Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     E. BellagambaRequest for Comments: 7487                                     A. TakacsCategory: Standards Track                                      G. MirskyISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Ericsson                                                            L. Andersson                                                     Huawei Technologies                                                           P. Skoldstrom                                                                Acreo AB                                                                 D. Ward                                                                   Cisco                                                              March 2015Configuration ofProactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functionsfor MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using RSVP-TEAbstract   This specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS   Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Operations, Administration, and   Maintenance (OAM) functions for a given Label Switched Path (LSP)   using a set of TLVs that are carried by the GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol   based on the OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE.Status of This Memo   This is an Internet Standards Track document.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has   received public review and has been approved for publication by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on   Internet Standards is available inSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7487.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   publication of this document.  Please review these documents   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................41.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................51.1.1. Terminology .........................................51.1.2. Requirements Language ...............................62. Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications .................63. Theory of Operations ............................................73.1. MPLS-TP OAM Configuration Operation Overview ...............73.1.1. Configuration of BFD Sessions .......................83.1.2. Configuration of Performance Monitoring .............83.1.3. Configuration of Fault Management Signals ...........93.2. MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV .............................93.2.1. CV Flag Rules of Use ...............................113.3. BFD Configuration Sub-TLV .................................123.3.1. BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV ............................143.3.2. Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV ...............153.3.3. BFD Authentication Sub-TLV .........................163.3.4. Traffic Class Sub-TLV ..............................173.4. Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV ............................173.4.1. MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV ...........................193.4.2. MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV ..........................213.5. MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV ......................................224. Summary of MPLS OAM Configuration Errors .......................235. IANA Considerations ............................................255.1. MPLS OAM Type .............................................255.2. MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV ............................255.3. MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV Types ......................265.4. BFD Configuration Sub-TLV Types ...........................265.5. Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV Types ......................275.6. New RSVP-TE Error Codes ...................................286. Security Considerations ........................................287. References .....................................................297.1. Normative References ......................................297.2. Informative References ....................................30   Acknowledgements ..................................................31   Contributors ......................................................31   Authors' Addresses ................................................32Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20151.  Introduction   This document describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP OAM   functions for a given LSP using TLVs that use GMPLS RSVP-TE   [RFC3473].  [RFC7260] defines use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the   configuration of OAM functions in a technology-agnostic way.  This   document specifies the additional mechanisms necessary to establish   MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points for monitoring and   performing measurements on an LSP, as well as defining information   elements and procedures to configure proactive MPLS-TP OAM functions   running between Label Edge Routers (LERs).  Initialization and   control of on-demand MPLS-TP OAM functions are expected to be carried   out by directly accessing network nodes via a management interface;   hence, configuration and control of on-demand OAM functions are out   of scope for this document.   MPLS-TP, the Transport Profile of MPLS, must, by definition   [RFC5654], be capable of operating without a control plane.   Therefore, there are several options for configuring MPLS-TP OAM   without a control plane by using either a Network Management System   (NMS), an LSP Ping, or signaling protocols such as RSVP-TE in the   control plane.   MPLS-TP describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational models   typical in transport networks while providing additional OAM   survivability and other maintenance functions not currently supported   by MPLS.  [RFC5860] defines the requirements for the OAM   functionality of MPLS-TP.   Proactive MPLS-TP OAM is performed by three different protocols:   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC6428] for Continuity   Check / Connectivity Verification, the Delay Measurement (DM)   protocol [RFC6374] for delay and delay variation (jitter)   measurements, and the Loss Measurement (LM) protocol [RFC6374] for   packet loss and throughput measurements.  Additionally, there are a   number of Fault Management signals that can be configured [RFC6427].   BFD is a protocol that provides low-overhead, fast detection of   failures in the path between two forwarding engines, including the   interfaces, data link(s), and (to the extent possible) the forwarding   engines themselves.  BFD can be used to track the liveliness and to   detect the data plane failures of MPLS-TP point to point and might   also be extended to support point-to-multipoint connections.   The delay and loss measurement protocols [RFC6374] use a simple   query/response model for performing bidirectional measurements that   allows the originating node to measure packet loss and delay in both   directions.  By timestamping and/or writing current packet countersBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   to the measurement packets four times (Tx and Rx in both directions),   current delays and packet losses can be calculated.  By performing   successive delay measurements, the delay variation (jitter) can be   calculated.  Current throughput can be calculated from the packet   loss measurements by dividing the number of packets sent/received   with the time it took to perform the measurement, given by the   timestamp in LM header.  Combined with a packet generator, the   throughput measurement can be used to measure the maximum capacity of   a particular LSP.  It should be noted that here we are not   configuring on-demand throughput estimates based on saturating the   connection as defined in [RFC6371].  Rather, we only enable the   estimation of the current throughput based on loss measurements.1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document1.1.1.  Terminology   AIS - Alarm Indication Signal   BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   CC - Continuity Check   CV - Connectivity Verification   DM - Delay Measurement   FMS - Fault Management Signal   G-ACh - Generic Associated Channel   GMPLS - Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching   LDI - Link Down Indication   LER - Label Edge Router   LKR - Lock Report   LM - Loss Measurement   LOC - Loss Of Continuity   LSP - Label Switched Path   LSR - Label Switching Router   MEP - Maintenance Entity Group End PointBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   MIP - Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point   MPLS - Multi-Protocol Label Switching   MPLS-TP - MPLS Transport Profile   NMS - Network Management System   PM - Performance Measurement   RSVP-TE - Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering   TC - Traffic Class1.1.2.  Requirements Language   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this   document are to be interpreted as described inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].2.  Overview of MPLS OAM for Transport Applications   [RFC6371] describes how MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms are operated to meet   transport requirements outlined in [RFC5860].   [RFC6428] specifies two BFD operation modes: 1) "CC mode", which uses   periodic BFD message exchanges with symmetric timer settings   supporting Continuity Check, and 2) "CV/CC mode", which sends unique   maintenance entity identifiers in the periodic BFD messages   supporting CV as well as CC.   [RFC6374] specifies mechanisms for Performance Monitoring of LSPs, in   particular it specifies loss and delay measurement OAM functions.   [RFC6427] specifies fault management signals with which a server LSP   can notify client LSPs about various fault conditions to suppress   alarms or to be used as triggers for actions in the client LSPs.  The   following signals are defined: Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link   Down Indication (LDI), and Lock Report (LKR).   [RFC6371] describes the mapping of fault conditions to consequent   actions.  Some of these mappings may be configured by the operator   depending on the application of the LSP.  The following defects are   identified: Loss Of Continuity (LOC), Misconnectivity, MEP   Misconfiguration, and Period Misconfiguration.  Out of these defect   conditions, the following consequent actions may be configurable: 1)Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   whether or not the LOC defect should result in blocking the outgoing   data traffic; 2) whether or not the "Period Misconfiguration defect"   should result in a signal fail condition.3.  Theory of Operations3.1.  MPLS-TP OAM Configuration Operation Overview   GMPLS RSVP-TE, or alternatively LSP Ping [LSP-PING-CONF], can be used   to simply enable the different OAM functions by setting the   corresponding flags in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260].  For   a more detailed configuration, one may include sub-TLVs for the   different OAM functions in order to specify various parameters in   detail.   Typically, intermediate nodes SHOULD NOT process or modify any of the   OAM Configuration TLVs but simply forward them to the end node.   There is one exception to this and that is if the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-   TLV is present.  This sub-TLV MUST be examined even by intermediate   nodes that support these extensions but only acted upon by nodes   capable of transmitting FMS signals into the LSP being established.   The sub-TLV MAY be present when the FMS flag is set in the OAM   Function Flags Sub-TLV.  If this sub-TLV is present, then the "OAM   MIP entities desired" and "OAM MEP entities desired" flags (described   in [RFC7260]) in the LSP Attribute Flags TLV MUST be set and the   entire OAM Configuration TLV placed either in the   LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object or in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in   order to ensure that capable intermediate nodes process the   configuration.  If placed in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, nodes that   are not able to process the OAM Configuration TLV will forward the   message without generating an error.  If the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV has   been placed in the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, a node that   supportsRFC 7260 but does not support the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV MUST   generate a PathErr message with "OAM Problem/Configuration Error"   [RFC7260].  Otherwise, if the node doesn't supportRFC 7260, it will   not raise any errors as described in theSection 4.1 of [RFC7260].   Finally, if the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV is not included, only the "OAM   MEP entities desired" flag is set and the OAM Configuration TLV may   be placed in either LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20153.1.1.  Configuration of BFD Sessions   For this specification, BFD MUST be run in either one of the two   modes:   o  Asynchronous mode, where both sides should be in active mode; or   o  Unidirectional mode.   In the simplest scenario, RSVP-TE (or alternatively LSP Ping   [LSP-PING-CONF]), is used only to bootstrap a BFD session for an LSP   without any timer negotiation.   Timer negotiation can be performed either in subsequent BFD Control   messages (in this case the operation is similar to LSP-Ping-based   bootstrapping described in [RFC5884]) or directly in the RSVP-TE   signaling messages.   When BFD Control packets are transported in the G-ACh, they are not   protected by any end-to-end checksum; only lower layers are providing   error detection/correction.  A single bit error, e.g., a flipped bit   in the BFD State field, could cause the receiving end to wrongly   conclude that the link is down and, in turn, trigger protection   switching.  To prevent this from happening, the BFD Configuration   Sub-TLV has an Integrity flag that, when set, enables BFD   Authentication using Keyed SHA1 with an empty key (all 0s) [RFC5880].   This would ensure that every BFD Control packet carries a SHA1 hash   of itself that can be used to detect errors.   If BFD Authentication using a pre-shared key / password is desired   (i.e., authentication and not only error detection), the BFD   Authentication Sub-TLV MUST be included in the BFD Configuration Sub-   TLV.  The BFD Authentication Sub-TLV is used to specify which   authentication method should be used and which pre-shared key /   password should be used for this particular session.  How the key   exchange is performed is out of scope of this document.3.1.2.  Configuration of Performance Monitoring   It is possible to configure Performance Monitoring functionalities   such as Loss, Delay, Delay variation (jitter), and Throughput, as   described in [RFC6374].   When configuring Performance Monitoring functionalities, it is   possible to choose either the default configuration (by only setting   the respective flags in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV) or aBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   customized configuration.  To customize the configuration, one would   set the respective flags and include the respective Loss and/or Delay   sub-TLVs.   By setting the PM/Loss flag in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV and by   including the MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV, one can configure the   measurement interval and loss threshold values for triggering   protection.   Delay measurements are configured by setting the PM/Delay flag in the   OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV; by including the MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-   TLV, one can configure the measurement interval and the delay   threshold values for triggering protection.3.1.3.  Configuration of Fault Management Signals   To configure Fault Management signals and their refresh time, the FMS   flag in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV MUST be set and the MPLS OAM   FMS Sub-TLV included.  When configuring Fault Management signals, an   implementation can enable the default configuration by setting the   FMS flag in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV.  In order to modify the   default configuration, the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV MUST be included.   If an intermediate point is intended to originate fault management   signal messages, this means that such an intermediate point is   associated with a server MEP through a co-located MPLS-TP client/   server adaptation function, and the "Fault Management subscription"   flag in the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV has been set as an indication of the   request to create the association at each intermediate node of the   client LSP.  The corresponding server MEP needs to be configured by   its own RSVP-TE session (or, alternatively, via an NMS or LSP Ping).3.2.  MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV   The OAM Configuration TLV, defined in [RFC7260], specifies the OAM   functions that are used for the LSP.  This document extends the OAM   Configuration TLV by defining a new OAM Type: "MPLS OAM" (3).  The   MPLS OAM type is set to request the establishment of OAM functions   for MPLS-TP LSPs.  The specific OAM functions are specified in the   OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV as depicted in [RFC7260].   When an egress LSR receives an OAM Configuration TLV indicating the   MPLS OAM type, the LSR will first process any present OAM Function   Flags Sub-TLV, and then it MUST process technology-specific   configuration TLVs.  This document defines a sub-TLV, the MPLS OAM   Configuration Sub-TLV, which is carried in the OAM Configuration TLV.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   | MPLS OAM Conf. Sub-TLV (33)   |            Length             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              Figure 1: MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV Format   Type: 33, the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the total length in octets, including sub-TLVs as   well as the Type and Length fields.   The following MPLS-OAM-specific sub-TLVs MAY be included in the MPLS   OAM Configuration Sub-TLV:   o  BFD Configuration Sub-TLV MUST be included if either the CC, the      CV, or both OAM Function flags are being set in the OAM Function      Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260].  This sub-TLV carries additional sub-      TLVs; failure to include the correct sub-TLVs MUST result in an      error being generated: "OAM Problem/Configuration Error".  The      sub-TLVs are:      *  BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV MUST always be included.      *  Timer Negotiation Parameters Sub-TLV MUST be included if the N         flag is not set.      *  BFD Authentication Sub-TLV MAY be included if the I flag is         set.   o  Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV, which MUST be included if any of      the PM/Delay, PM/Loss, or PM/Throughput flags are set in the OAM      Function Flag Sub-TLV [RFC7260].  This sub-TLV MAY carry      additional sub-TLVs:      *  MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV MAY be included if the PM/Loss OAM         Function flag is set.  If the MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV is not         included, default configuration values are used.  The same sub-         TLV MAY also be included in case the PM/Throughput OAM Function         flag is set and there is the need to specify measurement         intervals different from the default ones.  Since throughput         measurements use the same tool as loss measurements, the same         TLV is used.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015      *  MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV MAY be included if the PM/Delay OAM         Function flag is set.  If the MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV is not         included, default configuration values are used.   o  MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV MAY be included if the FMS OAM Function flag      is set.  If the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV is not included, default      configuration values are used.   The following are some additional rules of processing the MPLS OAM   Configuration Sub-TLV:   o  The MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e., have no      Value.  If so, then its Length MUST be 8.  Then, all OAM functions      that have their corresponding flags set in the OAM Function Flags      Sub-TLV MUST be assigned their default values or left disabled.   o  A sub-TLV that doesn't have a corresponding flag set MUST be      silently ignored.   o  If multiple copies of a sub-TLV are present, then only the first      sub-TLV MUST be used and the remaining sub-TLVs MUST be silently      ignored.   However, not all the values can be derived from the standard RSVP-TE   objects, in particular the locally assigned Tunnel ID at the egress   cannot be derived by the ingress node.  Therefore, the full LSP MEP-   ID used by the ingress has to be carried in the BFD Identifiers Sub-   TLV in the Path message and the egress LSP MEP-ID in the same way in   the Resv message.3.2.1.  CV Flag Rules of Use   If the CV flag is set in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260],   then the CC flag MUST be set as well because performing Connectivity   Verification implies performing Continuity Check as well.  The format   of an MPLS-TP CV/CC message is shown in [RFC6428].  In order to   perform Connectivity Verification, the CV/CC message MUST contain the   "LSP MEP-ID" in addition to the BFD Control packet information.  The   "LSP MEP-ID" contains four identifiers:      MPLS-TP Global_ID      MPLS-TP Node Identifier      Tunnel_Num      LSP_NumBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 11]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   These values need to be correctly set by both ingress and egress when   transmitting a CV packet, and both ingress and egress need to know   what to expect when receiving a CV packet.  Most of these values can   be derived from the Path and Resv messages [RFC3473], which use a   5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within an operator's network.   This tuple is composed of a Tunnel Sender Address, Tunnel Endpoint   Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and (GMPLS) LSP_ID.3.3.  BFD Configuration Sub-TLV   The BFD Configuration Sub-TLV (depicted below) is defined for BFD-   OAM-specific configuration parameters.  The BFD Configuration Sub-TLV   is carried as a sub-TLV of the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.   This TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries sub-   TLVs.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |      BFD Conf. Type (1)       |           Length              |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |Vers.|N|S|I|G|U|B|       Reserved (set to all 0s)              |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                Figure 2: BFD Configuration Sub-TLV Format   Type: 1, the BFD Configuration Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the total length in octets, including sub-TLVs as   well as the Type and Length fields.   Version: Identifies the BFD protocol version.  If the egress LSR does   not support the version, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/   Unsupported BFD Version".   BFD Negotiation (N): If set timer negotiation/re-negotiation via BFD   Control messages is enabled, when cleared it is disabled.   Symmetric Session (S): If set, the BFD session MUST use symmetric   timing values.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 12]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   Integrity (I): If set, BFD Authentication MUST be enabled.  If the   BFD Configuration Sub-TLV does not include a BFD Authentication Sub-   TLV, the authentication MUST use Keyed SHA1 with an empty pre-shared   key (all 0s).  If the egress LSR does not support BFD Authentication,   an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/BFD Authentication   unsupported".   Encapsulation Capability (G): If set, it shows the capability of   encapsulating BFD messages into The G-Ach channel.  If both the G bit   and U bit are set, configuration gives precedence to the G bit.  If   the egress LSR does not support any of the ingress LSR Encapsulation   Capabilities, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported   BFD Encapsulation format".   Encapsulation Capability (U): If set, it shows the capability of   encapsulating BFD messages into UDP packets.  If both the G bit and U   bit are set, configuration gives precedence to the G bit.  If the   egress LSR does not support any of the ingress LSR Encapsulation   Capabilities, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported   BFD Encapsulation Format".   Bidirectional (B): If set, it configures BFD in the Bidirectional   mode.  If it is not set, it configures BFD in unidirectional mode.   In the second case, the source node does not expect any Discriminator   values back from the destination node.   Reserved: Reserved for future specifications; set to 0 on   transmission and ignored when received.   The BFD Configuration Sub-TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs in   the Path message:   o  BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV; and   o  Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV if the N flag is cleared.   The BFD Configuration Sub-TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs in   the Resv message:   o  BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV; and   o  Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV if:      *  the N and S flags are cleared; or ifBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 13]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015      *  the N flag is cleared and the S flag is set and the Negotiation         Timer Parameters Sub-TLV received by the egress contains         unsupported values.  In this case, an updated Negotiation Timer         Parameters Sub-TLV containing values supported by the egress         LSR MUST be returned to the ingress.3.3.1.  BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV   The BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV of the BFD   Configuration Sub-TLV and is depicted below.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |   BFD Identifiers Type (1)    |            Length             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                     Local Discriminator                       |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                       MPLS-TP Global_ID                       |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                    MPLS-TP Node Identifier                    |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |           Tunnel_Num          |            LSP_Num            |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                 Figure 3: BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV Format   Type: 1, the BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the TLV total length in octets, including the Type   and Length fields (20).   Local Discriminator: A unique, non-zero discriminator value generated   by the transmitting system and referring to itself; it is used to de-   multiplex multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of systems as   defined in [RFC5880].   MPLS-TP Global_ID, Node Identifier, Tunnel_Num, and LSP_Num: All set   as defined in [RFC6370].Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 14]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20153.3.2.  Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV   The Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV of   the BFD Configuration Sub-TLV and is depicted below.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |    Nego. Timer Type (2)       |             Length            |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |         Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval              |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |         Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval              |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |               Required Echo TX Interval                       |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+           Figure 4: Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV Format   Type: 2, the Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the TLV total length in octets, including Type and   Length fields (16).   Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval: If the S flag is set in the   BFD Configuration Sub-TLV, it expresses the desired time interval (in   microseconds) at which the ingress LER intends to both transmit and   receive BFD periodic control packets.  If the egress LSR cannot   support the value, it SHOULD reply with a supported interval.   If the S flag is cleared in the BFD Configuration Sub-TLV, this field   expresses the desired time interval (in microseconds) at which the   ingress LSR intends to transmit BFD periodic control packets.   Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval: If the S flag is set in the   BFD Configuration Sub-TLV, this field MUST be set equal to   "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval" on transmit and MUST be   ignored on receipt since it has no additional meaning with respect to   the one described for "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval".   If the S flag is cleared in the BFD Configuration Sub-TLV, it   expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at which the   ingress/egress LSRs can receive periodic BFD Control packets.  If   this value is greater than the "Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX   interval" received from the ingress/egress LSR, the receiving LSR   MUST adopt the interval expressed in the "Acceptable Min.   Asynchronous RX interval".Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 15]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   Required Echo TX Interval: The minimum interval (in microseconds)   between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of   supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described inSection 6.8.9 of [RFC5880].  This value is also an indication for the   receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo   packets.  If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not   support the receipt of BFD Echo packets.  If the LSR node cannot   support this value, it SHOULD reply with a supported value (which may   be zero if Echo is not supported).3.3.3.  BFD Authentication Sub-TLV   The BFD Authentication Sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV of the BFD   Configuration Sub-TLV and is depicted below.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |      BFD Auth. Type (3)       |            Length             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |   Auth Type   |  Auth Key ID  |         Reserved (0s)         |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                Figure 5: BFD Authentication Sub-TLV Format   Type: 3, the BFD Authentication Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the TLV total length in octets, including Type and   Length fields (8).   Auth Type: Indicates which type of authentication to use.  The same   values are used as are defined inSection 4.1 of [RFC5880].  If the   egress LSR does not support this type, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported   BFD Authentication Type" error MUST be generated.   Auth Key ID: Indicates which authentication key or password   (depending on Auth Type) should be used.  How the key exchange is   performed is out of scope of this document.  If the egress LSR does   not support this Auth Key ID, an "OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD   Authentication Key ID" error MUST be generated.   Reserved: Reserved for future specifications; set to 0 on   transmission and ignored when received.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 16]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20153.3.4.  Traffic Class Sub-TLV   The Traffic Class Sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV of the BFD   Configuration Sub-TLV or Fault Management Signal Sub-TLV   (Section 3.5) and is depicted in Figure 6.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  Traffic Class Sub-Type (4)   |            Length             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  TC |                 Reserved (set to all 0s)                |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                  Figure 6: Traffic Class Sub-TLV Format   Type: 4, the Traffic Class Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the length of the Value field in octets (4).   Traffic Class (TC): Identifies the TC [RFC5462] for periodic   continuity monitoring messages or packets with fault management   information.   If the Traffic Class Sub-TLV is present, then the value of the TC   field MUST be used as the value of the TC field of an MPLS label   stack entry.  If the Traffic Class Sub-TLV is absent from BFD   Configuration Sub-TLV or Fault Management Signal Sub-TLV, then   selection of the TC value is a local decision.3.4.  Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV   If the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV has either the PM/Loss, PM/Delay,   or PM/Throughput flag set, the Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV MUST be   present in the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.  Failure to include   the correct sub-TLVs MUST result in an "OAM Problem/Configuration   Error" message being generated.   The Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV provides the configuration   information mentioned inSection 7 of [RFC6374].  It includes support   for the configuration of quality thresholds and, as described in   [RFC6374], "the crossing of which will trigger warnings or alarms,   and result reporting and exception notification will be integrated   into the system-wide network management and reporting framework."Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 17]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   In case the values need to be different than the default ones, the   Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV includes the following sub-TLVs:   o  MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV if the PM/Loss and/or PM/Throughput flag      is set in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV; and   o  MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV if the PM/Delay flag is set in the OAM      Function Flags Sub-TLV.   The Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV depicted below is carried as a   sub-TLV of the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |    Perf. Monitoring Type (2)  |          Length               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |D|L|J|Y|K|C|            Reserved (set to all 0s)               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              Figure 7: Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV Format   Type: 2, the Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the TLV total length in octets, including sub-TLVs   as well as Type and Length fields.   Configuration Flags (for the specific function description please   refer to [RFC6374]):   o  D: Delay inferred/direct (0=INFERRED, 1=DIRECT).  If the egress      LSR does not support the specified mode, an "OAM Problem/      Unsupported Delay Mode" error MUST be generated.   o  L: Loss inferred/direct (0=INFERRED, 1=DIRECT).  If the egress LSR      does not support the specified mode, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported      Loss Mode" error MUST be generated.   o  J: Delay variation/jitter (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress      LSR does not support Delay variation measurements and the J flag      is set, an "OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported" error MUST be      generated.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 18]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   o  Y: Dyadic (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress LSR does not      support Dyadic mode and the Y flag is set, an "OAM Problem/Dyadic      mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.   o  K: Loopback (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress LSR does not      support Loopback mode and the K flag is set, an "OAM Problem/      Loopback mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.   o  C: Combined (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress LSR does not      support Combined mode and the C flag is set, an "OAM Problem/      Combined mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.   Reserved: Reserved for future specifications; set to 0 on   transmission and ignored when received.3.4.1.  MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV   The MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV   of the Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |       PM Loss Type (1)        |          Length               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   | OTF |T|B|              Reserved (set to all 0s)               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                    Measurement Interval                       |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                       Test Interval                           |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                      Loss Threshold                           |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                 Figure 8: MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV Format   Type: 1, the MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the length of the parameters in octets, including   Type and Length fields (20).   Origin Timestamp Format (OTF): Origin Timestamp Format of the Origin   Timestamp field described in [RFC6374].  By default, it is set to   IEEE 1588 version 1.  If the egress LSR cannot support this value, an   "OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp Format" error MUST be generated.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 19]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   Configuration Flags (please refer to [RFC6374] for further details):   o  T: Traffic-class-specific measurement indicator.  Set to 1 when      the measurement operation is scoped to packets of a particular      traffic class (Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) value) and      zero otherwise.  When set to 1, the Differentiated Services (DS)      field of the message indicates the measured traffic class.  By      default, it is set to 1.   o  B: Octet (byte) count.  When set to 1, it indicates that the      Counter 1-4 fields represent octet counts.  When set to 0, it      indicates that the Counter 1-4 fields represent packet counts.  By      default, it is set to 0.   Reserved: Reserved for future specifications; set to 0 on   transmission and ignored when received.   Measurement Interval: The time interval (in milliseconds) at which   Loss Measurement query messages MUST be sent in both directions.  If   the egress LSR cannot support the value, it SHOULD reply with a   supported interval.  By default, it is set to 100 milliseconds as per   [RFC6375].   Test Interval: Test messages interval (in milliseconds) as described   in [RFC6374].  By default, it is set to 10 milliseconds as per   [RFC6375].  If the egress LSR cannot support the value, it SHOULD   reply with a supported interval.   Loss Threshold: The threshold value of measured lost packets per   measurement over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 20]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20153.4.2.  MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV   The MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV   of the Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |      PM Delay Type (2)        |          Length               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   | OTF |T|B|             Reserved (set to all 0s)                |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                    Measurement Interval                       |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                       Test Interval                           |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                      Delay Threshold                          |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                Figure 9: MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV Format   Type: 2, the MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the length of the parameters in octets, including   Type and Length fields (20).   OTF: Origin Timestamp Format of the Origin Timestamp field described   in [RFC6374].  By default, it is set to IEEE 1588 version 1.  If the   egress LSR cannot support this value, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported   Timestamp Format" error MUST be generated.   Configuration Flags (please refer to [RFC6374] for further details):   o  T: Traffic-class-specific measurement indicator.  Set to 1 when      the measurement operation is scoped to packets of a particular      traffic class (Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value)      and zero otherwise.  When set to 1, the Differentiated Service      (DS) field of the message indicates the measured traffic class.      By default, it is set to 1.   o  B: Octet (byte) count.  When set to 1, it indicates that the      Counter 1-4 fields represent octet counts.  When set to 0, it      indicates that the Counter 1-4 fields represent packet counts.  By      default, it is set to 0.   Reserved: Reserved for future specifications; set to 0 on   transmission and ignored when received.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 21]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   Measurement Interval: The time interval (in milliseconds) at which   Delay Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions.  If   the egress LSR cannot support the value, it SHOULD reply with a   supported interval.  By default, it is set to 1000 milliseconds as   per [RFC6375].   Test Interval: Test messages interval (in milliseconds) as described   in [RFC6374].  By default, it is set to 10 milliseconds as per   [RFC6375].  If the egress LSR cannot support the value, it SHOULD   reply with a supported interval.   Delay Threshold: The threshold value of measured two-way delay (in   milliseconds) over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered.3.5.  MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV   The MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV depicted below is carried as a sub-TLV of   the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.  When both working and protection   paths are signaled, both LSPs SHOULD be signaled with identical   settings of the E flag, T flag, and the refresh timer.    0                   1                   2                   3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |     MPLS OAM FMS Type (3)     |            Length             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |E|S|T|           Reserved            |      Refresh Timer      |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   ~                           Sub-TLVs                            ~   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                  Figure 10: MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV Format   Type: 3, the MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV.   Length: Indicates the TLV total length in octets, including Type and   Length fields (8).   FMS Signal Flags are used to enable the FMS signals at MEPs and the   server MEPs of the links over which the LSP is forwarded.  In this   document, only the S flag pertains to server MEPs.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 22]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   The following flags are defined:      E: Enable Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) and Lock Report (LKR)      signaling as described in [RFC6427].  The default value is 1      (enabled).  If the egress MEP does not support FMS signal      generation, an "OAM Problem/Fault management signaling      unsupported" error MUST be generated.      S: Indicate to a server MEP that it should transmit AIS and LKR      signals on client LSPs.  The default value is 0 (disabled).  If a      server MEP, which is capable of generating FMS messages, is for      some reason unable to do so for the LSP being signaled an "OAM      Problem/Unable to create fault management association" error MUST      be generated.      T: Set timer value, enabled by the configuration of a specific      timer value.  The Default value is 0 (disabled).      Remaining bits: Reserved for a future specification and set to 0.   Refresh Timer: Indicates (in seconds) the refresh timer of fault   indication messages.  The value MUST be between 1 to 20 seconds as   specified for the Refresh Timer field in [RFC6427].  If the egress   LSR cannot support the value, it SHOULD reply with a supported timer   value.   The Fault Management Signals Sub-TLV MAY include the Traffic Class   Sub-TLV (Section 3.3.4.)  If the Traffic Class Sub-TLV is present,   the value of the TC field MUST be used as the value of the TC field   of an MPLS label stack entry for FMS messages.  If the Traffic Class   Sub-TLV is absent, then selection of the TC value is local decision.4.  Summary of MPLS OAM Configuration Errors   In addition to error values specified in [RFC7260], this document   defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" error code:   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified BFD version, an      error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version".   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified BFD Encapsulation      format, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD      Encapsulation format".   o  If an egress LSR does not support BFD Authentication and it is      requested, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/BFD      Authentication unsupported".Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 23]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified BFD Authentication      Type, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD      Authentication Type".   o  If an egress LSR is not able to use the specified Authentication      Key ID, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD      Authentication Key ID".   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified Timestamp Format,      an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp      Format".   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified Delay mode, an      "OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode" error MUST be generated.   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified Loss mode, an "OAM      Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode" error MUST be generated.   o  If an egress LSR does not support Delay variation measurements and      it is requested, an "OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported"      error MUST be generated.   o  If an egress LSR does not support Dyadic mode and it is requested,      an "OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.   o  If an egress LSR does not support Loopback mode and it is      requested, an "OAM Problem/Loopback mode unsupported" error MUST      be generated.   o  If an egress LSR does not support Combined mode and it is      requested, an "OAM Problem/Combined mode unsupported" error MUST      be generated.   o  If an egress LSR does not support Fault Monitoring signals and it      is requested, an "OAM Problem/Fault management signaling      unsupported" error MUST be generated.   o  If an intermediate server MEP supports Fault Monitoring signals      but is unable to create an association when requested to do so, an      "OAM Problem/Unable to create fault management association" error      MUST be generated.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 24]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20155.  IANA Considerations5.1.  MPLS OAM Type   This document specifies the new MPLS OAM type.  IANA has allocated a   new type (3) from the "OAM Types" space of the "RSVP-TE OAM   Configuration Registry".                    +------+-------------+-----------+                    | Type | Description | Reference |                    +------+-------------+-----------+                    |  3   |   MPLS OAM  | [RFC7487] |                    +------+-------------+-----------+                          Table 1: MPLS OAM Type5.2.  MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV   This document specifies the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.  IANA has   allocated a new type (33) from the OAM Sub-TLV space of the "RSVP-TE   OAM Configuration Registry".           +------+--------------------------------+-----------+           | Type |          Description           | Reference |           +------+--------------------------------+-----------+           |  33  | MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV | [RFC7487] |           +------+--------------------------------+-----------+               Table 2: MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV TypeBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 25]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20155.3.  MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV Types   IANA has created an "MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV Types" sub-   registry in the "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry" for the sub-TLVs   carried in the MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV.  Values from this new   sub-registry are to be allocated through IETF Review except for the   "Reserved for Experimental Use" range.  This document defines the   following types:       +-------------+--------------------------------+-----------+       |     Type    |          Description           | Reference |       +-------------+--------------------------------+-----------+       |      0      |            Reserved            | [RFC7487] |       |      1      |   BFD Configuration Sub-TLV    | [RFC7487] |       |      2      | Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV | [RFC7487] |       |      3      |      MPLS OAM FMS Sub-TLV      | [RFC7487] |       |   4-65532   |           Unassigned           |           |       | 65533-65534 | Reserved for Experimental Use  | [RFC7487] |       |    65535    |            Reserved            | [RFC7487] |       +-------------+--------------------------------+-----------+               Table 3: MPLS OAM Configuration Sub-TLV Types5.4.  BFD Configuration Sub-TLV Types   IANA has created a "BFD Configuration Sub-TLV Types" sub-registry in   the "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry" for the sub-TLV types   carried in the BFD Configuration Sub-TLV.  Values from this new sub-   registry are to be allocated through IETF Review except for the   "Reserved for Experimental Use" range.  This document defines the   following types:    +-------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+    |     Type    |             Description              | Reference |    +-------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+    |      0      |               Reserved               | [RFC7487] |    |      1      |       BFD Identifiers Sub-TLV        | [RFC7487] |    |      2      | Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV | [RFC7487] |    |      3      |      BFD Authentication Sub-TLV      | [RFC7487] |    |      4      |        Traffic Class Sub-TLV         | [RFC7487] |    |   5-65532   |              Unassigned              |           |    | 65533-65534 |    Reserved for Experimental Use     | [RFC7487] |    |    65535    |               Reserved               | [RFC7487] |    +-------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+                 Table 4: BFD Configuration Sub-TLV TypesBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 26]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20155.5.  Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV Types   IANA has created a "Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV Type" sub-registry   in the "RSVP-TE OAM Configuration Registry" for the sub-TLV types   carried in the Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV.  Values from this new   sub-registry are to be allocated through IETF Review except for the   "Reserved for Experimental Use" range.  This document defines the   following types:        +-------------+-------------------------------+-----------+        |     Type    |          Description          | Reference |        +-------------+-------------------------------+-----------+        |      0      |            Reserved           | [RFC7487] |        |      1      |    MPLS OAM PM Loss Sub-TLV   | [RFC7487] |        |      2      |   MPLS OAM PM Delay Sub-TLV   | [RFC7487] |        |   3-65532   |           Unassigned          |           |        | 65533-65534 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC7487] |        |    65535    |            Reserved           | [RFC7487] |        +-------------+-------------------------------+-----------+               Table 5: Performance Monitoring Sub-TLV TypesBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 27]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20155.6.  New RSVP-TE Error Codes   The following values have been assigned under the "OAM Problem" error   code [RFC7260] by IETF Review process:   +------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+   | Error Value Sub- | Description                        | Reference |   | Codes            |                                    |           |   +------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+   | 13               | Unsupported BFD Version            | [RFC7487] |   | 14               | Unsupported BFD Encapsulation      | [RFC7487] |   |                  | format                             |           |   | 15               | Unsupported BFD Authentication     | [RFC7487] |   |                  | Type                               |           |   | 16               | Mismatch of BFD Authentication Key | [RFC7487] |   |                  | ID                                 |           |   | 17               | Unsupported Timestamp Format       | [RFC7487] |   | 18               | Unsupported Delay Mode             | [RFC7487] |   | 19               | Unsupported Loss Mode              | [RFC7487] |   | 20               | Delay variation unsupported        | [RFC7487] |   | 21               | Dyadic mode unsupported            | [RFC7487] |   | 22               | Loopback mode unsupported          | [RFC7487] |   | 23               | Combined mode unsupported          | [RFC7487] |   | 24               | Fault management signaling         | [RFC7487] |   |                  | unsupported                        |           |   | 25               | Unable to create fault management  | [RFC7487] |   |                  | association                        |           |   +------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+                Table 6: MPLS OAM Configuration Error Codes   The "Sub-Codes - 40 OAM Problem" sub-registry is located in the   "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry.6.  Security Considerations   The signaling of OAM-related parameters and the automatic   establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security   considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473].  In particular, a   network element could be overloaded if an attacker were to request   high frequency liveliness monitoring of a large number of LSPs,   targeting a single network element as discussed in [RFC7260] and   [RFC6060].   Additional discussion of security for MPLS and GMPLS protocols can be   found in [RFC5920].Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 28]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 20157.  References7.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",RFC 3473,              January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,              Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS              Transport Profile",RFC 5654, September 2009,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.   [RFC5860]  Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,              "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and              Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks",RFC 5860,              May 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection              (BFD)",RFC 5880, June 2010,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.   [RFC5884]  Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label              Switched Paths (LSPs)",RFC 5884, June 2010,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.   [RFC6060]  Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,              "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control              of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-              TE)",RFC 6060, March 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060>.   [RFC6370]  Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport              Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers",RFC 6370, September 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6370>.   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay              Measurement for MPLS Networks",RFC 6374, September 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 29]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015   [RFC6427]  Swallow, G., Ed., Fulignoli, A., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed.,              Boutros, S., and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",RFC6427, November 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6427>.   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Ed., Swallow Ed., G., and J. Drake Ed.,              "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check,              and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport              Profile",RFC 6428, November 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.   [RFC7260]  Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE              Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance              (OAM) Configuration",RFC 7260, June 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>.7.2.  Informative References   [LSP-PING-CONF]              Bellagamba, E., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P.,              Ward, D., and J. Drake, "Configuration of Proactive              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)              Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using LSP              Ping", Work in Progress,draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-09, January 2015.   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic              Class" Field",RFC 5462, February 2009,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS              Networks",RFC 5920, July 2010,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.   [RFC6371]  Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,              Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based              Transport Networks",RFC 6371, September 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.   [RFC6375]  Frost, D., Ed. and S. Bryant, Ed., "A Packet Loss and              Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport              Networks",RFC 6375, September 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6375>.Bellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 30]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015Acknowledgements   The authors would like to thank David Allan, Lou Berger, Annamaria   Fulignoli, Eric Gray, Andras Kern, David Jocha, and David Sinicrope   for their useful comments.Contributors   This document is the result of a large team of authors and   contributors.  The following is a list of the contributors:   John Drake   Benoit TremblayBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 31]

RFC 7487        Extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration      March 2015Authors' Addresses   Elisa Bellagamba   Ericsson   EMail: elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com   Attila Takacs   Ericsson   EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com   Gregory Mirsky   Ericsson   EMail: Gregory.Mirsky@ericsson.com   Loa Andersson   Huawei Technologies   EMail: loa@mail01.huawei.com   Pontus Skoldstrom   Acreo AB   Electrum 236   Kista  164 40   Sweden   Phone: +46 70 7957731   EMail: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se   Dave Ward   Cisco   EMail: dward@cisco.comBellagamba, et al.           Standards Track                   [Page 32]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp