idnits 2.17.1 draft-bellagamba-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([OAM-CONF-FWK]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 20, 2010) is 5209 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'BFD-MPLS' is mentioned on line 224, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 3473' is mentioned on line 326, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 3209' is mentioned on line 344, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3473' is mentioned on line 653, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 697, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5586' is defined on line 701, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'MPLS-TP-FWK' is defined on line 725, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4447' is defined on line 734, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BFD' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MPLS-CSF' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MPLS-FMS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MPLS-PM' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MPLS-TP-IDENTIF' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OAM-CONF-FWK' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4447 (Obsoleted by RFC 8077) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CCAMP Working Group E. Bellagamba, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft L. Andersson, Ed. 4 Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson 5 Expires: July 24, 2010 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. 6 Acreo AB 7 January 20, 2010 9 RSVP-TE Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration 10 draft-bellagamba-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-04 12 Abstract 14 This specification is complementary to the GMPLS OAM Configuration 15 Framework [OAM-CONF-FWK] and describes technology specific aspects 16 for the configuration of pro-active MPLS Operations, Administration 17 and Maintenance (OAM) functions. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 26 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 27 Drafts. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 37 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 38 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2010. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications . . . . . . . 4 64 3. RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . . 5 66 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 5. BFD OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 75 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 77 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 80 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 83 1. Introduction 85 This document defines the technology specific extensions of RSVP-TE 86 for the configuration of pro-active MPLS Operations, Administration 87 and Maintenance (OAM) functions. In particular it specifies 88 extensions to establish MPLS OAM entities monitoring a signaled LSP, 89 and defines information elements and procedures to configure pro- 90 active MPLS OAM functions. Initialization and control of on-demand 91 MPLS OAM functions are expected to be carried out by directly 92 accessing network nodes via a management interface; hence 93 configuration and control of on-demand OAM functions are out-of-scope 94 of this document. 96 Pro-active MPLS OAM is based on the Bidirectional Forwarding 97 Detection (BFD) protocol [BFD]. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 98 (BFD), as described in [BFD], defines a protocol that provides low- 99 overhead, short-duration detection of failures in the path between 100 two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data link(s), and 101 to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves. BFD can be 102 used to track the liveliness of MPLS-TP point-to-point and p2mp 103 connections and detect data plane failures. 105 MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS that 106 enables operational models typical in transport networks, while 107 providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance 108 functions not currently supported by MPLS. [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ] defines 109 the requirements by which the OAM functionality of MPLS-TP should 110 abide. 112 BFD has been chosen to be the basis of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM 113 functions. MPLS OAM extensions for transport applications, which are 114 relevant for this document, are specified in [BFD-CCCV], [MPLS-PM] 115 and [MPLS-FMS]. 117 1.1. Contributing Authors 119 The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Attila Takacs 120 and Benoit Tremblay. 122 1.2. Requirements Language 124 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 125 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 126 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 128 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation 130 BFD is a simple hello protocol that in many respects is similar to 131 the detection components of well-known routing protocols. A pair of 132 systems transmits BFD packets periodically over each path between the 133 two systems, and if a system stops receiving BFD packets for long 134 enough, some component in that particular bidirectional path to the 135 neighboring system is assumed to have failed. Systems may also 136 negotiate to not send periodic BFD packets in order to reduce 137 overhead. 139 A path is only declared to be operational when two-way communication 140 has been established between systems, though this does not preclude 141 the use of unidirectional links to support bidirectional paths (co- 142 routed or bidirectional or associated bidirectional). 144 Each system estimates how quickly it can send and receive BFD packets 145 in order to come to an agreement with its neighbor about how rapidly 146 detection of failure will take place. These estimates can be 147 modified in real time in order to adapt to unusual situations. This 148 design also allows for fast systems on a shared medium with a slow 149 system to be able to more rapidly detect failures between the fast 150 systems while allowing the slow system to participate to the best of 151 its ability. 153 The ability of each system to control the BFD packet transmission 154 rate in both directions provides a mechanism for congestion control, 155 particularly when BFD is used across multiple network hops. 157 As recommended in [BFD-CCCV], the BFD tool needs to be extended for 158 the proactive CV functionality by the addition of an unique 159 identifier in order to meet the requirements. The document in [BFD- 160 CCCV] specifies the BFD extension and behavior to meet the 161 requirements for MPLS-TP proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity 162 Verification functionality and the RDI functionality as defined in 163 [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ]. 165 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications 167 [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] describes how MPLS OAM mechanisms are operated to 168 meet transport requirements outlined in [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ]. 170 [BFD-CCCV] specifies two BFD operation modes: 1) "CC mode", which 171 uses periodic BFD message exchanges with symmetric timer settings, 172 supporting Continuity Check, 2) "CV/CC mode" which sends unique 173 maintenance entity identifiers in the periodic BFD messages 174 supporting Connectivity Verification as well as Continuity Check. 176 [MPLS-PM] specifies mechanisms for performance monitoring of LSPs, in 177 particular it specifies loss and delay measurement OAM functions. 179 [MPLS-FMS] specifies fault management signals with which a server LSP 180 can notify client LSPs about various fault conditions to suppress 181 alarms or to be used as triggers for actions in the client LSPs. The 182 following signals are defined: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link 183 Down Indication (LDI) and Locked Report (LKR). To indicate client 184 faults associated with the attachment circuits Client Signal Failure 185 Indication (CSF) can be used. CSF is described in [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK]. 187 [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] describes the mapping of fault conditions to 188 consequent actions. Some of these mappings may be configured by the 189 operator, depending on the application of the LSP. The following 190 defects are identified: Loss Of Continuity (LOC), Misconnectivity, 191 MEP Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these 192 defect conditions, the following consequent actions may be 193 configurable: 1) whether or not the LOC defect should result in 194 blocking the outgoing data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period 195 Misconfiguration defect" should result a signal fail condition. 197 3. RSVP-TE Extensions 199 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview 201 RSVP-TE can be used to simply establish (i.e., bootstrap) a BFD 202 session or it can configure, at different level of details, all pro- 203 active MPLS OAM functions. When RSVP-TE is used to configure BFD, 204 BFD MUST be run in asynchronous mode and both sides should be in 205 active mode. 207 In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE signaling is used only to bootstrap 208 the BFD session. In this case in the Path message the OAM Type in 209 the "OAM Configuration TLV" is set to "MPLS OAM". Only the "CC" OAM 210 Function flag is set in the "OAM Configuration TLV" and a "BFD 211 Configuration sub-TLV" is inserted in the "OAM Configuration TLV", 212 carrying a "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" with the discriminator value 213 selected locally for the BFD session of the signaled LSP. The N bit 214 MUST be set to enable timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD 215 Control Messages. The receiving node MUST use the Local 216 Discriminator value received in the Path message to identify the 217 remote end of the BFD session, select a local discriminator value and 218 MUST start sending BFD Control Messages after it sent the Resv 219 message. The Resv message MUST include the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object 220 reflecting back the contents of the "OAM Configuration TLV", except 221 that the "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" MUST carry the discriminator 222 value used by the sender of the Resv message. Timer negotiation is 223 left to subsequent BFD control messages. This operation is similar 224 to LSP Ping based bootstrapping described in [BFD-MPLS]. 226 For detailed MPLS OAM configuration RSVP-TE can be used to configure 227 all parameters of pro-active MPLS OAM mechanisms. If "CC mode" OAM 228 is to be established, the OAM Type in the "OAM Configuration TLV" is 229 set to MPLS OAM, only the "CC" OAM Function flag is set in the "OAM 230 Configuration TLV" and the "BFD Configuration TLV" is inserted in the 231 "OAM Configuration TLV". The "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" is used 232 as described above. Timer negotiation in this case is done via the 233 RSVP-TE control plane, hence the N bit MUST be cleared to disable 234 timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD Control Messages. The 235 "Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV" MUST be present in the "BFD 236 configuration TLV" to specify the acceptable interval for the BFD CC 237 messages. 239 When timer negotiation is done via the RSVP-TE control plane, two 240 configuration options are available: symmetric and asymmetric 241 configuration. If symmetric configuration is required, S flag in 242 "BFD configuration TLV" MUST be set. If the flag is cleared, the 243 configuration is completed asymmetrically in the two directions. 244 Section 3.3.2 includes a detailed explanation of such configuration. 246 In the case of the "CV/CC mode" OAM [BFD-CCCV], the "CV" flag MUST be 247 set in addition to the CC flag in the "OAM Configuration TLV". The 248 information required to support this functionality is defined in 249 [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] and can be found respectively in the SESSION and 250 SENDER_TEMPLATE object with no need of further sub-TLV as described 251 in section 3.2. 253 Additional OAM functions can be requested by setting the PM/Loss and 254 PM/Delay OAM Function flags in the "OAM Configuration TLV". If these 255 flags are set, corresponding sub-TLVs may be included in the "OAM 256 Configuration TLV". 258 If Fault Management Signals [MPLS-FMS] are required, the Fault 259 Management Signals (FMS) OAM Function flag needs to be set in the 260 "OAM Configuration TLV". If this flag is set, an additional "FMS 261 sub-TLV" may be included in the OAM Configuration TLV. 263 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV 265 Below is specified the "OAM Configuration TLV", defined in [OAM-CONF- 266 FWK]. It specifies which OAM technology/method should be used for 267 the LSP. The "OAM Configuration TLV" is carried in the 268 LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path messages. 270 0 1 2 3 271 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 272 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 273 | Type (2) (IANA) | Length | 274 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 275 | OAM Type | Reserved | 276 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 277 | | 278 ~ sub-TLVs ~ 279 | | 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 Type: indicates the "OAM Configuration TLV" (2) (IANA to assign). 284 OAM Type: one octet that specifies the technology specific OAM Type. 285 If the requested OAM Type is not supported, an error must be 286 generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Type". 288 This document defines a new OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (suggested value 2, 289 IANA to assign) from the "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry". The 290 "MPLS OAM" type is to be set in the "OAM Configuration TLV" [OAM- 291 CONF-FWK] to request the establishment of OAM entities for MPLS LSPs. 293 The receiving LER when the MPLS-TP OAM Type is requested should check 294 which OAM Function Flags are set in the "Function Flags TLV" and look 295 for the corresponding technology specific configuration TLV. 297 This document specifies the following sub-TLVs to be carried in the 298 "OAM Configuration TLV" for MPLS OAM configuration. 300 - "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if the CC 301 OAM Function flag is set. This sub-TLV MUST carry a "BFD Local 302 Discriminator sub-TLV" and a "Timer Negotiation Parameters sub- 303 TLV" if the N flag is cleared. 305 - "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/Loss 306 OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" is 307 not included, default configuration values are used. 309 - "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/ 310 Delay OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub- 311 TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used. 313 - "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the FMS OAM 314 Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not 315 included, default configuration values are used. 317 Moreover, if the CV flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set at the same 318 time. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [BFD-CCCV] 319 and it requires, together with the BFD control packet information, 320 the "Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet". [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] 321 defines the composition of such identifier as: 323 <"Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet"> ::= 324 326 GMPLS signaling [RFC 3473] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP 327 within an operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel 328 Endpoint Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender 329 Address and (GMPLS) LSP_ID. 331 Hence, the following mapping is used without the need of redefining a 332 new TLV for MPLS-TP proactive CV purpose. 334 - Tunnel ID = src_tunnel_num 336 - Tunnel Sender Address = src_node_id 338 - LSP ID = LSP_Num 340 "Tunnel ID" and "Tunnel Sender Address" are included in the "SESSION" 341 object [RFC 3209], which is mandatory in both Path and Resv messages. 343 "LSP ID" will be the same on both directions and it is included in 344 the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" object [RFC 3209] which is mandatory in Path 345 messages. 347 [Author's note: the same "Unique MEP-ID of source" will be likely 348 required for Performance monitoring purposes. However for the moment 349 in [MPLS-PM] it is stated: "The question of ACH TLV usage and the 350 manner of supporting metadata such as authentication keys and node 351 identifiers is deliberately omitted. These issues will be addressed 352 in a future version of the document."] 354 3.3. BFD Configuration TLV 356 The "BFD Configuration TLV" (depicted below) is defined for BFD OAM 357 specific configuration parameters. The "BFD Configuration TLV" is 358 carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV" in the 359 LSP_ATTRIBUTES object both in Path and Resv messages. 361 This new TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries 362 sub-TLVs. 364 0 1 2 3 365 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 366 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 367 | Type (3) (IANA) | Length | 368 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 369 |Vers.| PHB |N|S| Reserved (set to all 0s) | 370 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 371 | | 372 ~ sub TLVs ~ 373 | | 374 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 376 Type: indicates a new type, the "BFD Configuration TLV" (IANA to 377 define). 379 Length: indicates the total length including sub-TLVs. 381 Version: identifies the BFD protocol version. If a node does not 382 support a specific BFD version an error must be generated: "OAM 383 Problem/Unsupported OAM Version &rdquo". 385 PHB: Identifies the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) to be used for periodic 386 continuity monitoring messages. 388 BFD Negotiation (N): If set timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD 389 Control Messages is enabled, when cleared it is disabled. 391 The "BFD Configuration TLV" MUST include the following sub-TLVs in 392 the Path message: 394 - "Local Discriminator sub-TLV"; 396 - "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" if N flag is cleared. 398 The "BFD Configuration TLV" MUST include the following sub-TLVs in 399 the Resv message: 401 - "Local Discriminator sub-TLV;" 403 - "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" if: 405 - N flag and S are cleared 407 - N flag is cleared and S flag is set and a timing value higher 408 than the one received needs to be used 410 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV 412 The "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the BFD 413 Configuration sub-TLV in both Path and Resv messages. It is depicted 414 below. 416 0 1 2 3 417 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 418 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 419 | Type (1) (IANA) | Length = 8 | 420 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 421 | Local Discriminator | 422 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 424 Type: indicates a new type, the Local Discriminator sub TLV (1) (IANA 425 to define). 427 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 429 Local Discriminator: A unique, nonzero discriminator value generated 430 by the transmitting system and referring to itself, used to 431 demultiplex multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of systems. 433 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters 435 The "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" is depicted below. 437 0 1 2 3 438 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 439 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 440 | Req. TX int. Type (2) (IANA) | Length = 20 | 441 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 442 | Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval | 443 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 444 | Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval | 445 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 446 | Required Echo TX Interval | 447 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 448 | Detect. Mult.| Reserved | 449 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 451 Type: indicates a new type, the "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub- 452 TLV" (IANA to define). 454 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 456 Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval: in case of S (symmetric) 457 flag set in the "BFD Configuration" TLV, it expresses the desired 458 time interval (in microseconds) at which the LER initiating the 459 signaling intends to both transmit and receive BFD periodic control 460 packets. If the receiving LER can not support such value, it is 461 allowed to reply back with an interval greater than the one proposed. 463 In case of S (symmetric) flag cleared in the "BFD Configuration TLV", 464 this field expresses the desired time interval (in microseconds) at 465 which a LER intends to transmit BFD periodic control packets in its 466 transmitting direction. 468 Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval: in case of S (symmetric) 469 flag set in the "BFD Configuration TLV", this field MUST be equal to 470 "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" and has no additional 471 meaning respect to the one described for "Acceptable Min. 472 Asynchronous TX interval". 474 In case of S (symmetric) flag cleared in the "BFD Configuration TLV", 475 it expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at which 476 LERs can receive BFD periodic control packets. In case this value is 477 greater than the "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" received 478 from the other LER, such LER MUST adopt the interval expressed in 479 this "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval". 481 Required Echo TX Interval: the minimum interval, in microseconds, 482 between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of 483 supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in 484 [BFD] sect. 6.8.9. This value is also an indication for the 485 receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo 486 packets. If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not 487 support the receipt of BFD Echo packets. If the receiving system can 488 not support this value an error MUST be generated "Unsupported BFD TX 489 rate interval". 491 Detection time multiplier: The negotiated transmit interval, 492 multiplied by this value, provides the Detection Time for the 493 receiving system in Asynchronous mode. 495 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss TLV 496 0 1 2 3 497 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 498 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 499 | PM Loss Type (3) (IANA) | Length = 16 | 500 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 501 |Vers.|E|C| | Reserved | PHB | 502 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 503 | Measurement Interval | 504 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 505 | Loss Threshold | 506 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 508 Type: indicates a new type, the "PM Loss" (IANA to define). 510 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 512 Version: indicates the Loss measurement protocol version. 514 Configuration Flags: 516 - E: exclude from the Loss Measurement all G-ACh messages 518 - C: require the use of a counter in the "Querier Context" field 519 described in [MPLS-PM] 521 - Remaining bits: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 523 PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with loss 524 information. 526 Measurement Interval: the time interval (in microseconds) at which 527 Loss Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions. If 528 the LER receiving the Path message can not support such value, it can 529 reply back with a higher interval. 531 Loss Threshold: the threshold value of lost packets over which 532 protections MUST be triggered. 534 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay TLV 536 "PM Delay sub-TLV" is depicted below. 538 0 1 2 3 539 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 540 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 541 | PM Delay Type (4) (IANA) | Length = 16 | 542 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 543 |Vers.| Flags | Reserved | PHB | 544 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 545 | Measurement Interval | 546 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 547 | Delay Threshold | 548 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 550 Type: indicates a new type, the "PM Delay" (IANA to define). 552 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 554 Version: indicates the Delay measurement protocol version. 556 Configuration Flags: 558 - E: exclude from the Loss Measurement all G-ACh messages 560 - C: require the use of a counter in the "Querier Context" field 561 described in [MPLS-PM] 563 - Remaining bits: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 565 PHB: - identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with delay 566 information. 568 Measurement Interval: the time interval (in microseconds) at which 569 Delay Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions. If 570 the LER receiving the Path message can not support such value, it can 571 reply back with a higher interval. 573 Delay Threshold: the threshold value of lost packets over which 574 protections MUST be triggered. 576 [Author's note: TBD if we want to include the timestamp format 577 negotiation as in [MPLS-PM] 4.2.5.] 579 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS TLV 580 0 1 2 3 581 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 582 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 583 | Type (5) (IANA) | Length (12) | 584 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 585 |A|D|L|C| Reserved | |E| PHB | 586 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 587 | Refresh Timer | 588 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 590 Type: indicates a new type, the "PM Delay" (IANA to define). 592 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 594 Signal Flags: are used to enable the following signals: 596 - A: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) as described in [MPLS-FMS] 598 - D: Link Down Indication (LDI) as described in [MPLS-FMS] 600 - L: Locked Report (LKR) as described in [MPLS-FMS] 602 - C: Client Signal Failure (CSF) as described in [MPLS-CSF] 604 Configuration Flags: 606 - E: used to enable/disable explicitly clearing faults 608 - PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault 609 management information 611 Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer (in microseconds) of fault 612 indication messages. If the LER receiving the Path message can not 613 support such value, it can reply back with a higher interval. 615 4. IANA Considerations 617 This document specifies the following new TLV types: 619 - "BFD Configuration" type: 2; 621 - "MPLS OAM PM Loss" type: 3; 623 - "MPLS OAM PM Delay" type: 4; 625 - "MPLS OAM PM FMS" type: 5. 627 sub-TLV types to be carried in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV": 629 - "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV type: 1; 631 - "Negotiation Timer Parameters" sub-TLV type: 2. 633 5. BFD OAM configuration errors 635 In addition to error values specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and [ETH-OAM] 636 this document defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" 637 Error Code: 639 - "MPLS OAM Unsupported Functionality"; 641 - "OAM Problem/Unsupported TX rate interval". 643 6. Acknowledgements 645 The authors would like to thank David Allan, Lou Berger, Annamaria 646 Fulignoli, Eric Gray, Andras Kern, David Jocha and David Sinicrope 647 for their useful comments. 649 7. Security Considerations 651 The signaling of OAM related parameters and the automatic 652 establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security 653 considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473]. In particular, a 654 network element could be overloaded, if an attacker would request 655 liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high 656 number of LSPs, targeting a single network element. 658 Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent 659 versions of this document. 661 8. References 663 8.1. Normative References 665 [BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding 666 Detection", 2009, . 668 [MPLS-CSF] 669 He, J. and H. Li, "Indication of Client Failure in 670 MPLS-TP", 2009, . 672 [MPLS-FMS] 673 Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., and M. Vigoureux, "MPLS Fault 674 Management OAM", 2009, . 676 [MPLS-PM] Bryant, S. and D. Frost, "Packet Loss and Delay 677 Measurement for the MPLS Transport Profile", 2009, 678 . 680 [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] 681 Bocci, M. and G. Swallow, "MPLS-TP Identifiers", 2009, 682 . 684 [MPLS-TP-OAM-REQ] 685 Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 686 OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", 2009, 687 . 689 [OAM-CONF-FWK] 690 Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. van He, "OAM Configuration 691 Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, 692 . 694 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 695 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 697 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 698 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 699 January 2003. 701 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic 702 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. 704 8.2. Informative References 706 [BFD-CCCV] 707 Fulignoli, A., Boutros, S., and M. Vigoreux, "MPLS-TP BFD 708 for Proactive CC-CV and RDI", 2009, 709 . 711 [ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., Fedyk, D., Mohan, D., and D. Long, 712 "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM", 2009, 713 . 715 [LSP Ping] 716 Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 717 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", 2006, . 720 [MPLS-TP OAM Analysis] 721 Sprecher, N., Nadeau, T., van Helvoort, H., and 722 Weingarten, "MPLS-TP OAM Analysis", 2006, 723 . 725 [MPLS-TP-FWK] 726 Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "OAM 727 Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, 728 . 730 [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] 731 Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and 732 Overview", 2009, . 734 [RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. 735 Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label 736 Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. 738 Appendix A. Additional Stuff 740 This becomes an Appendix. 742 Authors' Addresses 744 Elisa Bellagamba (editor) 745 Ericsson 746 Farogatan 6 747 Kista, 164 40 748 Sweden 750 Phone: +46 761440785 751 Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com 753 Loa Andersson (editor) 754 Ericsson 755 Farogatan 6 756 Kista, 164 40 757 Sweden 759 Phone: 760 Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com 761 Pontus Skoldstrom (editor) 762 Acreo AB 763 Electrum 236 764 Kista, 164 40 765 Sweden 767 Phone: +46 8 6327731 768 Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se