draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-08.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-09.txt 
Network Working Group A. D'Alessandro Network Working Group A. D'Alessandro
Internet-Draft Telecom Italia Internet-Draft Telecom Italia
Intended status: Standards Track L. Andersson Intended status: Standards Track L. Andersson
Expires: June 4, 2016 Huawei Technologies Expires: June 20, 2016 Huawei Technologies
M. Paul M. Paul
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
S. Ueno S. Ueno
NTT Communications NTT Communications
K. Arai K. Arai
Y. Koike Y. Koike
NTT NTT
December 2, 2015 December 18, 2015
Enhanced path segment monitoring Enhanced path segment monitoring
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-08.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-09.txt
Abstract Abstract
The MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) has been standardized to enable The MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) has been standardized to enable
carrier-grade packet transport and to complement converged packet carrier-grade packet transport and to complement converged packet
network deployments. The most attractive features of MPLS-TP are the network deployments. The most attractive features of MPLS-TP are the
OAM functions. These functions enable maintenance tools that may be OAM functions. These functions enable maintenance tools that may be
exploited by network operators and service providers for fault exploited by network operators and service providers for fault
location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out- location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
of-service measurements. of-service measurements.
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 49
6.1. Non-intrusive segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Non-intrusive segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Single and multiple level monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Single and multiple level monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. EPSM and end-to-end proactive monitoring independence . . 10 6.3. EPSM and end-to-end proactive monitoring independence . . 10
6.4. Arbitrary segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. Arbitrary segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. Fault while EPSM is operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5. Fault while EPSM is operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.6. EPSM maintenance points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.6. EPSM maintenance points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A packet transport network enables carriers and service providers to A packet transport network enables carriers and service providers to
use network resources efficiently. It reduces operational complexity use network resources efficiently. It reduces operational complexity
and provides carrier-grade network operation. Appropriate and provides carrier-grade network operation. Appropriate
maintenance functions that support fault location, survivability, maintenance functions that support fault location, survivability,
pro-active performance monitoring, pre-service and in-service pro-active performance monitoring, pre-service and in-service
measurements, are essential to ensure the quality of service and the measurements, are essential to ensure the quality of service and the
reliability of a network. They are essential in transport networks reliability of a network. They are essential in transport networks
and have evolved along with PDH, ATM, SDH and OTN. and have evolved along with PDH, ATM, SDH and OTN.
Similar to legacy technologies, MPLS-TP does also not scale when an Similar to legacy technologies, MPLS-TP also does not scale when an
arbitrary number of OAM functions is enabled. arbitrary number of OAM functions is enabled.
According to the MPLS-TP OAM requirements RFC 5860 [RFC5860], According to the MPLS-TP OAM requirements RFC 5860 [RFC5860],
mechanisms MUST be available for alerting a service provider of a mechanisms MUST be available for alerting a service provider of a
fault or defect that affects their services. In addition, to ensure fault or defect that affects their services. In addition, to ensure
that faults or service degradation can be localized, operators need a that faults or service degradation can be localized, operators need a
function to diagnose the detected problem. Using end-to-end function to diagnose the detected problem. Using end-to-end
monitoring for this purpose is insufficient. In fact by using end- monitoring for this purpose is insufficient. In fact by using end-
to-end OAM monitoring, an operator will not be able to localize a to-end OAM monitoring, an operator will not be able to localize a
fault or service degradation accurately. fault or service degradation accurately.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
The author would like to thank all members (including MPLS-TP The author would like to thank all members (including MPLS-TP
steering committee, the Joint Working Team, the MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Group steering committee, the Joint Working Team, the MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Group
in ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of MPLS in ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of MPLS
Transport Profile. Transport Profile.
The authors would also like to thank Alexander Vainshtein, Dave The authors would also like to thank Alexander Vainshtein, Dave
Allan, Fei Zhang, Huub van Helvoort, Malcolm Betts, Italo Busi, Allan, Fei Zhang, Huub van Helvoort, Malcolm Betts, Italo Busi,
Maarten Vissers, Jia He and Nurit Sprecher for their comments and Maarten Vissers, Jia He and Nurit Sprecher for their comments and
enhancements to the text. enhancements to the text.
11. Normative References 11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed., [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
"Requirements for Operations, Administration, and "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations, [RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based
Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371, Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371,
September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>. September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/