draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-02.txt 
Network Working Group Hing-Kam Lam Network Working Group Hing-Kam Lam
Internet Draft Alcatel-Lucent Internet Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: October, 2009 Scott Mansfield Expires: December, 2009 Scott Mansfield
Intended Status: Informational Eric Gray Intended Status: Standards Track Eric Gray
Ericsson Ericsson
April 15, 2009 June 24, 2009
MPLS TP Network Management Requirements MPLS TP Network Management Requirements
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-01.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts. documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress." 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 October 15, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the requirements necessary to manage the This document specifies the requirements for the management of
elements and networks that support an MPLS Transport Profile equipment used in networks supporting an MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP). This document is a product of a joint International (MPLS-TP). The requirements are defined for specification of
Telecommunications Union - Telecommunications Standardization network management aspects of protocol mechanisms and procedures
Sector (ITU-T) and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) effort that constitute the building blocks out of which the MPLS
to include a MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS transport profile is constructed. That is, these requirements
architecture. The requirements are driven by the management indicate what management capabilities need to be available in
functionality needs defined by ITU-T for packet transport MPLS for use in managing the MPLS-TP. This document is intended
networks. to identify essential network management capabilities, not to
specify what functions any particular MPLS implementation
supports.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................3 1. Introduction................................................3
1.1. Terminology............................................3 1.1. Terminology............................................4
2. Management Interface Requirements...........................4 2. Management Interface Requirements...........................6
3. Management Communication Channel (MCC) Requirements.........4 3. Management Communication Channel (MCC) Requirements.........6
4. Management Communication Network (MCN) Requirements.........5 4. Management Communication Network (MCN) Requirements.........6
5. Fault Management Requirements...............................5 5. Fault Management Requirements...............................8
5.1. Supervision Function...................................5 5.1. Supervision Function...................................8
5.2. Validation Function....................................6 5.2. Validation Function....................................9
5.3. Alarm Handling Function................................7 5.3. Alarm Handling Function...............................10
5.3.1. Alarm Severity Assignment.........................7 5.3.1. Alarm Severity Assignment........................10
5.3.2. Alarm Suppression.................................7 5.3.2. Alarm Suppression................................10
5.3.3. Alarm Reporting Control...........................8 5.3.3. Alarm Reporting..................................11
5.3.4. Alarm Reporting...................................8 5.3.4. Alarm Reporting Control..........................11
6. Configuration Management Requirements.......................8 6. Configuration Management Requirements......................11
6.1. System Configuration...................................9 6.1. System Configuration..................................12
6.2. Control Plane Configuration............................9 6.2. Control Plane Configuration...........................12
6.3. Path Configuration.....................................9 6.3. Path Configuration....................................12
6.4. Protection Configuration...............................9 6.4. Protection Configuration..............................13
6.5. OAM Configuration.....................................10 6.5. OAM Configuration.....................................13
7. Performance Management Requirements........................10 7. Performance Management Requirements........................14
7.1. Path Characterization Performance Metrics.............10 7.1. Path Characterization Performance Metrics.............14
7.2. Performance Measurement Instrumentation..............12 7.2. Performance Measurement Instrumentation...............15
7.2.1. Measurement Frequency............................12 7.2.1. Measurement Frequency............................15
7.2.2. Measurement Scope................................12 7.2.2. Measurement Scope................................16
8. Security Management Requirements...........................13 8. Security Management Requirements...........................16
8.1. Management Communication Channel Security.............13 8.1. Management Communication Channel Security.............16
8.2. Signaling Communication Channel Security..............13 8.2. Signaling Communication Channel Security..............17
8.3. Distributed Denial of Service.........................13 8.3. Distributed Denial of Service.........................17
9. Security Considerations....................................14 9. Security Considerations....................................18
10. IANA Considerations......................................14 10. IANA Considerations.......................................18
11. Acknowledgments...........................................14 11. Acknowledgments...........................................18
12. References................................................14 12. References................................................18
12.1. Normative References.................................14 12.1. Normative References.................................18
12.2. Informative References...............................15 12.2. Informative References...............................19
13. Author's Addresses........................................16 Author's Addresses............................................21
Copyright Statement...........................................16 Copyright Statement...........................................21
Acknowledgment................................................17 Acknowledgment................................................22
APPENDIX A: Communication Channel (CC) Examples...............18 APPENDIX A: Communication Channel (CCh) Examples..............23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the requirements necessary to manage the This document specifies the requirements for the management of
elements and networks that support an MPLS Transport Profile equipment used in networks supporting an MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP). It leverages the management requirements specified (MPLS-TP). The requirements are defined for specification of
in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 [1] and RFC 4377 [2]. ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 network management aspects of protocol mechanisms and procedures
[1] specifies generic management requirements for transport that constitute the building blocks out of which the MPLS
(including packet-based and circuit-based) networks. RFC 4377 transport profile is constructed. That is, these requirements
specifies the OAM requirements, including OAM-related network indicate what management capabilities need to be available in
management requirements, for MPLS networks. This document MPLS for use in managing the MPLS-TP. This document is intended
expands on the requirements in [1] and [2] to cover fault, to identify essential network management capabilities, not to
configuration, performance, and security management for MPLS-TP specify what functions any particular MPLS implementation
networks, and the requirements for object and information models supports.
needed to manage MPLS-TP Networks and Network Elements.
This document also leverages management requirements specified
in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 [1] and RFC 4377 [2], and attempts to
comply with best common practice as defined in [18].
ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 defines generic management requirements for
transport networks. RFC 4377 specifies the OAM requirements,
including OAM-related network management requirements, for MPLS
networks.
This document is a product of a joint ITU-T and IETF effort to
include an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) within the IETF MPLS
and PWE3 architectures to support capabilities and functionality
of a transport network as defined by ITU-T.
The requirements in this document derive from two sources:
1) MPLS and PWE3 architectures as defined by IETF, and
2) packet transport networks as defined by ITU-T.
Requirements for management of equipment in MPLS-TP networks are
defined herein. Related functions of MPLS and PWE3 are defined
elsewhere (and are out of scope in this document).
This document expands on the requirements in [1] and [2] to
cover fault, configuration, performance, and security management
for MPLS-TP networks, and the requirements for object and
information models needed to manage MPLS-TP Networks and Network
Elements.
In writing this document, the authors assume the reader is
familiar with references [19] and [20].
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
Although this document is not a protocol specification, the key Although this document is not a protocol specification, the key
words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [6] this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [6]
and are to be interpreted as instructions to protocol designers and are to be interpreted as instructions to protocol designers
producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in
this document. this document.
MPLS-TP NE: a network element (NE) that supports MPLS-TP Anomaly: The smallest discrepancy which can be observed between
functions actual and desired characteristics of an item. The occurrence of
a single anomaly does not constitute an interruption in ability
to perform a required function. Anomalies are used as the input
for the Performance Monitoring (PM) process and for detection of
defects ([27], 3.7).
MPLS-TP network: a network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed Communication Channel (CCh): A logical channel between network
elements (NEs) that can be used - e.g. - for management or
control plane applications. The physical channel supporting the
CCh is technology specific. See APPENDIX A:
Data Communication Network (DCN): a network that supports Layer Data Communication Network (DCN): A network that supports Layer
1 (physical layer), Layer 2 (data-link layer), and Layer 3 1 (physical layer), Layer 2 (data-link layer), and Layer 3
(network layer) functionality for distributed management (network layer) functionality for distributed management
communications related to the management plane, for distributed communications related to the management plane, for distributed
signaling communications related to the control plane, and other signaling communications related to the control plane, and other
operations communications (e.g., order-wire/voice operations communications (e.g., order-wire/voice
communications, software downloads, etc.). communications, software downloads, etc.).
Defect: The density of anomalies has reached a level where the
ability to perform a required function has been interrupted.
Defects are used as input for performance monitoring, the
control of consequent actions, and the determination of fault
cause ([27], 3.24).
Failure: The fault cause persisted long enough to consider the
ability of an item to perform a required function to be
terminated. The item may be considered as failed; a fault has
now been detected ([27], 3.25).
Fault: A fault is the inability of a function to perform a
required action. This does not include an inability due to
preventive maintenance, lack of external resources, or planned
actions ([27], 3.26).
Fault Cause: A single disturbance or fault may lead to the
detection of multiple defects. A fault cause is the result of a
correlation process which is intended to identify the defect
that is representative of the disturbance or fault that is
causing the problem ([27], 3.27).
Fault Cause Indication (FCI): An indication of a fault cause.
Management Communication Channel (MCC): A CCh dedicated for
management plane communications.
Management Communication Network (MCN): A DCN supporting 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). Communication Network (MCN).
Signaling Communication Network (SCN): A DCN supporting control MPLS-TP NE: A network element (NE) that supports the functions
plane communication is referred to as a Signaling Communication of MPLS necessary to participate in an MPLS-TP based transport
Network (SCN). service. See [24] for further information on functionality
required to support MPLS-TP.
Communication Channel (CC): a logical channel between network MPLS-TP network: A network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed.
elements (NEs) that can be used - e.g. - for management plane
application or control plane applications. The physical channel
supporting the CC is technology specific. See APPENDIX A:
Management Communication Channel (MCC): a CC dedicated for OAM, On-Demand and Proactive: One feature of OAM that is largely
management plane communications. a management issue is control of OAM; on-demand and proactive
are modes of OAM mechanism operation defined - for example - in
Y.1731 ([28] - 3.45 and 3.44 respectively) as:
Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): a CC dedicated for - On-demand OAM - OAM actions which are initiated via manual
control plane communications. The SCC may be used for GMPLS/ASON intervention for a limited time to carry out diagnostics.
signaling and/or other control plane messages (e.g., routing On-demand OAM can result in singular or periodic OAM
messages). actions during the diagnostic time interval.
- Proactive OAM - OAM actions which are carried on
continuously to permit timely reporting of fault and/or
performance status.
(Note that it is possible for specific OAM mechanisms to only
have a sensible use in either on-demand or proactive mode.)
Operations System (OS): A system that performs the functions Operations System (OS): A system that performs the functions
that support processing of information related to operations, that support processing of information related to operations,
administration, maintenance, and provisioning (OAM&P) for the administration, maintenance, and provisioning (OAM&P) for the
networks, including surveillance and testing functions to networks, including surveillance and testing functions to
support customer access maintenance. support customer access maintenance.
Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): A CCh dedicated for
control plane communications. The SCC may be used for GMPLS/ASON
signaling and/or other control plane messages (e.g., routing
messages).
Signaling Communication Network (SCN): A DCN supporting control
plane communication is referred to as a Signaling Communication
Network (SCN).
2. Management Interface Requirements 2. Management Interface Requirements
This document does not specify which management interface This document does not specify which management interface
protocol should be the standard protocol for managing MPLS-TP protocol should be used as the standard protocol for managing
networks. Managing an end-to-end connection across multiple MPLS-TP networks. Managing an end-to-end connection across
operator domains where one domain is managed (for example) via multiple operator domains where one domain is managed (for
NETCONF/XML or SNMP/SMI, and another domain via CORBA/IDL, is example) via NETCONF/XML ([21]) or SNMP/SMI ([22]), and another
allowed. domain via CORBA/IDL ([23]), is allowed.
For the management interface to the management system, an MPLS- For the management interface to the management system, an MPLS-
TP NE MAY actively support more than one management protocol in TP NE MAY actively support more than one management protocol in
any given deployment. For example, an MPLS-TP NE may use one any given deployment. For example, an MPLS-TP NE may use one
protocol for configuration and another for monitoring. The protocol for configuration and another for monitoring. The
protocols to be supported are at the discretion of the operator. protocols to be supported are at the discretion of the operator.
3. Management Communication Channel (MCC) Requirements 3. Management Communication Channel (MCC) Requirements
An MPLS-TP management network SHOULD support seamless management Specifications SHOULD define support for management connectivity
connectivity with remote MPLS-TP domains and NEs as well as with with remote MPLS-TP domains and NEs, as well as with termination
termination points located in NEs under control by a third party points located in NEs under the control of a third party network
network operator. See ITU-T G.8601 [8] for example scenarios in operator. See ITU-T G.8601 [8] for example scenarios in multi-
multi-carrier multi-transport-technology environments. carrier multi-transport-technology environments.
For management purpose, every MPLS-TP NE MUST connect to an OS For management purpose, every MPLS-TP NE MUST connect to an OS.
either directly or indirectly via another MPLS-TP NE. When an The connection MAY be direct (e.g. - via a software, hardware or
MPLS-TP NE is connected indirectly to an OS, an MCC MUST be proprietary protocol connection) or indirect (via another MPLS-
supported between the MPLS-TP NE and the other MPLS-TP NE. TP NE). In this document, any management connection that is not
via another MPLS-TP NE is a direct management connection. When
an MPLS-TP NE is connected indirectly to an OS, an MCC MUST be
supported between that MPLS-TP NE and any MPLS-TP NE(s) used to
provide the connection to an OS.
4. Management Communication Network (MCN) Requirements 4. Management Communication Network (MCN) Requirements
Entities of the MPLS-TP management plane communicate via a DCN, Entities of the MPLS-TP management plane communicate via a DCN,
or more specifically via the MCN. The MCN connects MPLS-TP NEs or more specifically via the MCN. The MCN connects management
with management systems, NEs with NEs, and management systems systems with management systems, management systems with MPLS-TP
with management systems. Transport DCN architecture and NEs, and (in the indirect connectivity case discussed in section
requirements are specified in ITU-T G.7712/Y.1703 [7], including 3) MPLS-TP NEs with MPLS-TP NEs.
network layer protocols and their interworking.
As a practical requirement, MCN connections require addressing. RFC 5586 ([10]) defines a Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) to
See the section on addressing in [13] for further information. enable the realization of a communication channel (CCh) between
adjacent MPLS-TP NEs for management and control. Reference [11]
describes how the G-ACh may be used to provide infrastructure
that forms part of the MCN and a SCN. It also explains how MCN
and SCN messages are encapsulated, carried on the G-ACh, and
demultiplexed for delivery to management or signaling/routing
control plane components on a label switching router (LSR).
ITU-T G.7712/Y.1703 [7], section 7, describes the transport DCN
architecture and requirements. The MPLS-TP MCN MUST support the
requirements (in reference [7]) for:
- CCh access functions specified in section 7.1.1;
- MPLS-TP SCC data-link layer termination functions specified
in section 7.1.2.3;
- MPLS-TP MCC data-link layer termination functions specified
in section 7.1.2.4;
- Network layer PDU into CCh data-link frame encapsulation
functions specified in section 7.1.3;
- Network layer PDU forwarding (7.1.6), interworking (7.1.7)
and encapsulation (7.1.8) functions, as well as tunneling
(7.1.9) and routing (7.1.10) functions specified in [7].
As a practical matter, MCN connections will typically have
addresses. See the section on addressing in [15] for further
information.
In order to have the MCN operate properly, a number of In order to have the MCN operate properly, a number of
management functions for the MCN are required, including: management functions for the MCN are needed, including:
. Retrieval of DCN network parameters to ensure compatible - Retrieval of DCN network parameters to ensure compatible
functioning, e.g. packet size, timeouts, quality of functioning, e.g. packet size, timeouts, quality of
service, window size, etc.; service, window size, etc.;
. Establishment of message routing between DCN nodes; - Establishment of message routing between DCN nodes;
. Management of DCN network addresses;
. Retrieval of operational status of the DCN at a given node; - Management of DCN network addresses;
. Capability to enable/disable access to the DCN. - Retrieval of operational status of the DCN at a given node;
- Capability to enable/disable access by an NE to the DCN.
Note that this is to allow isolating a malfunctioning NE
from impacting the rest of the network.
5. Fault Management Requirements 5. Fault Management Requirements
The Fault Management functions within an MPLS-TP NE enable the The Fault Management functions within an MPLS-TP NE enable the
supervision, detection, validation, isolation, correction, and supervision, detection, validation, isolation, correction, and
reporting of abnormal operation of the MPLS-TP network and its reporting of abnormal operation of the MPLS-TP network and its
environment. environment.
5.1. Supervision Function 5.1. Supervision Function
The supervision function analyses the actual occurrence of a The supervision function analyses the actual occurrence of a
disturbance or fault for the purpose of providing an appropriate disturbance or fault for the purpose of providing an appropriate
indication of performance and/or detected fault condition to indication of performance and/or detected fault condition to
maintenance personnel and operations systems. maintenance personnel and operations systems.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support supervision of the OAM mechanisms The MPLS-TP NE MUST support supervision of the OAM mechanisms
that are deployed for supporting the OAM requirements defined in that are deployed for supporting the OAM requirements defined in
[3]. [3].
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the following transmission The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the following data-plane forwarding
supervision functions: path supervision functions:
. Supervision of looping check functions used to detect loops - Supervision of loop-checking functions used to detect loops
in the data-plane forwarding path (which result in non- in the data-plane forwarding path (which result in non-
delivery of traffic, wasting of forwarding resources and delivery of traffic, wasting of forwarding resources and
unintended self-replication of traffic); unintended self-replication of traffic);
. Supervision of the detection of failure in the sequence of - Supervision of failure detection;
a protocol exchange (e.g. automatic protection switching
protocol);
The MPLS-TP NE transmission-related supervision mechanisms MUST The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability to configure data-
support the flexibility to be configured to perform on-demand or plane forwarding path related supervision mechanisms to perform
proactively. on-demand or proactively.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support supervision for software processing The MPLS-TP NE MUST support supervision for software processing
e.g., processing fault, storage capacity problem, version e.g., processing faults, storage capacity, version mismatch,
mismatch, corrupted data, out of memory, etc. corrupted data and out of memory problems, etc.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support hardware-related supervision for The MPLS-TP NE MUST support hardware-related supervision for
interchangeable and non-interchangeable units, cable, and power interchangeable and non-interchangeable unit, cable, and power
problem. problems.
The MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support environment-related supervision The MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support environment-related supervision
for temperature, humidity, etc. for temperature, humidity, etc.
5.2. Validation Function 5.2. Validation Function
Validation is concerned with the integration of Fault Causes Validation is the process of integrating Fault Cause indications
into Failures. A Fault Cause indicates a limited interruption of into Failures. A Fault Cause Indication (FCI) indicates a
the required transport function. A Fault Cause is not reported limited interruption of the required transport function. A Fault
to maintenance personnel because it could exist only for a very Cause is not reported to maintenance personnel because it might
short time. Note that some of these events however are summed up exist only for a very short time. Note that some of these events
in the Performance Monitoring process, and when this sum exceeds are summed up in the Performance Monitoring process (see section
a certain value, a Threshold Report can be generated. 7), and when this sum exceeds a configured value, a threshold
crossing alert (report) can be generated.
When the Fault Cause lasts long enough, an inability to perform When the Fault Cause lasts long enough, an inability to perform
the required transport function arises. This Failure condition the required transport function arises. This failure condition
is subject to reporting to maintenance personnel and/or an OS is subject to reporting to maintenance personnel and/or an OS
because corrective action might be required. Conversely, when because corrective action might be required. Conversely, when
the Fault Cause ceases after a certain time, clearing of the the Fault Cause ceases after a certain time, clearing of the
Failure condition is also subject to reporting. Failure condition is also subject to reporting.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST perform persistency checks on fault causes The MPLS-TP NE MUST perform persistency checks on fault causes
before it declares a fault cause a failure. before it declares a fault cause a failure.
A transmission failure SHALL be declared if the fault cause The MPLS-TP NE SHOULD provide a configuration capability for
persists continuously for a configurable time (Time-D). The control parameters associated with performing the persistency
failure SHALL be cleared if the fault cause is absent checks described above.
continuously for a configurable time (Time-C). Typically the
default time values would be as follows: An MPLS-TP NE MAY provide configuration parameters to control
reporting, and clearing, of failure conditions.
A data-plane forwarding path failure MUST be declared if the
fault cause persists continuously for a configurable time (Time-
D). The failure MUST be cleared if the fault cause is absent
continuously for a configurable time (Time-C).
Note: As an example, the default time values might be as
follows:
Time-D = 2.5 +/- 0.5 seconds Time-D = 2.5 +/- 0.5 seconds
Time-C = 10 +/- 0.5 seconds Time-C = 10 +/- 0.5 seconds
These time values are as defined in G.7710 [1]. These time values are as defined in G.7710 [1].
MIBs - or other object management semantics specifications -
defined to enable configuration of these timers SHOULD
explicitly provide default values and MAY provide guidelines on
ranges and value determination methods for scenarios where the
default value chosen might be inadequate. In addition, such
specifications SHOULD define the level of granularity at which
tables of these values are to be defined. Examples of levels of
granularity MAY include per-failure-cause and per-deduced-fault.
Implementations MUST provide the ability to configure the
preceding set of timers, and SHOULD provide default values to
enable rapid configuration. Suitable default values, timer
ranges, and level of granularity are out of scope in this
document and form part of the specification of fault management
details. Timers SHOULD be configurable per NE for broad
categories of failure causes and deduced faults, and MAY be
configurable per-interface on an NE or per individual failure
cause or deduced fault.
The failure declaration and clearing MUST be time stamped. The The failure declaration and clearing MUST be time stamped. The
time-stamp SHALL indicate the time at which the fault cause is time-stamp MUST indicate the time at which the fault cause is
activated at the input of the fault cause persistency (i.e. activated at the input of the fault cause persistency (i.e.
defect-to-failure integration) function, and the time at which defect-to-failure integration) function, and the time at which
the fault cause is deactivated at the input of the fault cause the fault cause is deactivated at the input of the fault cause
persistency function. persistency function.
5.3. Alarm Handling Function 5.3. Alarm Handling Function
5.3.1. Alarm Severity Assignment 5.3.1. Alarm Severity Assignment
Failures might be categorized to indicate the severity or Failures can be categorized to indicate the severity or urgency
urgency of the fault. of the fault.
An MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support the flexibility of assignment of An MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support the ability to assign severity
severity (e.g., Critical, Major, Minor, Warning) by the (e.g., Critical, Major, Minor, Warning) to alarm conditions via
management system. configuration.
See G.7710 [1] for more description about alarm severity See G.7710 [1], section 7.2.2 for more detail on alarm severity
assignment. assignment.
5.3.2. Alarm Suppression 5.3.2. Alarm Suppression
Alarms may be generated from many sources, including OAM, device Alarms can be generated from many sources, including OAM, device
status, etc. status, etc.
An MPLS-TP NE MUST provide alarm suppression functionality that An MPLS-TP NE MUST support suppression of alarms based on
prevents the generation of superfluous alarms. configuration.
Examples of alarm suppression mechanisms include simply
discarding the alarms (or not generating them in the first
place), or aggregating the alarms together, thereby greatly
reducing the number of alarm notifications to be emitted.
Note: An MPLS-TP NE supporting the inter-working of one or more
networking technologies (e.g., Ethernet, SDH/SONET, MPLS) with
MPLS-TP needs to translate an MPLS-TP fault into an existing
transport technology failure condition for reporting to the
management system.
See RFC 4377 [2] for more description.
5.3.3. Alarm Reporting Control
Alarm Reporting Control (ARC) supports an automatic in-service
provisioning capability. Alarm reporting MAY be turned off on a
per-managed entity (e.g., LSP) basis to allow sufficient time
for customer service testing and other maintenance activities in
an "alarm free" state. Once a managed entity is ready, alarm
reporting is automatically turned on.
An MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support the Alarm Reporting Control
function for controlling the reporting of alarm conditions.
See G.7710 [1] and RFC 3878 [9] for more description of ARC.
5.3.4. Alarm Reporting 5.3.3. Alarm Reporting
Alarm Reporting is concerned with the reporting of relevant Alarm Reporting is concerned with the reporting of relevant
events and conditions, which occur in the network (including the events and conditions, which occur in the network (including the
NE, incoming signal, and external environment). NE, incoming signal, and external environment).
Local reporting is concerned with automatic alarming by means of Local reporting is concerned with automatic alarming by means of
audible and visual indicators near the failed equipment. audible and visual indicators near the failed equipment.
An MPLS-TP NE MUST support local reporting of alarms. An MPLS-TP NE MUST support local reporting of alarms.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support reporting of alarms to an OS. These The MPLS-TP NE MUST support reporting of alarms to an OS. These
reports are either autonomous reports (notifications) or reports reports are either autonomous reports (notifications) or reports
on request by maintenance personnel. The MPLS-TP NE SHOULD on request by maintenance personnel. The MPLS-TP NE SHOULD
report local (environmental) alarms to a network management report local (environmental) alarms to a network management
system. system.
An MPLS-TP NE supporting one or more other networking
technologies (e.g. - Ethernet, SDH/SONET, MPLS) over MPLS-TP
MUST be capable of translating an MPLS-TP defects into failure
conditions that are meaningful to the client layer, as described
in RFC 4377 [2], section 4.7.
5.3.4. Alarm Reporting Control
Alarm Reporting Control (ARC) supports an automatic in-service
provisioning capability. Alarm reporting can be turned off on a
per-managed entity (e.g., LSP) basis to allow sufficient time
for customer service testing and other maintenance activities in
an "alarm free" state. Once a managed entity is ready, alarm
reporting is automatically turned on.
An MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support the Alarm Reporting Control
function for controlling the reporting of alarm conditions.
See G.7710 [1] (section 7.1.3.2) and RFC 3878 [9] for more
information about ARC.
6. Configuration Management Requirements 6. Configuration Management Requirements
Configuration Management provides functions to identify, collect Configuration Management provides functions to identify, collect
data from, provide data to and control NEs. Specific data from, provide data to and control NEs. Specific
configuration tasks requiring network management support include configuration tasks requiring network management support include
hardware and software configuration, configuration of NEs to hardware and software configuration, configuration of NEs to
support transport paths (including required working and support transport paths (including required working and
protection paths), and configuration of required path protection paths), and configuration of required path
integrity/connectivity and performance monitoring (i.e. - OAM). integrity/connectivity and performance monitoring (i.e. - OAM).
6.1. System Configuration 6.1. System Configuration
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration requirements The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration requirements
specified in G.7710 [1] for hardware, software, and date/time. specified in G.7710 [1] section 8.1 for hardware.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration requirements
specified in G.7710 [1] section 8.2 for software.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration requirements
specified in G.7710 [1] section 8.13.2.1 for local real time
clock functions.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration requirements
specified in G.7710 [1] section 8.13.2.2 for local real time
clock alignment with external time reference.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration requirements
specified in G.7710 [1] section 8.13.2.3 for performance
monitoring of the clock function.
6.2. Control Plane Configuration 6.2. Control Plane Configuration
If a control plane is supported in an implementation of MPLS-TP, If a control plane is supported in an implementation of MPLS-TP,
the MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration of MPLS-TP control the MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration of MPLS-TP control
plane functions by the management plane. Further detailed plane functions by the management plane. Further detailed
requirements might be provided along with progress in defining requirements will be provided along with progress in defining
the MPLS-TP control plane in appropriate specifications. the MPLS-TP control plane in appropriate specifications.
6.3. Path Configuration 6.3. Path Configuration
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability of configuring In addition to the requirement to support static provisioning of
required path performance characteristic thresholds (e.g. - Loss transport paths (defined in [24], section 2.1 - General
Measurement [LM], Delay Measurement [DM] thresholds). Requirements - requirement 18), an MPLS-TP NE MUST support the
configuration of required path performance characteristic
thresholds (e.g. - Loss Measurement [LM], Delay Measurement [DM]
thresholds) necessary to support performance monitoring of the
MPLS-TP service(s).
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability of configuring In order to accomplish this, an MPLS-TP NE MUST support
required LSPs as follows: configuration of LSP information (such as an LSP identifier of
some kind) and/or any other information needed to retrieve LSP
status information, performance attributes, etc.
. configure LSP indentifier and/or other information If a control plane is supported, and that control plane includes
necessary to retrieve LSP status information. support for control-plane/management-plane hand-off for LSP
setup/maintenance, the MPLS-TP NE MUST support management of the
hand-off of Path control. See, for example, references [25] and
[26].
Further detailed requirements will be provided along with
progress in defining the MPLS-TP control plane in appropriate
specifications.
If MPLS-TP transport paths cannot be statically provisioned
using MPLS LSP and pseudo-wire management tools (either already
defined in standards or under development), further management
specifications MUST be provided as needed.
6.4. Protection Configuration 6.4. Protection Configuration
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability of configuring The MPLS-TP NE MUST support configuration of required path
required path protection as follows: protection information as follows:
. Designate specifically identified LSPs as working or - designate specifically identified LSPs as working or
protection LSPs; protection LSPs;
. define associations of working and protection paths;
. operate/release manual protection switching; - define associations of working and protection paths;
. operate/release force protection switching;
. operate/release protection lockout; - operate/release manual protection switching;
. set/retrieve Automatic Protection Switching (APS)
- operate/release force protection switching;
- operate/release protection lockout;
- set/retrieve Automatic Protection Switching (APS)
parameters, including - parameters, including -
. Wait to Restore time,
. Protection Switching threshold information. o Wait to Restore time,
o Protection Switching threshold information.
6.5. OAM Configuration 6.5. OAM Configuration
The MPLS-TP NE MUST provide the capability to configure the OAM The MPLS-TP NE MUST support configuration of the OAM entities
entities and functions specified in [3]. and functions specified in [3].
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability to choose which OAM The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability to choose which OAM
functions to use and which maintenance entity to apply them. functions to use and which maintenance entity will apply them.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability to configure the OAM The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability to configure the OAM
entities/functions as part of LSP setup and tear-down, including entities/functions as part of LSP setup and tear-down, including
co-routed bidirectional point-to-point, associated bidirectional co-routed bidirectional point-to-point, associated bidirectional
point-to-point, and uni-directional (both point-to-point and point-to-point, and uni-directional (both point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint) connections. point-to-multipoint) connections.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration of maintenance The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the configuration of maintenance
entity identifiers (e.g. MEP ID and MIP ID) for the purpose of entity identifiers (e.g. MEP ID and MIP ID) for the purpose of
LSP connectivity checking. LSP connectivity checking.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST have the flexibility to configure OAM The MPLS-TP NE MUST support configuration of OAM parameters to
parameters to meet their specific operational requirements, such meet their specific operational requirements, such as whether -
as whether (1) one-time on-demand immediately or (2) one-time
on-demand pre-scheduled or (3) on-demand periodically based on a 1) one-time on-demand immediately or
specified schedule or (4) proactive on-going.
2) one-time on-demand pre-scheduled or
3) on-demand periodically based on a specified schedule or
4) proactive on-going.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the enabling/disabling of the The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the enabling/disabling of the
connectivity check processing. The connectivity check process of connectivity check processing. The connectivity check process of
the MPLS-TP NE MUST support provisioning of the identifiers to the MPLS-TP NE MUST support provisioning of the identifiers to
be transmitted and the expected identifiers. be transmitted and the expected identifiers.
7. Performance Management Requirements 7. Performance Management Requirements
Performance Management provides functions to evaluate and report Performance Management provides functions for the purpose of
upon the behavior of the equipment, NE, and network for the Maintenance, Bring-into-service, Quality of service, and
purpose of Maintenance, Bring-into-service, Quality of service, statistics gathering.
and Performance monitoring for signal degradation. ITU-T
Recommendation G.7710 [1] provides transport performance This information could be used, for example, to compare behavior
of the equipment, MPLS-TP NE or network at different moments in
time to evaluate changes in network performance.
ITU-T Recommendation G.7710 [1] provides transport performance
monitoring requirements for packet-switched and circuit-switched monitoring requirements for packet-switched and circuit-switched
transport networks with the objective of providing coherent and transport networks with the objective of providing coherent and
consistent interpretation of the network behavior, in particular consistent interpretation of the network behavior in a multi-
for hybrid network which consists of multiple transport technology environment. The performance management requirements
technologies. The performance management requirements specified specified in this document are driven by such an objective.
in this document are driven by such an objective.
7.1. Path Characterization Performance Metrics 7.1. Path Characterization Performance Metrics
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of loss measurement (LM) It MUST be possible to determine when an MPLS-TP based transport
so that they can be used to detect performance degradation. service is available and when it is unavailable.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of delay measurement (DM)
so that they can be used to detect performance degradation.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support reporting of Performance degradation
via fault management for corrective actions (e.g. protection
switching).
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of loss ratio measurement
so that they can be used to determine Severely Errored Second
(SES).
A SES is declared for a one second interval when the ratio of
lost packets to total transmitted packets in that one second
interval exceeds a predetermined threshold.
The packet lost threshold for declaring SES MUST be From a performance perspective, a service is unavailable if
configurable. there is an indication that performance has degraded to the
extent that a configurable performance threshold has been
crossed and the degradation persists long enough (i.e. - the
indication persists for some amount of time - which is either
configurable, or well-known) to be certain it is not a
measurement anomaly.
The number of SESs MUST be collected per configurable intervals Methods, mechanisms and algorithms for exactly how
(e.g. 15-minute and 24-hour). unavailability is to be determined - based on collection of raw
performance data - are out of scope for this document.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of SES measurement so For the purposes of this document, it is sufficient to state
that they can be used to determine service unavailable time. that an MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection, and reporting, of
raw performance data that MAY be used in determining
availability of a transport service, and that implementations
SHOULD support some as yet to be defined mechanism for
determining service availability.
A period of unavailable time (UAT) begins at the onset of 10 The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of loss measurement (LM)
consecutive SES events. These 10 seconds are considered to be statistics.
part of unavailable time. A new period of available time begins
at the onset of 10 consecutive non-SES events. These 10 seconds
are considered to be part of available time.
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of Unavailable Seconds The MPLS-TP NE MUST support collection of delay measurement (DM)
(UAS) so that they can be used to determine service statistics.
availability.
The number of UAS MUST be collected per configurable intervals The MPLS-TP NE MUST support reporting of Performance degradation
(e.g. 15-minute and 24-hour). via fault management for corrective actions. "Reporting" in this
context could mean:
SES and UAS history (the number of readings to be retained and - reporting to an autonomous protection component to trigger
available) is as defined in ITU and ANSI documents associated protection switching,
with specific transport technologies (for instance, ITU-T
G.7710, and ANSI T1.231-2003 [T1.231.01-2003 for DSL,.02 for
DS1,.03 for DS3 and T1.231.04-2003 for SONET] - see [1] and [14]
respectively), however these are fairly consistently defined as
follows:
- Current and previous 1-day statistics - reporting via a craft interface to allow replacement of a
- Current and 16 recent 15-minute statistics (ITU-T) faulty component (or similar manual intervention),
- Current, previous and 31 recent 15-minute statistics (ANSI) - etc.
Note that - worst case (ANSI) requires 2 copies of 1-day The MPLS-TP NE MUST support reporting of performance statistics
statistics (current and previous) and 33 copies of 15-minute on request from a management system.
statistics (current, previous and 31 recent).
7.2. Performance Measurement Instrumentation 7.2. Performance Measurement Instrumentation
7.2.1. Measurement Frequency 7.2.1. Measurement Frequency
The performance measurement mechanisms MUST support the For performance measurement mechanisms that support both
flexibility to be configured to operate on-demand or proactively proactive and on-demand modes, the MPLS-TP NE MUST support the
(i.e. continuously over a period of time). capability to be configured to operate on-demand or proactively.
7.2.2. Measurement Scope 7.2.2. Measurement Scope
On measurement of packet loss and loss ratio: On measurement of packet loss and loss ratio:
- For bidirectional (both co-routed and associated) P2P - For bidirectional (both co-routed and associated) P2P
connections - connections -
. on-demand measurement of single-ended packet loss, o on-demand measurement of single-ended packet loss, and
and loss ratio, measurement are required; loss ratio, measurement is REQUIRED;
. proactive measurement of packet loss, and loss
ratio, measurement for each direction are required.
Note: for associated bidirectional P2P connections, this data o proactive measurement of packet loss, and loss ratio,
can only be measured at end-points. measurement for each direction is REQUIRED.
- For unidirectional (P2P and P2MP) connection, proactive - for unidirectional (P2P and P2MP) connection, proactive
measurement of packet loss, and loss ratio, are required. measurement of packet loss, and loss ratio, is REQUIRED.
On Delay measurement: On Delay measurement:
- For unidirectional (P2P and P2MP) connection, on-demand - for unidirectional (P2P and P2MP) connection, on-demand
measurement of delay measurement is required. measurement of delay measurement is REQUIRED.
- For co-routed bidirectional (P2P) connection, on-demand - for co-routed bidirectional (P2P) connection, on-demand
measurement of one-way and two-way delay are required. measurement of one-way and two-way delay is REQUIRED.
- For associated bidirectional (P2P) connection, on-demand - for associated bidirectional (P2P) connection, on-demand
measurement of one-way delay is required. measurement of one-way delay is REQUIRED.
8. Security Management Requirements 8. Security Management Requirements
The MPLS-TP NE MUST support secure management and control The MPLS-TP NE MUST support secure management and control
planes. planes.
8.1. Management Communication Channel Security 8.1. Management Communication Channel Security
Secure channels MUST be provided for all network traffic and Secure communication channels MUST be supported for all network
protocols used to support management functions. This MUST traffic and protocols used to support management functions.
include, at least, protocols used for configuration, monitoring, This MUST include, at least, protocols used for configuration,
configuration backup, logging, time synchronization, monitoring, configuration backup, logging, time synchronization,
authentication, and routing. The MCC MUST support application authentication, and routing. The MCC MUST support application
protocols that provide confidentiality and data integrity protocols that provide confidentiality and data integrity
protection. protection.
If management communication security is provided, the MPLS-TP NE The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the following:
MUST support the following:
- Use of open cryptographic algorithms (See RFC 3871 [5]) - Use of open cryptographic algorithms (See RFC 3871 [5])
- Authentication - allow management connectivity only from - Authentication - allow management connectivity only from
authenticated entities. authenticated entities.
- Authorization - allow management activity originated by an - Authorization - allow management activity originated by an
authorized entity, using (for example) an Access Control authorized entity, using (for example) an Access Control
List (ACL). List (ACL).
Port Access Control - allow management activity received on an - Port Access Control - allow management activity received on
authorized (management) port. an authorized (management) port.
8.2.Signaling Communication Channel Security 8.2.Signaling Communication Channel Security
Security considerations for the SCC are similar to the Security requirements for the SCC are driven by considerations
considerations driving the requirements described in section similar to MCC requirements described in section 8.1.
8.1. Security Requirements for the control plane are out of
scope for this document and are expected to be defined in the Security Requirements for the control plane are out of scope for
appropriate control plane specifications. Management of the this document and are expected to be defined in the appropriate
control plane security must also be defined at that time. control plane specifications.
Management of control plane security MUST also be defined at
that time.
8.3. Distributed Denial of Service 8.3. Distributed Denial of Service
Denial of Service (DoS) attack is an attack which tries to A Denial of Service (DoS) attack is an attack that tries to
prevent a target from performing an assigned task, or providing prevent a target from performing an assigned task, or providing
its intended service(s), through any means. A Distributed DoS its intended service(s), through any means. A Distributed DoS
(DDoS) can multiply attack severity (possibly by an arbitrary (DDoS) can multiply attack severity (possibly by an arbitrary
amount) by using multiple (potentially compromised) systems to amount) by using multiple (potentially compromised) systems to
act as topologically (and potentially geographically) act as topologically (and potentially geographically)
distributed attack sources. It is possible to lessen the impact distributed attack sources. It is possible to lessen the impact
and potential for DDOS by using secure protocols, turning off and potential for DoS and DDoS by using secure protocols,
unnecessary processes, logging and monitoring, and ingress turning off unnecessary processes, logging and monitoring, and
filtering. RFC 4732 [4] provides background on DOS in the ingress filtering. RFC 4732 [4] provides background on DOS in
context of the Internet. the context of the Internet.
An MPLS-TP NE MUST support secure management protocols and
SHOULD do so in a manner the reduce potential impact of a DoS
attack.
An MPLS-TP NE SHOULD support additional mechanisms that mitigate
a DoS (or DDoS) attack against the management component while
allowing the NE to continue to meet its primary functions.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Section 8 includes a set of security requirements that apply to Section 8 includes a set of security requirements that apply to
MPLS-TP network management. MPLS-TP network management.
Solutions MUST provide mechanisms to prevent unauthorized and/or Solutions MUST provide mechanisms to prevent unauthorized and/or
unauthenticated access to private information by network unauthenticated access to management capabilities and private
elements, systems or users. information by network elements, systems or users.
Performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization Performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization
involves extracting a significant amount of information about involves extracting a significant amount of information about
network construction that the network operator MAY consider network construction that the network operator might consider
private. private.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions associated with this document. There are no IANA actions associated with this document.
11. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
The authors/editors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful The authors/editors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful
review, comments and explanations provided by Adrian Farrel, review, comments and explanations provided by Adrian Farrel,
Andrea Maria Mazzini, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Bernd Zeuner, Diego Alexander Vainshtein, Andrea Maria Mazzini, Ben Niven-Jenkins,
Caviglia, Dieter Beller, He Jia, Leo Xiao, Maarten Vissers, Neil Bernd Zeuner, Dan Romascanu, Daniele Ceccarelli, Diego Caviglia,
Harrison and Rolf Winter. Dieter Beller, He Jia, Leo Xiao, Maarten Vissers, Neil Harrison,
Rolf Winter, Yoav Cohen and Yu Liang.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[1] ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/Y.1701, "Common equipment [1] ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/Y.1701, "Common equipment
management function requirements", July, 2007. management function requirements", July, 2007.
[2] Nadeau, T., et al, "Operations and Management (OAM) [2] Nadeau, T., et al, "Operations and Management (OAM)
Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS)
Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006. Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006.
[3] Vigoureus, M., et al, "Requirements for OAM in MPLS [3] Vigoureux, M., et al, "Requirements for OAM in MPLS
Transport Networks", work in progress. Transport Networks", work in progress.
[4] Handley, M., et al, "Internet Denial-of-Service [4] Handley, M., et al, "Internet Denial-of-Service
Considerations", RFC 4732, November 2006. Considerations", RFC 4732, November 2006.
[5] Jones, G., "Operational Security Requirements for Large [5] Jones, G., "Operational Security Requirements for Large
Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network
Infrastructure", RFC 3871, September 2004. Infrastructure", RFC 3871, September 2004.
[6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 15, line 25 skipping to change at page 19, line 18
[7] ITU-T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, "Architecture and [7] ITU-T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, "Architecture and
Specification of Data Communication Network", June 2008. Specification of Data Communication Network", June 2008.
[8] ITU-T Recommendation G.8601, "Architecture of service [8] ITU-T Recommendation G.8601, "Architecture of service
management in multi bearer, multi carrier environment", management in multi bearer, multi carrier environment",
June 2006. June 2006.
[9] Lam, H., et al, "Alarm Reporting Control Management [9] Lam, H., et al, "Alarm Reporting Control Management
Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3878, September 2004. Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3878, September 2004.
[10] Bocci, M., et al, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC
5586, June 2009.
[11] Beller, D., et al, "An Inband Data Communication Network
For the MPLS Transport Profile", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-
dcn, work in progress.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[10] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management [12] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004. Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.
[11] ITU-T Recommendation M.20, "Maintenance Philosophy for [13] ITU-T Recommendation M.20, "Maintenance Philosophy for
Telecommunication Networks", October 1992. Telecommunication Networks", October 1992.
[12] Telcordia, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and [14] Telcordia, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and
Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 5, Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 5,
August 2004. August 2004.
[13] Bocci, M. et al, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport [15] Bocci, M. et al, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", Work in Progress, November 27, 2008. Networks", Work in Progress, November 27, 2008.
[14] ANSI T1.231-2003, "Layer 1 In-Service Transmission [16] ANSI T1.231-2003, "Layer 1 In-Service Transmission
Performance Monitoring", American National Standards Performance Monitoring", American National Standards
Institute, 2003. Institute, 2003.
[15] Vigoureux, M. et al, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", [17] Vigoureux, M. et al, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal, work in progress. draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal, work in progress.
13. Author's Addresses [18] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management, work in
progress.
[19] Mansfield, S. et al, "MPLS-TP Network Management
Framework", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework, work in
progress.
[20] Bocci, M. et al, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework, work in progress.
[21] Enns, R. et al, "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", draft-
ietf-netconf-4741bis, work in progress.
[22] McCloghrie, K. et al, "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", RFC 2578, April 1999.
[23] OMG Document formal/04-03-12, "The Common Object Request
Broker: Architecture and Specification", Revision 3.0.3.
March 12, 2004.
[24] Niven-Jenkins, B. et al, "MPLS-TP Requirements", draft-
ietf-mpls-tp-requirements, work in progress.
[25] Caviglia, D. et al, "Requirements for the Conversion
between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in
a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Network", RFC 5493, April 2009.
[26] Caviglia, D. et al, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension For The
Conversion Between Permanent Connections And Soft
Permanent Connections In A GMPLS Enabled Transport
Network", draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext, work in
progress.
[27] ITU-T Recommendation G.806, "Characteristics of transport
equipment - Description methodology and generic
functionality", January, 2009.
[28] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, "OAM Functions and Mechanisms
for Ethernet Based Networks", February, 2008.
Author's Addresses
Editors: Editors:
Eric Gray
Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA, 01851
Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Email: Eric.Gray@Ericsson.com
Scott Mansfield Scott Mansfield
Ericsson Ericsson
5000 Ericsson Drive 250 Holger Way
Warrendale, PA, 15086 San Jose CA, 95134
Phone: +1 724 742 6726 +1 724 931 9316
EMail: Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com EMail: Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com
Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
600-700 Mountain Ave 600-700 Mountain Ave
Murray Hill, NJ, 07974 Murray Hill, NJ, 07974
Phone: +1 908 582 0672 Phone: +1 908 582 0672
Email: hklam@Alcatel-Lucent.com Email: hklam@Alcatel-Lucent.com
Eric Gray
Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA, 01851
Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Email: Eric.Gray@Ericsson.com
Author(s): Author(s):
Contributor(s): Contributor(s):
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license- publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-
info). Please review these documents carefully, as they info). Please review these documents carefully, as they
describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this
document. document.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
APPENDIX A: Communication Channel (CC) Examples APPENDIX A: Communication Channel (CCh) Examples
A CC may be realized in a number of ways. A CCh may be realized in a number of ways.
1. The CC may be provided by a link in a physically distinct 1. The CCh may be provided by a link in a physically distinct
network. That is, a link that is not part of the transport network. That is, a link that is not part of the transport
network that is being managed. For example, the nodes in the network that is being managed. For example, the nodes in the
transport network may be interconnected in two distinct physical transport network may be interconnected in two distinct physical
networks: the transport network and the DCN. networks: the transport network and the DCN.
This is a "physically distinct out-of-band CC". This is a "physically distinct out-of-band CCh".
2. The CC may be provided by a link in the transport network 2. The CCh may be provided by a link in the transport network
that is terminated at the ends of the DCC and which is capable that is terminated at the ends of the DCC and which is capable
of encapsulating and terminating packets of the management of encapsulating and terminating packets of the management
protocols. For example, in MPLS-TP an single-hop LSP might be protocols. For example, in MPLS-TP an single-hop LSP might be
established between two adjacent nodes, and that LSP might be established between two adjacent nodes, and that LSP might be
capable of carrying IP traffic. Management traffic can then be capable of carrying IP traffic. Management traffic can then be
inserted into the link in an LSP parallel to the LSPs that carry inserted into the link in an LSP parallel to the LSPs that carry
user traffic. user traffic.
This is a "physically shared out-of-band CC." This is a "physically shared out-of-band CCh."
3. The CC may be supported as its native protocol on the 3. The CCh may be supported as its native protocol on the
interface alongside the transported traffic. For example, if an interface alongside the transported traffic. For example, if an
interface is capable of sending and receiving both MPLS-TP and interface is capable of sending and receiving both MPLS-TP and
IP, the IP-based management traffic can be sent as native IP IP, the IP-based management traffic can be sent as native IP
packets on the interface. packets on the interface.
This is a "shared interface out-of-band CC". This is a "shared interface out-of-band CCh".
4. The CC may use overhead bytes available on a transport 4. The CCh may use overhead bytes available on a transport
connection. For example, in TDM networks there are overhead connection. For example, in TDM networks there are overhead
bytes associated with a data channel, and these can be used to bytes associated with a data channel, and these can be used to
provide a CC. It is important to note that the use of overhead provide a CCh. It is important to note that the use of overhead
bytes does not reduce the capacity of the associated data bytes does not reduce the capacity of the associated data
channel. channel.
This is an "overhead-based CC". This is an "overhead-based CCh".
This alternative is not available in MPLS-TP because there is no This alternative is not available in MPLS-TP because there is no
overhead available. overhead available.
5. The CC may provided by a dedicated channel associated with 5. The CCh may provided by a dedicated channel associated with
the data link. For example, the generic associated label (GAL) the data link. For example, the generic associated label (GAL)
[15] may be used to label DCC traffic being exchanged on a data [17] may be used to label DCC traffic being exchanged on a data
link between adjacent transport nodes, potentially in the link between adjacent transport nodes, potentially in the
absence of any data LSP between those nodes. absence of any data LSP between those nodes.
This is a "data link associated CC". This is a "data link associated CCh".
It is very similar to case 2, and by its nature can only span a It is very similar to case 2, and by its nature can only span a
single hop in the transport network. single hop in the transport network.
6. The CC may be provided by a dedicated channel associated with 6. The CCh may be provided by a dedicated channel associated
a data channel. For example, in MPLS-TP the GAL [15] may be with a data channel. For example, in MPLS-TP the GAL [17] may be
imposed under the top label in the label stack for an MPLS-TP imposed under the top label in the label stack for an MPLS-TP
LSP to create a channel associated with the LSP that may carry LSP to create a channel associated with the LSP that may carry
management traffic. This CC requires the receiver to be capable management traffic. This CCh requires the receiver to be capable
of demultiplexing management traffic from user traffic carried of demultiplexing management traffic from user traffic carried
on the same LSP by use of the GAL. on the same LSP by use of the GAL.
This is a "data channel associated CC". This is a "data channel associated CCh".
7. The CC may be provided by mixing the management traffic with 7. The CCh may be provided by mixing the management traffic with
the user traffic such that is indistinguishable on the link the user traffic such that is indistinguishable on the link
without deep-packet inspection. In MPLS-TP this could arise if without deep-packet inspection. In MPLS-TP this could arise if
there is a data-carrying LSP between two nodes, and management there is a data-carrying LSP between two nodes, and management
traffic is inserted into that LSP. This approach requires that traffic is inserted into that LSP. This approach requires that
the termination point of the LSP is able to demultiplex the the termination point of the LSP is able to demultiplex the
management and user traffic. Such might be possible in MPLS-TP management and user traffic. Such might be possible in MPLS-TP
if the MPLS-TP LSP was carrying IP user traffic. if the MPLS-TP LSP was carrying IP user traffic.
This is an "in-band CC". This is an "in-band CCh".
These realizations may be categorized as: These realizations may be categorized as:
A. Out-of-fiber, out-of-band (types 1 and 2) A. Out-of-fiber, out-of-band (types 1 and 2)
B. In-fiber, out-of-band (types 2, 3, 4, and 5) B. In-fiber, out-of-band (types 2, 3, 4, and 5)
C. In-band (types 6 and 7) C. In-band (types 6 and 7)
The MCN and SCN are logically separate networks and may be The MCN and SCN are logically separate networks and may be
realized by the same DCN or as separate networks. In practice, realized by the same DCN or as separate networks. In practice,
that means that, between any pair of nodes, the MCC and SCC may that means that, between any pair of nodes, the MCC and SCC may
skipping to change at page 20, line 23 skipping to change at page 25, line 23
signaling protocol traffic while others carry routing protocol signaling protocol traffic while others carry routing protocol
traffic. traffic.
It should be noted that the DCN may be a routed network with It should be noted that the DCN may be a routed network with
forwarding capabilities, but that this is not a requirement. The forwarding capabilities, but that this is not a requirement. The
ability to support forwarding of management or control traffic ability to support forwarding of management or control traffic
within the DCN may substantially simplify the topology of the within the DCN may substantially simplify the topology of the
DCN and improve its resilience, but does increase the complexity DCN and improve its resilience, but does increase the complexity
of operating the DCN. of operating the DCN.
See also RFC 3877 [10], ITU-T M.20 [11], and Telcordia document See also RFC 3877 [12], ITU-T M.20 [13], and Telcordia document
GR-833-CORE [12] for further information. GR-833-CORE [14] for further information.
 End of changes. 118 change blocks. 
336 lines changed or deleted 565 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/