idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 10, 2011) is 4796 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) == Unused Reference: 'MPLS-PM-Profile' is defined on line 760, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 781, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5586' is defined on line 789, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5654' is defined on line 792, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'BFD-Ping' is defined on line 815, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4447' is defined on line 846, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5921' is defined on line 850, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- 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-PM-Profile' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MPLS-TP-IDENTIF' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OAM-CONF-FWK' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4447 (Obsoleted by RFC 8077) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 8 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: September 11, 2011 P. Skoldstrom, Ed. 6 Acreo AB 7 D. Ward 8 Juniper 9 A. Takacs 10 Ericsson 11 March 10, 2011 13 Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and 14 Maintenance (OAM) Functions Using RSVP-TE 15 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-05 17 Abstract 19 This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP 20 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a 21 given LSP using a set of TLVs that can be carried in the RSVP-TE 22 protocol. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2011. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Theory of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . . 5 65 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 3.3. BFD Configuration sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 11 69 3.3.3. BFD Authentication sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 72 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 5. BFD OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 77 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 82 1. Introduction 84 This document describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP 85 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a 86 given LSP using a common set of TLVs carried on RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. 87 In particular it specifies the mechanisms necessary to establish 88 MPLS-TP OAM entities monitoring an LSP and defines information 89 elements and procedures to configure pro-active MPLS OAM functions. 90 Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS OAM functions are 91 expected to be carried out by directly accessing network nodes via a 92 management interface; hence configuration and control of on-demand 93 OAM functions are out-of-scope for this document. 95 Pro-active MPLS OAM is based on the Bidirectional Forwarding 96 Detection (BFD) protocol [RFC5880]. Bidirectional Forwarding 97 Detection (BFD), as described in [RFC5880], defines a protocol that 98 provides low- overhead, short-duration detection of failures in the 99 path between two forwarding engines, including the interfaces, data 100 link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines 101 themselves. BFD can be used to track the liveliness and detect data 102 plane failures of MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also be extended 103 to p2mp connections. 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. [RFC5860] defines the 109 requirements for the OAM functionality of MPLS-TP. 111 BFD has been chosen to be the basis of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM 112 functions. MPLS-TP OAM extensions for transport applications, for 113 which this document specifies the configuration, are specified in 114 [BFD-CCCV], [MPLS-PM], and [MPLS-FMS]. 116 1.1. Contributing Authors 118 This document is the result of a large team of authors and 119 contributors. The following is a list of the co-authors: 121 John Drake 123 Benoit Tremblay 125 1.2. Requirements Language 127 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 128 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 129 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 131 1.3. Overview of BFD OAM operation 133 BFD is a simple hello protocol that in many respects is similar to 134 the detection components of well-known routing protocols. A pair of 135 systems transmits BFD packets periodically over each path between the 136 two systems, and if a system stops receiving BFD packets for long 137 enough, some component in that particular bidirectional path to the 138 neighboring system is assumed to have failed. Systems may also 139 negotiate to not send periodic BFD packets in order to reduce 140 overhead. 142 A path is only declared to be operational when two-way communication 143 has been established between systems, though this does not preclude 144 the use of unidirectional links to support bidirectional paths (co- 145 routed or bidirectional or associated bidirectional). 147 Each system estimates how quickly it can send and receive BFD packets 148 in order to come to an agreement with its neighbor about how rapidly 149 detection of failure will take place. These estimates can be 150 modified in real time in order to adapt to unusual situations. This 151 design also allows for fast systems on a shared medium with a slow 152 system to be able to more rapidly detect failures between the fast 153 systems while allowing the slow system to participate to the best of 154 its ability. However, in some cases one may want to configure these 155 timers manually, in those cases the TLVs defined in this document can 156 be used. 158 The ability of each system to control the BFD packet transmission 159 rate in both directions provides a mechanism for congestion control, 160 particularly when BFD is used across multiple network hops. 162 As recommended in [BFD-CCCV], the BFD tool needs to be extended for 163 the proactive CV functionality by the addition of an unique 164 identifier in order to meet the requirements. The document in [BFD- 165 CCCV] specifies the BFD extension and behavior to meet the 166 requirements for MPLS-TP proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity 167 Verification functionality and the RDI functionality as defined in 168 [RFC5860]. 170 2. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications 172 [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] describes how MPLS OAM mechanisms are operated to 173 meet transport requirements outlined in [RFC5860]. 175 [BFD-CCCV] specifies two BFD operation modes: 1) "CC mode", which 176 uses periodic BFD message exchanges with symmetric timer settings, 177 supporting Continuity Check, 2) "CV/CC mode" which sends unique 178 maintenance entity identifiers in the periodic BFD messages 179 supporting Connectivity Verification as well as Continuity Check. 181 [MPLS-PM] specifies mechanisms for performance monitoring of LSPs, in 182 particular it specifies loss and delay measurement OAM functions. 184 [MPLS-FMS] specifies fault management signals with which a server LSP 185 can notify client LSPs about various fault conditions to suppress 186 alarms or to be used as triggers for actions in the client LSPs. The 187 following signals are defined: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link 188 Down Indication (LDI) and Locked Report (LKR). To indicate client 189 faults associated with the attachment circuits Client Signal Failure 190 Indication (CSF) can be used. CSF is described in [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] 191 and in the context of this document is for further study. 193 [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] describes the mapping of fault conditions to 194 consequent actions. Some of these mappings may be configured by the 195 operator, depending on the application of the LSP. The following 196 defects are identified: Loss Of Continuity (LOC), Misconnectivity, 197 MEP Misconfiguration and Period Misconfiguration. Out of these 198 defect conditions, the following consequent actions may be 199 configurable: 1) whether or not the LOC defect should result in 200 blocking the outgoing data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period 201 Misconfiguration defect" should result a signal fail condition. 203 3. Theory of Operations 205 3.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview 207 RSVP-TE, or in alternative LSP Ping [LSP-PING CONF], can be used to 208 simply establish (i.e., bootstrap) a BFD session or it can 209 selectively enable and configure all pro-active MPLS OAM functions. 210 For this specification, BFD MUST be run in asynchronous mode and both 211 sides should be in active mode. 213 In the simplest scenario RSVP-TE, or in alternative LSP Ping [LSP- 214 PING CONF], is used only to bootstrap the BFD session. In this case 215 the initiating node includes an "OAM Configuration TLV" in the 216 message it sends to the receiving node at the other end of the LSP. 217 The OAM Type in the "OAM Configuration TLV" is set to "MPLS OAM", the 218 CC OAM Function flag is set, and a "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" is 219 included. The sub-TLV carries a "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" with 220 the discriminator value selected by the initiating node for the BFD 221 session associated with the LSP. The N flag in the "BFD 222 Configuration sub-TLV" MUST be set to enable timer negotiation/ 223 re-negotiation via BFD Control Messages. 225 The receiving node MUST use the Local Discriminator value it receives 226 to identify the remote end of the BFD session. The receiving node 227 must send a message to the initiating node that includes an "OAM 228 Configuration TLV" containing the same values as it received, except 229 for the "Local Discriminator sub-TLV", which contains the local 230 discriminator value selected by the receiving node for the BFD 231 session. 233 Timer negotiation is performed in subsequent BFD control messages. 234 This operation is similar to LSP Ping based bootstrapping described 235 in [RFC5884]. 237 If timer negotiation is to be done using the TLVs defined in this 238 document rather than with BFD Control packets, the N flag MUST be 239 cleared and a "Timer Negotiation Parameters sub-TLV" MUST be present 240 in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV". In this case, there are two 241 configuration options, symmetric and asymmetric. If symmetric 242 configuration is used, the S flag in "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" MUST 243 be set. If the flag is cleared, the configuration is completed 244 asymmetrically in the two directions. Section 3.3.2 includes a 245 detailed explanation of such configuration. 247 In the case of the "CV/CC mode" OAM [BFD-CCCV], the "CV" flag MUST be 248 set in addition to the CC flag in the "OAM Configuration TLV". The 249 information required to support this functionality is defined in 250 [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF]. If RSVP-TE is used, this information is found 251 respectively in the SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE object with no need 252 of additional sub-TLVs as described in section 3.2. 254 When BFD Control packets are transported in the G-ACh they are not 255 protected by any end-to-end checksum, only lower-layers are providing 256 error detection/correction. A single bit error, e.g. a flipped bit 257 in the BFD State field could cause the receiving end to wrongly 258 conclude that the link is down and thus trigger protection switching. 259 To prevent this from happening the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" has an 260 Integrity flag that when set enables BFD Authentication using Keyed 261 SHA1 with an empty key (all 0s) [RFC5880]. This would make every BFD 262 Control packet carry an SHA1 hash of itself that can be used to 263 detect errors. 265 If BFD Authentication using a shared key / password is desired (i.e. 266 actual authentication not only error detection) the "BFD 267 Authentication sub-TLV" MUST be included in the "BFD Configuration 268 sub-TLV". The "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" is used to specify which 269 authentication method that should be used and which shared key / 270 password that should be used for this particular session. How the 271 key exchange is performed is out of scope of this document. 273 Additional OAM functions may be configured by setting the appropriate 274 flags in the "OAM Functions TLV", these include Performance 275 Measurements (packet loss and packet delay) and Fault Management 276 Signal handling. 278 By setting the PM Loss flag in the "OAM Functions TLV" and including 279 the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" one can configure the measurement 280 interval and loss threshold values for triggering protection. 282 Delay measurements are configured by setting PM Delay flag in the 283 "OAM Functions TLV" and including the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" one 284 can configure the measurement interval and the delay threshold values 285 for triggering protection. 287 To configure Fault Monitoring Signals and their refresh time the FMS 288 flag in the "OAM Functions TLV" MUST be set and the "MPLS OAM FMS 289 sub-TLV" included. 291 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV 293 The "OAM Configuration TLV" is depicted in the following figure. It 294 specifies the OAM functions that are to be used for the subject LSP 295 and it is defined in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. The "OAM Configuration TLV" is 296 carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path and Resv messages. 298 0 1 2 3 299 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 1 300 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 301 | Type (2) (IANA) | Length | 302 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 303 | OAM Type | Reserved | 304 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 305 | | 306 ~ sub-TLVs ~ 307 | | 308 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 310 Type: indicates the "OAM Configuration TLV" (2) (IANA to assign). 312 OAM Type: one octet that specifies the technology specific OAM Type. 313 If the requested OAM Type is not supported, an error must be 314 generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Type". 316 This document defines a new OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (suggested value 2, 317 IANA to assign) from the "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry". The 318 "MPLS OAM" type is set to request the establishment of OAM functions 319 for MPLS-TP LSPs. The specific OAM functions are specified in the 320 "Function Flags" sub-TLV as depicted in [OAM-CONF-FWK]. 322 The receiving edge LSR when the MPLS-TP OAM Type is requested should 323 check which OAM Function Flags are set in the "Function Flags TLV" 324 and look for the corresponding technology specific configuration TLV. 326 Additional corresponding sub-TLVs are as follows: 328 - "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if the CC 329 OAM Function flag is set. This sub-TLV MUST carry a "BFD Local 330 Discriminator sub-TLV" and a "Timer Negotiation Parameters sub- 331 TLV" if the N flag is cleared. It MAY carry a "BFD Authentication 332 sub-TLV" if the I flag is set. If the I flag is set but no "BFD 333 Authentication sub-TLV" is included Keyed SHA1 with an empty key 334 is used. 336 - "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/Loss 337 OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" is 338 not included, default configuration values are used. 340 - "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the PM/ 341 Delay OAM Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub- 342 TLV" is not included, default configuration values are used. 344 - "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV", which MAY be included if the FMS OAM 345 Function flag is set. If the "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" is not 346 included, default configuration values are used. 348 Moreover, if the CV flag is set, the CC flag MUST be set at the same 349 time. The format of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [BFD-CCCV] 350 and it requires, together with the BFD control packet information, 351 the "Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet". [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] 352 defines the composition of such identifier as: 354 <"Unique MEP-ID of source of BFD packet"> ::= 355 357 GMPLS signaling [RFC3473] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP 358 within an operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel 359 Endpoint Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender 360 Address and (GMPLS) LSP_ID. 362 Hence, the following mapping is used without the need of redefining a 363 new TLV for MPLS-TP proactive CV purpose. 365 - Tunnel ID = src_tunnel_num 367 - Tunnel Sender Address = src_node_id 369 - LSP ID = LSP_Num 371 "Tunnel ID" and "Tunnel Sender Address" are included in the "SESSION" 372 object [RFC3209], which is mandatory in both Path and Resv messages. 374 "LSP ID" will be the same on both directions and it is included in 375 the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" object [RFC3209] which is mandatory in Path 376 messages. 378 [Author's note: the same "Unique MEP-ID of source" will be likely 379 required for Performance monitoring purposes. However for the moment 380 in [MPLS-PM] it is stated: "The question of ACH TLV usage and the 381 manner of supporting metadata such as authentication keys and node 382 identifiers is deliberately omitted. These issues will be addressed 383 in a future version of the document."] 385 3.3. BFD Configuration sub-TLV 387 The "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" (depicted below) is defined for BFD 388 OAM specific configuration parameters. The "BFD Configuration sub- 389 TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Configuration TLV". 391 This TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries sub- 392 TLVs. 394 0 1 2 3 395 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 1 396 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 397 | Type (3) (IANA) | Length | 398 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 399 |Vers.| PHB |N|S|I| Reserved (set to all 0s) | 400 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 401 | | 402 ~ sub-TLVs ~ 403 | | 404 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 406 Type: indicates a new type, the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" (IANA to 407 define). 409 Length: indicates the total length including sub-TLVs. 411 Version: identifies the BFD protocol version. If a node does not 412 support a specific BFD version an error must be generated: "OAM 413 Problem/Unsupported OAM Version". 415 PHB: Identifies the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) to be used for periodic 416 continuity monitoring messages. 418 BFD Negotiation (N): If set timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD 419 Control Messages is enabled, when cleared it is disabled. 421 Symmetric session (S): If set the BFD session MUST use symmetric 422 timing values. 424 Integrity (I): If set BFD Authentication MUST be enabled. If the 425 "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" does not include a "BFD Authentication 426 sub-TLV" the authentication MUST use Keyed SHA1 with an empty pre- 427 shared key (all 0s). 429 The "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" MUST include the following sub-TLVs 430 in the Path message: 432 - "Local Discriminator sub-TLV"; 434 - "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" if N flag is cleared. 436 The "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" MUST include the following sub-TLVs 437 in the Resv message: 439 - "Local Discriminator sub-TLV;" 441 - "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" if: 443 - N flag and S are cleared 445 - N flag is cleared and S flag is set and a timing value higher 446 than the one received needs to be used 448 Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 450 3.3.1. Local Discriminator sub-TLV 452 The "Local Discriminator sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD 453 Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted below. 455 0 1 2 3 456 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 1 457 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 458 | Type (1) (IANA) | Length = 8 | 459 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 460 | Local Discriminator | 461 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 463 Type: indicates a new type, the Local Discriminator sub-TLV (1) (IANA 464 to define). 466 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 468 Local Discriminator: A unique, nonzero discriminator value generated 469 by the transmitting system and referring to itself, used to 470 demultiplex multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of systems. 472 3.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV 474 The "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of 475 the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted below. 477 0 1 2 3 478 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 1 479 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 480 | Timer Neg. Type (2) (IANA) | Length = 20 | 481 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 482 | Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval | 483 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 484 | Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval | 485 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 486 | Required Echo TX Interval | 487 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 488 | Detect. Mult.| Reserved (set to all 0s) | 489 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 491 Type: indicates a new type, the "Negotiation Timer Parameters sub- 492 TLV" (IANA to define). 494 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. (20) 496 Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval: in case of S (symmetric) 497 flag set in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", it expresses the desired 498 time interval (in microseconds) at which the LER initiating the 499 signaling intends to both transmit and receive BFD periodic control 500 packets. If the receiving edge LSR can not support such value, it is 501 allowed to reply back with an interval greater than the one proposed. 503 In case of S (symmetric) flag cleared in the "BFD Configuration sub- 504 TLV", this field expresses the desired time interval (in 505 microseconds) at which a edge LSR intends to transmit BFD periodic 506 control packets in its transmitting direction. 508 Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval: in case of S (symmetric) 509 flag set in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", this field MUST be equal 510 to "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" and has no additional 511 meaning respect to the one described for "Acceptable Min. 512 Asynchronous TX interval". 514 In case of S (symmetric) flag cleared in the "BFD Configuration sub- 515 TLV", it expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at 516 which edge LSRs can receive BFD periodic control packets. In case 517 this value is greater than the "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX 518 interval" received from the other edge LSR, such edge LSR MUST adopt 519 the interval expressed in this "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX 520 interval". 522 Required Echo TX Interval: the minimum interval (in microseconds) 523 between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of 524 supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in 525 [RFC5880] sect. 6.8.9. This value is also an indication for the 526 receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo 527 packets. If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not 528 support the receipt of BFD Echo packets. If the receiving system can 529 not support this value an error MUST be generated "Unsupported BFD TX 530 rate interval". 532 Detection time multiplier: The negotiated transmit interval, 533 multiplied by this value, provides the Detection Time for the 534 receiving system in Asynchronous mode. 536 Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 538 3.3.3. BFD Authentication sub-TLV 540 The "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD 541 Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted below. 543 0 1 2 3 544 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 1 545 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 546 | BFD Auth. Type (3) (IANA) | Length = 8 | 547 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 548 | Auth Type | Auth Key ID | Reserved (0s) | 549 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 550 Type: indicates a new type, the "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" (IANA to 551 define). 553 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. (8) 555 Auth Type: indicates which type of authentication to use. The same 556 values as are defined in section 4.1 of [RFC5880] are used. 558 Auth Key ID: indicates which authentication key or password 559 (depending on Auth Type) should be used. How the key exchange is 560 performed is out of scope of this document. 562 Reserved: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 564 3.4. MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV 566 The "MPLS OAM PM Loss sub-TLV" depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV 567 of the "OAM Configuration sub-TLV". 569 0 1 2 3 570 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 1 571 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 572 | PM Loss Type (3) (IANA) | Length = 16 | 573 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 574 |Vers.|E|C| | Reserved (set to all 0s) | PHB | 575 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 576 | Measurement Interval | 577 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 578 | Loss Threshold | 579 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 581 Type: indicates a new type, the "MPLS OAM PM Loss" (IANA to define). 583 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 585 Version: indicates the Loss measurement protocol version. 587 Configuration Flags: 589 - E: exclude from the Loss Measurement all G-ACh messages 591 - C: require the use of a counter in the "Querier Context" field 592 described in [MPLS-PM] 594 - Remaining bits: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 596 PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with loss 597 information. 599 Measurement Interval: the time interval (in microseconds) at which 600 Loss Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions. If 601 the edge LSR receiving the Path message can not support such value, 602 it can reply back with a higher interval. 604 Loss Threshold: the threshold value of lost packets over which 605 protections MUST be triggered. 607 3.5. MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV 609 The "MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV" depicted below is carried as a sub- 610 TLV of the "OAM Configuration sub-TLV". 612 0 1 2 3 613 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 1 614 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 615 | PM Delay Type (4) (IANA) | Length = 16 | 616 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 617 |Vers.| Flags | Reserved (set to all 0s) | PHB | 618 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 619 | Measurement Interval | 620 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 621 | Delay Threshold | 622 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 624 Type: indicates a new type, the "MPLS OAM PM Delay" (IANA to define). 626 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 628 Version: indicates the Delay measurement protocol version. 630 Configuration Flags: 632 - E: exclude from the Loss Measurement all G-ACh messages 634 - C: require the use of a counter in the "Querier Context" field 635 described in [MPLS-PM] 637 - Remaining bits: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 639 PHB: - identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with delay 640 information. 642 Measurement Interval: the time interval (in microseconds) at which 643 Delay Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions. If 644 the edge LSR receiving the Path message can not support such value, 645 it can reply back with a higher interval. 647 Delay Threshold: the threshold value of measured delay (in 648 microseconds) over which protections MUST be triggered. 650 [Author's note: TBD if we want to include the timestamp format 651 negotiation as in [MPLS-PM] 4.2.5.] 653 3.6. MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV 655 The "MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV" depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV of 656 the "OAM Configuration sub-TLV". 658 0 1 2 3 659 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 1 660 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 661 | Type (5) (IANA) | Length = 12 | 662 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 663 |A|D|L|C| Reserved (set all to 0s) |E| PHB | 664 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 665 | Refresh Timer | 666 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 668 Type: indicates a new type, the "MPLS OAM FMS" (IANA to define). 670 Length: indicates the TLV total length in octets. 672 Signal Flags: are used to enable the following signals: 674 - A: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) as described in [MPLS-FMS] 676 - D: Link Down Indication (LDI) as described in [MPLS-FMS] 678 - L: Locked Report (LKR) as described in [MPLS-FMS] 680 - C: Client Signal Failure (CSF) as described in [MPLS-CSF] 682 - Remaining bits: Reserved for future specification and set to 0. 684 Configuration Flags: 686 - E: used to enable/disable explicitly clearing faults 688 - PHB: identifies the per-hop behavior of packets with fault 689 management information 691 Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer (in microseconds) of fault 692 indication messages. If the edge LSR receiving the Path message can 693 not support such value, it can reply back with a higher interval. 695 4. IANA Considerations 697 This document specifies the following new TLV types: 699 - "BFD Configuration" type: 2; 701 - "MPLS OAM PM Loss" type: 3; 703 - "MPLS OAM PM Delay" type: 4; 705 - "MPLS OAM FMS" type: 5. 707 sub-TLV types to be carried in the "BFD Configuration sub-TLV": 709 - "Local Discriminator" sub-TLV type: 1; 711 - "Negotiation Timer Parameters" sub-TLV type: 2. 713 - "BFD Authentication" sub-TLV type: 3. 715 5. BFD OAM configuration errors 717 In addition to error values specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and [ETH-OAM] 718 this document defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" 719 Error Code: 721 - "MPLS OAM Unsupported Functionality"; 723 - "OAM Problem/Unsupported TX rate interval". 725 6. Acknowledgements 727 The authors would like to thank David Allan, Lou Berger, Annamaria 728 Fulignoli, Eric Gray, Andras Kern, David Jocha and David Sinicrope 729 for their useful comments. 731 7. Security Considerations 733 The signaling of OAM related parameters and the automatic 734 establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security 735 considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473]. In particular, a 736 network element could be overloaded, if an attacker would request 737 liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high 738 number of LSPs, targeting a single network element. 740 Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent 741 versions of this document. 743 8. References 745 8.1. Normative References 747 [MPLS-CSF] 748 He, J., Li, H., and E. Bellagamba, "Indication of Client 749 Failure in MPLS-TP", 2010, . 751 [MPLS-FMS] 752 Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S., 753 and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management OAM", 2009, 754 . 756 [MPLS-PM] Bryant, S. and D. Frost, "Packet Loss and Delay 757 Measurement for the MPLS Transport Profile", 2010, 758 . 760 [MPLS-PM-Profile] 761 Bryant, S. and D. Frost, "A Packet Loss and Delay 762 Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks", 763 2010, . 765 [MPLS-TP-IDENTIF] 766 Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS-TP 767 Identifiers", 2010, . 769 [OAM-CONF-FWK] 770 Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. van He, "OAM Configuration 771 Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", 2009, 772 . 774 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 775 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 777 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 778 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 779 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 781 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 782 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 783 January 2003. 785 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 786 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 787 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 789 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic 790 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. 792 [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., 793 and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", 794 RFC 5654, September 2009. 796 [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 797 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS 798 Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. 800 [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 801 (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010. 803 [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 804 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label 805 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010. 807 8.2. Informative References 809 [BFD-CCCV] 810 Allan, D., Swallow, G., and J. Drake, "Proactive 811 Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote 812 Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile", 2010, 813 . 815 [BFD-Ping] 816 Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher, 817 N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP Ping and BFD encapsulation 818 over ACH", 2010, 819 . 821 [ETH-OAM] Takacs, A., Gero, B., Fedyk, D., Mohan, D., and D. Long, 822 "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM", 2009, 823 . 825 [LSP Ping] 826 Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 827 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", 2006, . 830 [LSP-PING CONF] 831 Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Ward, D., and P. 832 Skoldstrom, "Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP 833 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) 834 Functions Using LSP Ping", 2010, 835 . 837 [MPLS-TP OAM Analysis] 838 Sprecher, N., Weingarten, Y., and E. Bellagamba, "MPLS-TP 839 OAM Analysis", 2011, . 841 [MPLS-TP-OAM-FWK] 842 Bocci, M. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration and 843 Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks", 844 2010, . 846 [RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. 847 Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label 848 Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. 850 [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. 851 Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", 852 RFC 5921, July 2010. 854 Authors' Addresses 856 Elisa Bellagamba (editor) 857 Ericsson 858 Farogatan 6 859 Kista, 164 40 860 Sweden 862 Phone: +46 761440785 863 Email: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com 865 Loa Andersson (editor) 866 Ericsson 867 Farogatan 6 868 Kista, 164 40 869 Sweden 871 Phone: 872 Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com 873 Pontus Skoldstrom (editor) 874 Acreo AB 875 Electrum 236 876 Kista, 164 40 877 Sweden 879 Phone: +46 8 6327731 880 Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se 882 Dave Ward 883 Juniper 885 Phone: 886 Email: dward@juniper.net 888 Attila Takacs 889 Ericsson 890 1. Laborc u. 891 Budapest, 892 HUNGARY 894 Phone: 895 Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com