameters. Inventory reporting is
also considered part of configuration management.
Associated with configuration management are hardware and software o provision the MPLS-TP services
provisioning and inventory reporting.
o setup security for the MPLS-TP services and MPLS-TP network
elements
o provide the destination for fault notifications and performance
parameters
o configure and control OAM
Also associated with configuration management are hardware and
software provisioning and inventory reporting.
4.1. LSP ownership handover 4.1. LSP ownership handover
MPLS-TP networks can be managed not only by Network Management MPLS-TP networks can be managed not only by Network Management
Systems (i.e. Management Plane (MP)), but also by Control Plane (CP) Systems (i.e. Management Plane (MP)), but also by Control Plane (CP)
protocols. The utilization of the control plane is not a mandatory protocols. The utilization of the control plane is not a mandatory
requirement (see MPLS-TP Requirements [2]) but it is often used by requirement (see MPLS-TP Requirements [2]) but it is often used by
network operators in order to make network configuration and Label network operators in order to make network configuration and Label
Switched Path (LSP) recovery both faster and simpler. Switched Path (LSP) recovery both faster and simpler.
skipping to change at page 15, line 17 skipping to change at page 15, line 26
data plane resources comprising that LSP. Only the owner of an LSP data plane resources comprising that LSP. Only the owner of an LSP
is typically able to modify/delete it. This results in a need for is typically able to modify/delete it. This results in a need for
interaction between the MP and CP to allow either to manage all the interaction between the MP and CP to allow either to manage all the
resources of a network. resources of a network.
Network operators might prefer to have full control of the network Network operators might prefer to have full control of the network
resources during the set-up phase and then allow the network to be resources during the set-up phase and then allow the network to be
automatically maintained by the Control Plane. This can be achieved automatically maintained by the Control Plane. This can be achieved
by creating LSPs via the Management Plane and subsequently by creating LSPs via the Management Plane and subsequently
transferring LSP ownership to the Control Plane. This is referred to transferring LSP ownership to the Control Plane. This is referred to
as "ownership handover" RFC 5493 [8]. MP to CP ownership handover is as "ownership handover" RFC 5493 [10]. MP to CP ownership handover
then considered a requirement where a Control Plane is in use that is then considered a requirement where a Control Plane is in use that
supports it. The converse (CP to MP ownership handover) is a feature supports it. The converse (CP to MP ownership handover) is a feature
that is recommended - but not required - for (G)MPLS networks because that is recommended - but not required - for (G)MPLS networks because
it has only minor applications (for example moving LSPs from one path it has only minor applications (for example moving LSPs from one path
to another as a maintenance operation). to another as a maintenance operation).
The LSP handover procedure has already been standardized for GMPLS The LSP handover procedure has already been standardized for GMPLS
networks, where the signaling protocol used is RSVP-TE RFC 3209 [1]. networks, where the signaling protocol used is RSVP-TE RFC 3209 [1].
The utilization of RSVP-TE enhancements are defined in [5]. The utilization of RSVP-TE enhancements are defined in [5].
MP and CP interworking includes also the exchange of information that MP and CP interworking includes also the exchange of information that
skipping to change at page 15, line 43 skipping to change at page 16, line 4
operations it performs and to provide a mechanism to monitor the operations it performs and to provide a mechanism to monitor the
status of Control Plane objects (e.g. TE Link status, available status of Control Plane objects (e.g. TE Link status, available
resources), and to log Control Plane LSP related operations. Logging resources), and to log Control Plane LSP related operations. Logging
is one of the most critical aspects because the MP always needs to is one of the most critical aspects because the MP always needs to
have an accurate history and status of each LSP and all Data Plane have an accurate history and status of each LSP and all Data Plane
resources involved in it. resources involved in it.
5. Performance Management 5. Performance Management
Performance statistics could overwhelm a Management Network, so it is Performance statistics could overwhelm a Management Network, so it is
important to provide flexible instrumentation that provides control important to provide flexible instrumentation that enables control
over the amount of performance data to be collected. over the amount of performance data to be collected. Mechanisms for
limiting the quantity of information collected are well known and
deployed in IETF standards (see RFC 2819 (RMON) [8] and RFC 4502
(RMON2) [9]). The details of the performance data collected
(including loss and delay measurement data) are found in the MPLS-TP
NM requirements [3] document.
A distinction is made between performance data that is collected on- A distinction is made between performance data that is collected on-
demand and data that is collected proactively. demand and data that is collected proactively. The definitions of
on-demand and proactive measurement are provided for OAM in the
MPLS-TP NM requirements [3] document.
On-demand measurement provides the operator with the ability to do On-demand measurement provides the operator with the ability to do
performance measurement for maintenance purpose such as diagnosis or performance measurement for maintenance purpose such as diagnosis or
to provide detailed verification of proactive measurement. It is to provide detailed verification of proactive measurement. It is
used typically on specific LSP service instances for a limited time, used typically on specific LSP service instances for a limited time,
thus limiting its impact on network performance under normal thus limiting its impact on network performance under normal
operations. Therefore on demand measurement does not result in operations. Therefore on demand measurement does not result in
scaling issues. scaling issues.
Proactive measurement is used continuously over time after being Proactive measurement is used continuously over time after being
skipping to change at page 16, line 26 skipping to change at page 16, line 42
information to the OS. As a consequence of these considerations, information to the OS. As a consequence of these considerations,
operators would typically limit the services to which proactive operators would typically limit the services to which proactive
performance measurement would be applied to a very selective subset performance measurement would be applied to a very selective subset
of the services being provided and would limit the reporting of this of the services being provided and would limit the reporting of this
information to statistical summaries (as opposed to raw or detailed information to statistical summaries (as opposed to raw or detailed
performance statistics). performance statistics).
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors/editors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful review, The authors/editors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful review,
comments and explanations provided by Diego Caviglia and Bernd comments and explanations provided by Diego Caviglia, Bernd Zeuner
Zeuner. and Dan Romascanu.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Provisions to any of the network mechanisms designed to satisfy the The ability for the authorized network operator to access EMF
requirements described herein need to prevent their unauthorized use interfaces (section 2.3) when needed is critical to proper operation.
and provide a means for an operator to prevent denial of service Therefore the EMF interfaces need to be protected from denial of
attacks if those network mechanisms are used in such an attack. service conditions or attack. The EMF Interfaces that use or access
private information should be protected from eavesdropping, mis-
Solutions need to provide mechanisms to prevent private information configuration, and/or mal-configuration by unauthorized network
from being accessed by unauthorized eavesdropping, or being directly elements, systems, or users.
obtained by an unauthenticated network element, system or user.
Performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization Performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization
involves extracting a significant amount of information about network involves extracting a significant amount of information about network
construction that the network operator considers private. construction that the network operator considers private.
Section 4.3 of the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks Section 4.3 of the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks
[14] document provides a description of the attacks on the Operation
[12] document provides a description of the attacks on Operations, and Management Plane and also discusses the background necessary to
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) (see The OAM Acronym Soup [13]) understand security practices in Internet Service Provider
and also discusses the background necessary to understand security environments. The security practices described are applicable to
practices in Internet Service Provider environments. The security MPLS-TP environments.
practices described are applicable to MPLS-TP environments.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[1] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and [1] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and
G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001. RFC 3209, December 2001.
[2] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and [2] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and
S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654,
September 2009. September 2009.
[3] Mansfield, S. and K. Lam, "MPLS TP Network Management [3] Mansfield, S. and K. Lam, "MPLS TP Network Management
Requirements", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-06 (work in progress), Requirements", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-06 (work in progress),
October 2009. October 2009.
[4] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A [4] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A
Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07 (work in progress), draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-10 (work in progress),
December 2009. February 2010.
[5] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Li, D., and S. Bardalai, "RSVP-TE [5] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Li, D., and S. Bardalai, "RSVP-TE
Signaling Extension For Management Plane To Control Plane LSP Signaling Extension For Management Plane To Control Plane LSP
Handover In A GMPLS Enabled Transport Network.", Handover In A GMPLS Enabled Transport Network.",
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-07 (work in progress),
January 2010. February 2010.
[6] International Telecommunication Union, "Common equipment [6] International Telecommunication Union, "Common equipment
management function requirements", ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/ management function requirements", ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/
Y.1701, July 2007. Y.1701, July 2007.
[7] International Telecommunication Union, "Architecture and [7] International Telecommunication Union, "Architecture and
specification of data communication network", ITU- specification of data communication network", ITU-
T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, June 2008. T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, June 2008.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[8] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan, [8] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.
[9] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006.
[10] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan,
"Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections "Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections
and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493, April 2009. Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493, April 2009.
[9] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for a [11] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for a
telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3010, April 2005. M.3010, April 2005.
[10] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for the [12] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for the
Management of Next Generation Networks", ITU-T Recommendation Management of Next Generation Networks", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3060/Y.2401, March 2006. M.3060/Y.2401, March 2006.
[11] International Telecommunication Union, "Considerations for a [13] International Telecommunication Union, "Considerations for a
telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3013, February 2000. M.3013, February 2000.
[12] Fang, L. and M. Behringer, "Security Framework for MPLS and [14] Fang, L. and M. Behringer, "Security Framework for MPLS and
GMPLS Networks", GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07 (work in draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07 (work in
progress), October 2009. progress), October 2009.
[13] Andersson, L., Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., and D. Romascanu, [15] Andersson, L., Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu, D., and S.
"The OAM Acronym Soup", Mansfield, ""The OAM Acronym Soup"",
draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-03 (work in progress),
January 2010. February 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Scott Mansfield (editor) Scott Mansfield (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
250 Holger Way 300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US US
Phone: +1 724 931 9316 Phone: +1 724 931 9316
Email: scott.mansfield@ericsson.com Email: scott.mansfield@ericsson.com
Eric Gray (editor) Eric Gray (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street 900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851 Lowell, MA 01851
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
57 lines changed or deleted 84 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/