Network Working Group Mustapha Aissaoui
Internet Draft Peter Busschbach
Expires: May 2009 Alcatel-Lucent
Dave Allan
Nortel
Monique Morrow
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems Inc.
Thomas Nadeau
BT
Editors
November 3, 2008
Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-08.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2009.
Abstract
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
This document specifies the mapping of defect states between a Pseudo
Wire and the Attachment Circuits (AC) of the end-to-end emulated
service. This document covers the case whereby the ACs and the PWs
are of the same type in accordance to the PWE3 architecture [RFC3985]
such that a homogenous PW service can be constructed.
Conventions used in this document
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 in RFC-2119.
Table of Contents
1. Acknowledgments................................................3
2. Contributors...................................................3
3. Introduction...................................................4
4. Terminology....................................................4
5. Reference Model and Defect Locations...........................7
6. Abstract Defect States.........................................8
7. OAM Models.....................................................9
8. PW Defect States and Defect Notifications.....................11
8.1. PW Defect Notification Mechanisms........................11
8.1.1. LDP Status TLV......................................12
8.1.2. L2TP Circuit Status AVP.............................14
8.1.3. BFD Diagnostic Codes................................16
8.2. PW Defect State Entry/Exit...............................17
8.2.1. PW Forward Defect State Entry/Exit Criteria.........17
8.2.2. PW Reverse Defect State Entry/Exit Criteria.........18
9. Procedures for ATM PW Service.................................19
9.1. AC forward defect state entry/exit criteria..............19
9.2. AC reverse defect state entry/exit criteria..............20
9.3. Consequent Actions.......................................20
9.3.1. PW forward defect state entry/exit..................20
9.3.2. PW reverse defect state entry/exit..................21
9.3.3. PW defect state in ATM Port Mode PW Service.........21
9.3.4. AC forward defect state entry/exit..................21
9.3.5. AC reverse defect state entry/exit..................22
10. Procedures for Frame Relay PW Service........................23
10.1. AC forward defect state entry/exit criteria.............23
10.2. AC reverse defect state entry/exit criteria.............23
10.3. Consequent Actions......................................23
10.3.1. PW forward defect state entry/exit.................23
10.3.2. PW reverse defect state entry/exit.................24
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
10.3.3. PW defect state in the FR Port Mode PW service.....24
10.3.4. AC forward defect state entry/exit.................25
10.3.5. AC reverse defect state entry/exit.................25
11. Procedures for TDM PW Service................................25
12. Procedures for CEP PW Service................................26
13. Informative Appendix A: Native Service Management............26
13.1. Frame Relay Management..................................26
13.2. ATM Management..........................................27
14. Informative Appendix B: PW Defects and Detection tools.......28
14.1. PW Defects..............................................28
14.1.1. Packet Loss........................................29
14.2. PW Defect Detection Tools...............................29
15. Security Considerations......................................30
16. IANA Considerations..........................................30
17. References...................................................30
17.1. Normative References....................................30
17.2. Informative References..................................31
18. Editor's Addresses...........................................32
Full Copyright Statement.........................................33
Intellectual Property Statement..................................34
Acknowledgment...................................................34
1. Acknowledgments
The editors would like to acknowledge the important contributions of
Hari Rakotoranto, Eric Rosen, Mark Townsley, Michel Khouderchah,
Bertrand Duvivier, Vanson Lim, Chris Metz, Ben Washam, Tiberiu
Grigoriu, Neil McGill, and Amir Maleki.
2. Contributors
Thomas D. Nadeau, tom.nadeau@bt.com
Monique Morrow, mmorrow@cisco.com
Peter B. Busschbach, busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com
Mustapha Aissaoui, mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com
Matthew Bocci, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
David Watkinson, david.watkinson@alcatel-lucent.com
Yuichi Ikejiri, y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Kenji Kumaki, kekumaki@kddi.com
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
Satoru Matsushima, satoru@ft.solteria.net
David Allan, dallan@nortel.com
Himanshu Shah, hshah@ciena.com
Simon Delord, simon.delord@gmail.com
Vasile Radoaca, vasile.radoaca@alcatel-lucent.com
Carlos Pignataro, cpignata@cisco.com
Luca Martini, lmartini@cisco.com
3. Introduction
This document specifies the mapping of defect states between a Pseudo
Wire and the Attachment Circuits (AC) of the end-to-end emulated
service. It covers the case whereby the ACs and the PWs are of the
same type in accordance to the PWE3 architecture [RFC3985] such
that a homogeneous PW service can be constructed.
This document is motivated by the requirements put forth in [RFC4377]
and [RFC3916]. Its objective is to standardize the behavior of PEs
with respects to failures on PWs and ACs, so that there is no
ambiguity about the alarms generated and consequent actions
undertaken by PEs in response to specific failure conditions.
This document covers PWE over MPLS PSN, PWE over IP PSN and PWE over
L2TP PSN.
The Ethernet PW service is covered in a separate document [ETH-OAM-
IWK].
4. Terminology
AIS Alarm Indication Signal
AC Attachment circuit
BDI Backward Defect Indication
CC Continuity Check
CE Customer Edge
CPCS Common Part Convergence Sub-layer
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
DLC Data Link Connection
FDI Forward Defect Indication
FRBS Frame Relay Bearer Service
IWF Interworking Function
LB Loopback
NE Network Element
NS Native Service
OAM Operations and Maintenance
PE Provider Edge
PW Pseudowire
PSN Packet Switched Network
RDI Remote Defect Indication
SDU Service Data Unit
VCC Virtual Channel Connection
VPC Virtual Path Connection
The rest of this document will follow the following conventions.
The words "defect" and "fault" are used inter-changeably to mean a
condition which causes user packets not to be forwarded between the
CE endpoints of the PW service.
The words "defect notification" and "defect indication" are used
inter-changeably to mean an OAM message generated by a PE and sent to
other nodes in the network to convey the defect state local to this
PE.
The PW can ride over three types of Packet Switched Network (PSN). A
PSN which makes use of LSPs as the tunneling technology to forward
the PW packets will be referred to as an MPLS PSN. A PSN which makes
use of MPLS-in-IP tunneling [RFC4023], with an MPLS shim header used
as PW demultiplexer, will be referred to as an MPLS-IP PSN. A PSN
which makes use of L2TPv3 [RFC3931] as the tunneling technology with
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
the L2TPv3 Session ID as the PW demultiplexer will be referred to as
L2TP-IP PSN.
If LSP-Ping [RFC4379] is run over a PW as described in [RFC4377], it
will be referred to as VCCV-Ping.
If BFD is run over a PW as described in [RFC4377], it will be
referred to as VCCV-BFD [VCCV-BFD].
In the context of this document a PE forwards packets between an AC
and a PW. The other PE that terminates the PW is the peer PE or
remote PE and the attachment circuit associated with the far-end PW
termination is the remote AC.
Defects are discussed in the context of defect states, and the
criteria to enter and exit the defect state. The direction of defects
is discussed from the perspective of the observing PE.
A forward defect is one that impacts information transfer to the
observing PE. It impacts the observing PEs ability to receive
information.
A reverse defect is one that uniquely impacts information sent or
relayed by the observing PE.
A forward defect generally also impacts information sent or relayed
by the observing PE. Therefore the forward defect state is considered
to be a superset of the two defect states. Thus, when a PE enters
both forward and reverse defect states related to the same PW
service, the forward defect takes precedence over reverse defect in
terms of the consequent actions.
A forward defect indication is sent in the same direction as the user
traffic impacted by the defect. A reverse defect indication is sent
in the opposite direction of the traffic impacted by the defect.
When a PE enters a defect state, it always sends a defect indication
that corresponds to that defect to notify nodes which are downstream
of the defect. For example, a local PE sends a forward defect
indication downstream to the CE when it enters the PW forward defect
state. However, in some cases the PE enters this defect state without
receiving a defect indication from the peer PE. In this case, the
local PE will also send a defect indication to the remote PE to
synchronize the states. In the example above, the local PE will send
a reverse defect indication to the remote PE. The exact procedures
are described later in the document.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
5. Reference Model and Defect Locations
Figure 1 illustrates the PWE3 network reference model with an
indication of the possible defect locations. This model will be
referenced in the remainder of this document for describing the OAM
procedures.
ACs PSN tunnel ACs
+----+ +----+
+----+ | PE1|==================| PE2| +----+
| |---(a)---(b)..(c)......PW1..(d)..(c)..(f)---(e)---| |
| CE1| (N1) | | | | (N2) |CE2 |
| |----------|............PW2.............|----------| |
+----+ | |==================| | +----+
^ +----+ +----+ ^
| Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 |
| |
|<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
Customer Customer
Edge 1 Edge 2
Figure 1: PWE3 Network Defect Locations
In all interworking scenarios described in this document, it is
assumed the AC and the PW are of the same type at PE1. The procedures
described in this document apply to PE1. PE2 implements the identical
functionality for a homogeneous service (although it is not required
to as long as the notifications across the PWs are consistent).
The following is a brief description of the defect locations:
a. Defect in the first L2 network (N1). This covers any defect
in the N1 which impacts all or a subset of ACs terminating in
PE1. The defect is conveyed to PE1 and to the remote L2
network (N2) using the native service specific OAM defect
indication.
b. Defect on a PE1 AC interface.
c. Defect on a PE1 PSN interface.
d. Defect in the PSN network. This covers any defect in the PSN
which impacts all or a subset of PWs terminating in a PE. The
defect is conveyed to the PE using a PSN and/or a PW specific
OAM defect indication. Note that both data plane defects and
control plane defects must be taken into consideration. Even
though control messages may follow a different path than the
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
PW data plane traffic, a control plane failure may affect the
PW status.
e. Defect in the second L2 network (N2). This covers any defect
in N2 which impacts all or a subset of ACs terminating in PE2
(which is considered a remote AC defect in the context of
procedures outlined in this draft). The defect is conveyed to
PE2 and to the remote L2 network (N1) using the native
service OAM defect indication.
f. Defect on a PE2 AC interface (which is also considered a
remote AC defect in the context of this draft).
6. Abstract Defect States
PE1 must track four defect states that reflect the observed states of
both directions of the PW service on both the AC and the PW sides.
Defects may impact one or both directions of the PW service.
The observed state is a combination of defects directly detected by
PE1 and defects it has been made aware of via notifications.
+-----+
----AC forward---->| |-----PW reverse---->
CE1 | PE1 | PE2/CE2
<---AC reverse-----| |<----PW forward-----
+-----+
(arrows indicate direction of user traffic impacted by a defect)
Figure 2: Forward and Reverse Defect States and Notifications
PE1 will directly detect or be notified of AC forward or PW forward
defects as they occur upstream of PE1 and impact traffic being sent
to PE1. As a result, PE1 enters the AC forward defect state.
In Figure 2, PE1 may be notified of a forward defect in the AC by
receiving a Forward Defect indication, e.g., ATM AIS, from an ATM
switch in L2 network N1. This defect notification indicates that user
traffic sent by CE1 may not be received by PE1 due to a defect. PE1
can also directly detect an AC Forward Defect if it resulted from a
failure of the receive side in the local port or link over which the
AC is configured.
Similarly, PE1 may detect or be notified of a forward defect in the
PW by receiving a Forward Defect indication from PE2. If PW status is
used for fault notification, this message will indicate a Local PSN-
facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault or a Local Attachment Circuit
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
(ingress) Receive Fault at PE2, as described in Section 8.1.1. . This
defect notification indicates that user traffic sent by CE2 may not
be received by PE1 due to a defect. As a result, PE1 enters the PW
forward defect state.
Note that a Forward Defect notification is sent in the same direction
as the user traffic impacted by the defect.
PE1 will only be notified of AC reverse or PW reverse defects as they
universally will be detected by other devices and only impact traffic
that has already been relayed by PE1. As a result, PE1 enters the AC
reverse defect state.
In Figure 2, PE1 may be notified of a reverse defect in the AC by
receiving a Reverse Defect indication, e.g., ATM RDI, from CE1. This
defect impacts the traffic sent by PE1 to CE1 on the AC.
Similarly, PE1 may be notified of a reverse defect in the PW by
receiving a Reverse Defect indication from PE2. If PW status is used
for fault notification, this message will indicate a Local PSN-facing
PW (ingress) Receive Fault or a Local Attachment Circuit (egress)
Transmit Fault at PE2, as described in Section 8.1.1. . This defect
impacts the traffic sent by PE1 to CE2. As a result, PE1 enters the
PW reverse defect state.
Note that a Reverse Defect notification is sent in the reverse
direction to the user traffic impacted by the defect.
The procedures outlined in this document define the entry and exit
criteria for each of the four states with respect to the set of PW
services within the document scope and the consequent actions that
PE1 must perform.
When a PE enters both forward and reverse defect states related to
the same PW service, then the forward defect takes precedence over
reverse defect in terms of the consequent actions.
7. OAM Models
A homogeneous PW service forwards packets between an AC and a PW of
the same type. It thus implements both a Native Service OAM
mechanism and a PW OAM mechanism. PW OAM defect notification
messages are described in Section 8.1. . NS OAM messages are
described in Appendix A.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
This document defines two different modes for operating OAM on a PW
service which dictate the mapping between the NS OAM the PW OAM
defect notification messages.
The first one operates a single emulated OAM loop end-to-end between
the endpoints of the PW service. This is referred to as "single
emulated OAM loop" mode and is illustrated in Figure 3.
|<----- AC ----->|<----- PW ----->|<----- AC ----->|
| | | |
___ ===============_
|CE|---=NS-OAM=>---(---=NS-OAM=>---)---=NS-OAM=>---|CE|
=============== /
\ /
---=PW-OAM=>---
Figure 3: Single Emulated OAM Loop mode
This mode implements the following behavior:
a. A PE node MUST transparently relay NS OAM messages over the
PW.
b. A PE node MUST signal local failures affecting the AC using a
NS defect notification OAM message sent over the PW.
c. A PE MUST signal local failures affecting the AC using a PW
defect notification OAM message when the defect interferes
with NS OAM message generation, e.g., NS processing line card
removed.
d. A PE node MUST signal local failures affecting the PW using a
PW defect notification OAM message.
e. A PE node MUST insert a NS defect notification OAM message
into the AC when it detects or is notified of a defect in the
PW or remote AC. This includes support receiving a PW defect
notification message and translating it into a NS defect
notification OAM message over the AC. The latter is required
for handling defects signaled by a peer PE with PW OAM
messaging.
The "single emulated OAM loop" mode is suitable for PW services
which have a widely deployed NS OAM mechanism that operates within
the AC. This document specifies the use of this mode for ATM PW, TDM
PW, and CEP PW services. It is the default mode of operation for an
ATM PW service and the only mode specified for TDM and CEP PW
services.
The second mode operates three OAM loops which join at the AC/PW
boundary of a PE. This is referred to as "coupled OAM loops" mode
and is illustrated in Figure 4
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
|<----- AC ----->|<----- PW ----->|<----- AC ----->|
| | | |
__ ===============__
|CE|---=NS-OAM=>---(---------------)---=NS-OAM=>---|CE|
\ =============== /
\ /
\ /
-------=PW-OAM=>------
Figure 4: Coupled OAM Loops mode
This mode implements the following behavior:
a. A PE node MUST terminate and translate a received NS defect
notification OAM message to a PW defect notification message.
b. A PE node MUST signal local failures affecting the AC using
using a PW defect notification OAM message.
c. A PE node MUST signal local failures affecting the PW using a
PW defect notification OAM message.
d. A PE node MUST insert a NS defect notification OAM message
into the AC when it detects or is notified of a defect in the
PW or remote AC. This includes support receiving a PW defect
notification message and translating it into a NS defect
notification OAM message over the AC.
This document specifies the use of the "coupled OAM loops" mode for
a FR PW service and for ATM PW services of type ATM VCC and AAL5
SDU. It does not specify the use of this mode for TDM PW, CEP PW,
and the ATM VPC cell mode PW services. In the latter case, a PE node
must pass transparently VC-level (F5) ATM OAM cells over the PW
while terminating and translating VP-level (F4) OAM cells. Thus, it
cannot operate a pure "coupled OAM loops" mode.
8. PW Defect States and Defect Notifications
8.1. PW Defect Notification Mechanisms
For a MPLS PSN and a MPLS-IP PSN, a PE node which establishes a PW
using LDP SHALL use LDP status TLV as the mechanism for AC and PW
status and defect notification [RFC4447]. Additionally, a PE node MAY
use VCCV-BFD Connectivity Verification (CV) types for fault detection
only but SHOULD notify the remote PE using LDP Status TLV. These CV
types are 0x04 and 0x10 [VCCV-BFD].
A PE node which establishes a PW using other means than LDP, e.g.,
static configuration, MAY use VCCV-BFD CV types for AC and PW status
and defect notification. These CV types are 0x08 and 0x20 [VCCV-BFD].
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
These CV types SHOULD NOT be used when the PW is established with the
LDP control plane.
For a L2TP-IP PSN, A PE node SHOULD use the Circuit Status AVP as the
mechanism for AC and PW status and defect notification. In its most
basic form, the Circuit Status AVP [RFC3931] in a Set-Link-Info (SLI)
message can signal active/inactive AC status. The Circuit Status AVP
is proposed to be extended to convey status and defects in the AC and
the PSN-facing PW in both ingress and egress directions, i.e., four
independent status bits without the need to tear down the sessions or
control connection [L2TP-Status].
When a PE does not support the Circuit Status AVP, it MAY use the
StopCCN and the CDN message to bring down L2TP sessions in a similar
way LDP uses the Label Withdrawal to bring down a PW. A PE node may
use the StopCCN to shutdown the L2TP control connection, and
implicitly all L2TP sessions associated with that control connection
without any explicit session control messages. This is in the case of
a failure which impacts all L2TP sessions, i.e., all PWs, managed by
the control connection. It may use the CDN message to disconnect a
specific L2TP session when a failure affects a specific PW.
Additionally, a PE node MAY use VCCV-BFD CV types 0x04 and 0x10 for
fault detection only but SHOULD notify the remote PE using the
Circuit Status AVP. A PE node which establishes a PW using other
means than L2TP control plane MAY use VCCV-BFD CV types 0x08 and 0x20
for AC and PW status and defect notification. These CV types SHOULD
NOT be used when the PW is established with the L2TP control plane.
8.1.1. LDP Status TLV
[RFC4446] defines the following PW status code points:
0x00000000 - Pseudo Wire forwarding (clear all failures)
0x00000001 - Pseudo Wire Not Forwarding
0x00000002 - Local Attachment Circuit (ingress) Receive Fault
0x00000004 - Local Attachment Circuit (egress) Transmit Fault
0x00000008 - Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault
0x00000010 - Local PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault
[RFC4447] specifies that "Pseudo Wire forwarding" code point is used
to clear all faults. It also specifies that "Pseudo Wire Not
Forwarding" code is used to convey any other defect that cannot be
represented by the other code points. In general, this applies to a
defect that does not cause the PW to be torn down.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
The code points used in the LDP status TLV in a PW status
notification message convey the defect view of the originating PE.
The originating PE conveys this state in the form of a forward defect
or a reverse defect indication.
The forward and reverse defect indication definitions used in this
document map to the LDP Status TLV codes as follows:
Forward defect indication - corresponds to the logical OR of
Local Attachment Circuit (ingress)
Receive Fault, Local PSN-facing
PW (egress) Transmit Fault, and PW not
Forwarding Fault
Reverse defect indication - corresponds to the logical OR of
Local Attachment Circuit (egress)
Transmit Fault and Local PSN-facing
PW (ingress) Receive Fault
A PE SHALL thus use PW status notification messages to report all
failures affecting the PW service including, but not restricted, to
the following:
- Failures detected through defect detection mechanisms in
the MPLS and MPLS-IP PSN
- Failures detected through VCCV-Ping or VCCV-BFD CV types
0x04 and 0x10 for fault detection only
- Failures within the PE that result in an inability to
forward traffic between the AC and the PW
- Failures of the AC or in the L2 network affecting the AC
as per the rules detailed in Section 7. for the "single
emulated OAM loop" mode and "coupled OAM loops" mode.
Note that there are a couple of situations which require PW label
withdrawal as opposed to a PW status notification by the PE. The
first one is when the PW is taken administratively down in accordance
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
to [RFC4447]. The second one is when the Target LDP session
established between the two PEs is lost. In the latter case, the PW
labels will need to be re-signaled when the Targeted LDP session is
re-established.
8.1.2. L2TP Circuit Status AVP
[RFC3931] defines the Circuit Status AVP in the Set-Link-Info (SLI)
message to exchange initial status and status changes in the circuit
to which the pseudowire is bound. [L2TP-Status] defines extensions to
the Circuit Status AVP that are analogous to the PW Status TLV
defined for LDP. Consequently, for L2TP-IP, the Circuit Status AVP
is used in the same fashion as the PW Status described in the
previous section.
If the extended Circuit Status bits are not supported, and instead
only the "A-bit" (Active) is used as described in [RFC3931], a PE MAY
use CDN messages to clear L2TPv3 sessions in the presence of session-
level failures detected in the L2TP-IP PSN.
A PE MUST set the Active bit in the Circuit Status to clear all
faults, and it MUST clear the Active bit in the Circuit Status to
convey any defect that cannot be represented explicitly with specific
Circuit Status flags from [RFC3931] or [L2TP-Status].
The forward and reverse defect indication definitions used in this
document map to the L2TP Circuit Status AVP as follows:
Forward defect indication - corresponds to the logical OR of
Local Attachment Circuit (ingress)
Receive Fault and Local PSN-facing
PW (egress) Transmit Fault
Reverse defect indication- corresponds to the logical OR of
Local Attachment Circuit (egress)
Transmit Fault and Local PSN-facing
PW (ingress) Receive Fault
The status notification conveys the defect view of the originating
LCCE (PE).
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
When the extended Circuit Status definition of [L2TP-Status] is
supported, a PE SHALL use the Circuit Status to report all failures
affecting the PW service including, but not restricted, to the
following:
- Failures detected through defect detection mechanisms in
the L2TP-IP PSN.
- Failures detected through VCCV-Ping or VCCV-BFD CV types
0x04 and 0x10 for fault detection only
- Failures within the PE that result in an inability to
forward traffic between the AC and the PW
- Failures of the AC or in the L2 network affecting the AC
as per the rules detailed in Section 7. for the "single
emulated OAM loop" mode and the "coupled OAM loops" mode.
When the extended Circuit Status definition of [L2TP-Status] is not
supported, a PE SHALL use the A-bit in the Circuit Status AVP in SLI
to report:
- Failures of the AC or in the L2 network affecting the AC
as per the rules detailed in Section 7. for the "single
emulated OAM loop" mode and the "coupled OAM loops" mode.
When the extended Circuit Status definition of [L2TP-Status] is not
supported, a PE MAY use the CDN and StopCCN messages in a similar way
to an MPLS PW label withdrawal to report:
- Failures detected through defect detection mechanisms in
the L2TP-IP PSN (using StopCCN)
- Failures detected through VCCV (pseudowire level) (using
CDN)
- Failures within the PE that result in an inability to
forward traffic between ACs and PW (using CDN)
For ATM L2TPv3 pseudowires, in addition to the Circuit Status AVP, a
PE MAY use the ATM Alarm Status AVP [RFC4454] to indicate the reason
for the ATM circuit status and the specific alarm type, if any. This
AVP is sent in the SLI message to indicate additional information
about the ATM circuit status.
L2TP control connections use Hello messages as a keepalive facility.
It is important to note that if a PSN failure is such that the loss
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
of conectivity is detected when it triggers a keepalive timeouts, the
control connection is cleared. L2TP Hello messages are sent in-band
with the dataplane, with respect to the source and destination
addresses, IP protocol number and UDP port (when UDP is used).
8.1.3. BFD Diagnostic Codes
[BFD] defines a set of diagnostic codes that partially overlap with
failures that can be communicated through LDP Status TLV or L2TP
Circuit Status AVP. This section describes the behavior of the PE
nodes with respect to using one or both methods for detecting and
propagating defect state.
For a MPLS-PSN, the PEs negotiate the use of the VCCV capabilities
when the label mapping messages are exchanged to establish the two
directions of the PW. An OAM capability TLV is signaled as part of
the PW FEC interface parameters TLV. For L2TP-IP PSNs, the PEs
negotiate the use of VCCV during the pseudowire session
initialization using the VCCV AVP [RFC5085].
The CV Type Indicators field in this TLV defines a bitmask used to
indicate the specific OAM capabilities that the PE can make use of
over the PW being established.
A CV type of 0x04 or 0x10 indicates that BFD is used for PW fault
detection only [VCCV-BFD]. These CV types MAY be used any time the PW
is established using LDP or L2TP control planes.
In this mode, only the following diagnostic (Diag) codes specified in
[BFD] will be used, they are:
0 - No diagnostic:
1 - Control detection time expired
7 - Administratively Down
A PE MUST use code 0 to indicate to its peer PE that is correctly
receiving BFD control messages. It MUST use the second code to
indicate that to its peer it has stopped receiving BFD control
messages. A PE shall use "Administrative down" to bring down the BFD
session when the PW is brought down administratively. All other
defects, such as AC/PW defects and PE internal failures that prevent
it from forwarding traffic, MUST be communicated through LDP Status
TLV in the case of MPLS PSN or MPLS-IP PSN, or through the
appropriate L2TP codes in the Circuit Status AVP in the case of L2TP-
IP PSN.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
A CV type of 0x08 or 0x20 in the OAM capabilities TLV indicates that
BFD is used for both PW fault detection and Fault Notification. In
addition to the above diagnostic codes, a PE used the following codes
to signal AC defects and other defects impacting forwarding over the
PW service:
6 -- Concatenated Path Down
8 -- Reverse Concatenated Path Down
TBD -- PW not forwarding
A PE MAY use the "PW not forwarding" code to convey any other defect
that cannot be represented by code points 6 and 8. In general, this
applies to a defect that does not cause the PW to be torn down. This
implies the BFD session must not be brought down when this defect
exists.
The forward and reverse defect indication definitions used in this
document map to the BFD codes as follows:
Forward defect indication - corresponds to the logical OR of
Concatenated Path Down and PW not forwarding
Reverse defect indication- corresponds to Reverse
Concatenated Path Down
These diagnostic codes are used to signal forward and reverse defect
states respectively when the PEs negotiated the use of BFD as the
mechanism for AC and PW fault detection and status signaling
notification. As stated in Section 8.1. , these CV types SHOULD NOT
be used when the PW is established with the LDP or L2TP control
plane.
8.2. PW Defect State Entry/Exit
8.2.1. PW Forward Defect State Entry/Exit Criteria
PE1 will enter the PW forward defect state if one or more of the
following occurs:
- It receives a forward defect indication from PE2, which
indicates PE2 detected or was notified of a PW fault
downstream of it or that there was a forward defect on
remote AC.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
- It detects loss of connectivity on the PSN tunnel
upstream of PE1 which affects the traffic it receives
from PE2.
- It detects a loss of PW connectivity through VCCV-BFD or
VCCV-PING which affects the traffic it receives from PE2.
Note that if the PW control session between the PEs fails, the PW is
torn down and needs to be re-established. This includes failure of
the T-LDP session, the L2TP session, or the L2TP control connection.
However, the consequent actions towards the ACs are the same as if
the PW entered the forward defect state.
PE1 will exit the PW forward defect state when the following
conditions are true. Note that this may result in a transition to the
PW operational state or the PW reverse defect state.
- All defects it had previously detected have disappeared,
and
- PE2 cleared the forward defect indication if applicable.
8.2.2. PW Reverse Defect State Entry/Exit Criteria
PE1 will enter the PW reverse defect state if the following
conditions are true:
- it receives a reverse defect indication from PE2 which
indicates that PE2 detected or was notified of a PW fault
upstream of it or that there was a reverse fault on the
remote AC, and
- it is not already in the PW forward defect state.
PE1 will exit the reverse defect state if it receives an OAM message
from PE2 clearing the reverse defect indication, or it has entered
the PW forward defect state.
For a PWE3 over a L2TP-IP PSN using the basic Circuit Status AVP
[RFC3931], the PW reverse defect state is not valid and a PE can only
enter the PW forward defect state.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
9. Procedures for ATM PW Service
9.1. AC forward defect state entry/exit criteria
When operating in the "coupled OAM loops" mode, PE1 enters the AC
forward defect state if any of the following conditions are met:
a. It detects or is notified of a physical layer fault on
the ATM interface.
b. It receives a segment or end-to-end F4 AIS OAM flow on
a VP AC, or a segment or end-to-end F5 AIS OAM flow on
a VC AC, indicating that the ATM VPC or VCC is down in
the adjacent L2 ATM network.
c. It detects loss of connectivity on the ATM VPC/VCC
while terminating segment or end-to-end ATM continuity
check (ATM CC) cells with the local ATM network and
CE.
When operating in the "coupled OAM loops" mode, PE1 exits the AC
Forward Defect state when all defects it had previously detected have
disappeared.
When operating in the "single emulated OAM loop" mode, PE1 enters the
AC forward defect state if any of the following conditions are met:
a. It detects or is notified of a physical layer fault on
the ATM interface.
b. It receives a segment F4 AIS OAM flow on a VP AC, or a
segment F5 AIS OAM flow on a VC AC, indicating that
the ATM VPC or VCC is down in the adjacent L2 ATM
network.
c. It detects loss of connectivity on the ATM VPC/VCC
while terminating segment ATM continuity check (ATM
CC) cells with the local ATM network and CE.
When operating in the "single emulated OAM loop" mode, PE1 exits the
AC Forward Defect state when all defects it had previously detected
have disappeared.
The exact conditions under which a PE enters and exits the AIS state,
or declares that connectivity is restored via ATM CC are defined in
Section 9.2 of ITU-T Recommendation I.610 [ITU-T I.610].
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
9.2. AC reverse defect state entry/exit criteria
PE1 enters the AC reverse defect state if any of the following
conditions are met:
a. It terminates an F4 RDI OAM flow, in the case of a
VPC, or an F5 RDI OAM flow, in the case of a VCC,
indicating that the ATM VPC or VCC is down in the
adjacent L2 ATM.
PE1 exits the AC Reverse Defect state if the AC state transitions to
working or to the AC forward defect state. The exact conditions for
exiting the RDI state are described in Section 9.2 of ITU-T
Recommendation I.610 [ITU-T I.610].
Note that the AC reverse defect state is not valid when operating in
the "single emulated OAM loop" mode as PE1 transparently forwards the
received RDI cells as user cells over the ATM PW to the remote CE.
9.3. Consequent Actions
In the reminder of this section, the text refers to AIS, RDI and CC
without specifying whether it is an F4 (VP-level) flow or an F5 (VC-
level) flow, or whether it is an end-to-end or a segment flow.
Precise ATM OAM procedures for each type of flow are specified in
Section 9.2 of ITU-T Recommendation I.610 [ITU-T I.610].
9.3.1. PW forward defect state entry/exit
On entry to the PW forward defect state:
a. PE1 MUST commence AIS insertion into the corresponding
AC.
b. PE1 MUST terminate any CC cell generation on the
corresponding AC.
c. If the PW failure was detected by PE1 without
receiving a forward defect notification from PE2, PE1
MUST assume PE2 has no knowledge of the defect and
MUST notify PE2 in the form of a reverse defect
notification.
On exit from the PW forward defect state:
a. PE1 MUST cease AIS insertion into the corresponding
AC.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
b. PE1 MUST resume any CC cell generation on the
corresponding AC.
c. PE1 MUST clear the reverse defect notification to PE2
if applicable.
9.3.2. PW reverse defect state entry/exit
On entry to the PW Reverse Defect State:
a. PE1 MUST commence RDI insertion into the corresponding
AC.
b. If the PW failure was detected by PE1 without
receiving a reverse defect notification from PE2, PE1
MUST assume PE2 has no knowledge of the defect and
MUST notify PE2 in the form of a forward defect
notification.
On exit from the PW Reverse Defect State:
a. PE1 MUST cease RDI insertion into the corresponding
AC.
b. PE1 MUST clear the forward defect notification to PE2
if applicable.
9.3.3. PW defect state in ATM Port Mode PW Service
In case of transparent cell transport PW service, i.e., "port mode",
where the PE does not keep track of the status of individual ATM VPCs
or VCCs, a PE cannot relay PW defect state over these VCCs and VPCs.
If ATM CC is run on the VCCs and VPCs end-to-end (CE1 to CE2), or on
a segment originating and terminating in the ATM network and spanning
the PSN network, it will timeout and cause the CE or ATM switch to
enter the ATM AIS state.
9.3.4. AC forward defect state entry/exit
On entry to the AC forward defect state and when operating in the
"coupled OAM loops" mode:
a. PE1 MUST send a forward defect notification to PE2.
b. PE1 MUST commence insertion of ATM RDI cells into the
AC towards CE1.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
On entry to the AC forward defect state and when operating in the
"single emulated OAM loop" mode:
a. PE1 MUST commence insertion of ATM AIS cells into the
corresponding PW towards CE2.
b. If the defect interferes with NS OAM message
generation, PE1 must send a forward defect
notification to PE2.
c. PE1 MUST terminate any CC cell generation on the
corresponding PW.
On exit from the AC forward defect state and when operating in the
"coupled OAM loops" mode:
a. PE1 MUST clear the forward defect notification to PE2.
b. PE1 MUST cease insertion of ATM RDI cells into the AC.
On exit from the AC forward defect state and when operating in the
"single emulated OAM loop" mode:
a. PE1 MUST cease insertion of ATM AIS cells into the
corresponding PW.
b. PE1 MUST clear the forward defect notification to PE2
if applicable.
c. PE1 MUST resume any CC cell generation on the
corresponding PW if applicable.
9.3.5. AC reverse defect state entry/exit
On entry to the AC reverse defect state and when operating in the
"coupled OAM loops" mode:
a. PE1 MUST send a reverse defect notification to PE2.
On exit from the AC reverse defect state and when operating in the
"coupled OAM loops" mode:
a. PE1 MUST clear the reverse defect notification to PE2.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
10. Procedures for Frame Relay PW Service
10.1. AC forward defect state entry/exit criteria
PE1 enters the AC Forward Defect state if one or more of the
following conditions are true:
a. A PVC is not deleted from the Frame Relay network and
the Frame Relay network explicitly indicates in a full
status report (and optionally by the asynchronous
status message) that this Frame Relay PVC is inactive
[ITU-T Q.933]. In this case, this status maps across
the PE to the corresponding PW only.
b. The Link Integrity Verification (LIV) indicates that
the link from the PE to the Frame Relay network is
down [ITU-T Q.933]. In this case, the link down
indication maps across the PE to all corresponding
PWs.
c. A physical layer alarm is detected on the FR
interface. In this case, this status maps across the
PE to all corresponding PWs.
PE1 exits the AC Forward Defect state when all defects it had
previously detected have disappeared.
10.2. AC reverse defect state entry/exit criteria
The AC reverse defect state is not valid for a FR AC.
10.3. Consequent Actions
10.3.1. PW forward defect state entry/exit
On entry to the PW forward defect state:
a. PE1 MUST set the Active bit = 0 for the corresponding
FR AC in a full status report, and optionally in an
asynchronous status message, as per Q.933 annex A
[ITU-T Q.933].
b. If the PW failure was detected by PE1 without
receiving a forward defect notification from PE2, PE1
MUST assume PE2 has no knowledge of the defect and
MUST notify PE2 in the form of a reverse defect
notification.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
On exit from the PW Forward defect state:
a. PE1 MUST set the Active bit = 1 for the corresponding
FR AC in a full status report, and optionally in an
asynchronous status message, as per Q.933 annex A. PE1
does not apply this procedure on a transition from the
PW forward defect state to the PW reverse defect
state.
b. PE1 MUST clear the reverse defect notification to PE2
if applicable.
10.3.2. PW reverse defect state entry/exit
On entry to the PW reverse defect state:
a. PE1 MUST set the Active bit = 0 for the corresponding
FR AC in a full status report, and optionally in an
asynchronous status message, as per Q.933 annex A.
b. If the PW failure was detected by PE1 without
receiving a reverse defect notification from PE2, PE1
MUST assume PE2 has no knowledge of the defect and
MUST notify PE2 in the form of a forward defect
notification.
On exit from the PW reverse defect state:
a. PE1 MUST set the Active bit = 1 for the corresponding
FR AC in a full status report, and optionally in an
asynchronous status message, as per Q.933 annex A. PE1
does not apply this procedure on a transition from the
PW reverse defect state to the PW forward defect
state.
b. PE1 MUST clear the forward defect notification to PE2
if applicable.
10.3.3. PW defect state in the FR Port Mode PW service
In case of port mode PW service, STATUS ENQUIRY and STATUS messages
are transported transparently over the PW. A PW Failure will
therefore result in timeouts of the Q.933 link and PVC management
protocol at the Frame Relay devices at one or both sites of the
emulated interface.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
10.3.4. AC forward defect state entry/exit
On entry to the AC forward defect:
a. PE1 MUST send a forward defect notification to PE2.
On exit from the AC forward defect state:
a. PE1 MUST clear the forward defect notification to PE2.
10.3.5. AC reverse defect state entry/exit
The AC reverse defect state is not valid for a FR AC.
11. Procedures for TDM PW Service
From an OAM perspective, the PSN carrying a TDM PW provides the same
function as that of SONET/SDH or ATM network carrying the same low-
rate TDM stream. Hence the interworking of defect OAM is similar.
For structure-agnostic TDM PWs, the TDM stream is to be carried
transparently across the PSN, and this requires TDM OAM indications
to be transparently transferred along with the TDM data.
For structure-aware TDM PWs the TDM structure alignment is terminated
at ingress to the PSN and regenerated at egress, and hence OAM
indications may need to be signaled by special means. In both cases
generation of the appropriate emulated OAM indication may be required
when the PSN is at fault.
Since TDM is a real-time signal, defect indications and performance
measurements may be classified into two classes, urgent and
deferrable. Urgent messages are those whose contents may not be
significantly delayed with respect to the TDM data that they
potentially impact, while deferrable messages may arrive at the far
end delayed with respect to simultaneously generated TDM data. For
example, a forward indication signifying that the TDM data is invalid
(e.g. TDM loss of signal, or MPLS loss of packets) is only of use
when received before the TDM data is to be played out towards the far
end TDM system. It is hence classified as an urgent message, and we
can not delegate its signaling to a separate maintenance or
management flow. On the other hand, the forward loss of multi-frame
synchronization, and most reverse indications do not need to be acted
upon before a particular TDM frame is played out.
From the above discussion it is evident that the complete solution to
OAM for TDM PWs needs to have at least two, and perhaps three
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
components. The required functionality is transparent transfer of
native TDM OAM and urgent transfer of indications (by flags) along
with the impacted packets. Optionally there may be mapping between
TDM and PSN OAM flows.
TDM AIS generated in the TDM network due to a fault in that network
is generally carried unaltered, although the TDM encapsulations allow
for its suppression for bandwidth conservation purposes. Similarly,
when the TDM loss of signal is detected at the PE, it will generally
emulate TDM AIS.
SAToP and the two structure-aware TDM encapsulations have converged
on a common set of defect indication flags in the PW control word.
When the PE detects or is informed of lack of validity of the TDM
signal, it raises the local ("L") defect flag, uniquely identifying
the defect as originating in the TDM network. The remote PE must
ensure that TDM AIS is delivered to the remote TDM network. When the
defect lies in the MPLS network, the remote PE fails to receive
packets. The remote PE generates TDM AIS towards its TDM network, and
in addition raises the remote defect ("R") flag in its PSN-bound
packets, uniquely identifying the defect as originating in the PSN.
Finally, defects in the remote TDM network that cause RDI generation
in that network, may optionally be indicated by proper setting of the
field of valid packets in the opposite direction.
12. Procedures for CEP PW Service
Loss of Connectivity and other SONET/SDH protocol failures on the PW
are translated to alarms on the ACs and vice versa. In essence, all
defect management procedures are handled entirely in the emulated
protocol. There is no need for an interaction between PW defect
management and SONET layer defect management.
13. Informative Appendix A: Native Service Management
13.1. Frame Relay Management
The management of Frame Relay Bearer Service (FRBS) connections can
be accomplished through two distinct methodologies:
a. Based on ITU-T Q.933 Annex A, Link Integrity Verification
procedure, where STATUS and STATUS ENQUIRY signaling messages
are sent using DLCI=0 over a given UNI and NNI physical link.
[ITU-T Q.933]
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
b. Based on FRBS LMI, and similar to ATM ILMI where LMI is
common in private Frame Relay networks.
In addition, ITU-T I.620 addresses Frame Relay loopback, but the
deployment of this standard is relatively limited [ITU-T I.620].
It is possible to use either, or both, of the above options to
manage Frame Relay interfaces. This document will refer exclusively
to Q.933 messages.
The status of any provisioned Frame Relay PVC may be updated
through:
a. STATUS messages in response to STATUS ENQUIRY messages, these
are mandatory.
b. Optional unsolicited STATUS updates independent of STATUS
ENQUIRY (typically under the control of management system,
these updates can be sent periodically (continuous
monitoring) or only upon detection of specific defects based
on configuration.
In Frame Relay, a DLC is either up or down. There is no distinction
between different directions. To achieve commonality with other
technologies, down is represented as a forward defect.
Frame relay connection management is not implemented over the PW
using either of the techniques native to FR, therefore PW mechanisms
are used to synchronize the view each PE has of the remote NS/AC. A
PE will treat a remote NS/AC failure in the same way it would treat
a PW or PSN failure; that is using AC facing FR connection
management to notify the CE that FR is down.
13.2. ATM Management
ATM management and OAM mechanisms are much more evolved than those
of Frame Relay. There are five broad management-related categories,
including fault management (FT), Performance management (PM),
configuration management (CM), Accounting management (AC), and
Security management (SM). ITU-T Recommendation I.610 describes the
functions for the operation and maintenance of the physical layer
and the ATM layer, that is, management at the bit and cell levels
[ITU-T I.610]. Because of its scope, this document will concentrate
on ATM fault management functions. Fault management functions
include the following:
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
a. Alarm indication signal (AIS)
b. Remote Defect indication (RDI).
c. Continuity Check (CC).
d. Loopback (LB)
Some of the basic ATM fault management functions are described as
follows: Alarm indication signal (AIS) sends a message in the same
direction as that of the signal, to the effect that an error has
been detected.
Remote defect indication (RDI) sends a message to the transmitting
terminal that an error has been detected. RDI is also referred to as
the far-end reporting failure. Alarms related to the physical layer
are indicated using path AIS/RDI. Virtual path AIS/RDI and virtual
channel AIS/RDI are also generated for the ATM layer.
OAM cells (F4 and F5 cells) are used to instrument virtual paths and
virtual channels respectively with regard to their performance and
availability. OAM cells in the F4 and F5 flows are used for
monitoring a segment of the network and end-to-end monitoring. OAM
cells in F4 flows have the same VPI as that of the connection being
monitored. OAM cells in F5 flows have the same VPI and VCI as that
of the connection being monitored. The AIS and RDI messages of the
F4 and F5 flows are sent to the other network nodes via the VPC or
the VCC to which the message refers. The type of error and its
location can be indicated in the OAM cells. Continuity check is
another fault management function. To check whether a VCC that has
been idle for a period of time is still functioning, the network
elements can send continuity-check cells along that VCC.
14. Informative Appendix B: PW Defects and Detection tools
14.1. PW Defects
Possible defects that impact PWs are the following:
a. Physical layer defect in the PSN interface
b. PSN tunnel failure which results in a loss of connectivity
between ingress and egress PE.
c. Control session failures between ingress and egress PE
In case of an MPLS PSN and an MPLS-IP PSN there are additional
defects:
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
a. PW labeling error, which is due to a defect in the ingress
PE, or to an over-writing of the PW label value somewhere
along the LSP path.
b. LSP tunnel Label swapping errors or LSP tunnel label merging
errors in the MPLS network. This could result in the
termination of a PW at the wrong egress PE.
c. Unintended self-replication; e.g., due to loops or denial-
of-service attacks.
14.1.1. Packet Loss
Persistent congestion in the PSN or in a PE could impact the proper
operation of the emulated service.
A PE can detect packet loss resulting from congestion through several
methods. If a PE uses the sequence number field in the PWE3 Control
Word for a specific Pseudo Wire [RFC3985], it has the ability to
detect packet loss. Translation of congestion detection to PW defect
states is outside the scope of this specification.
Generally, there are congestion alarms which are raised in the node
and to the management system when congestion occurs. The decision to
declare the PW Down and to select another path is usually at the
discretion of the network operator.
14.2. PW Defect Detection Tools
To detect the defects listed above, Service Providers have a variety
of options available.
Physical Layer defect detection and notification mechanisms such as
SONET/SDH LOS, LOF,and AIS/FERF.
PSN Defect Detection Mechanisms:
For PWE3 over an L2TP-IP PSN, with L2TP as encapsulation protocol,
the defect detection mechanisms described in [RFC3931] apply. This
includes for example the keepalive mechanism performed with Hello
messages for detection of loss of connectivity between a pair of
LCCEs (i.e., dead PE peer and path detection). Furthermore, the
tools Ping and Traceroute, based on ICMP Echo Messages apply [RFC792]
and can be used to detect defects on the IP PSN. Additionally, ICMP
Ping [RFC5085] and BFD [VCCV-BFD] can also be used with VCCV to
detect defects at the individual pseudowire level.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
For PWE3 over an MPLS PSN and an MPLS-IP PSN, several tools can be
used.
a. LSP-Ping and LSP-Traceroute( [RFC4379]) for LSP tunnel
connectivity verification.
b. LSP-Ping with Bi-directional Forwarding Detection ([BFD])
for LSP tunnel continuity checking.
c. Furthermore, if RSVP-TE is used to setup the PSN Tunnels
between ingress and egress PE, the hello protocol can be
used to detect loss of connectivity [RFC3209], but only at
the control plane.
PW specific defect detection mechanisms:
[RFC4377] describes how LSP-Ping and BFD can be used over individual
PWs for connectivity verification and continuity checking
respectively. When used as such, we will refer to them as VCCV-Ping
and VCCV-BFD respectively.
Furthermore, the detection of a fault could occur at different points
in the network and there are several ways the observing PE determines
a fault exists:
a. egress or ingress PE detection of failure (e.g. BFD)
b. ingress PE detection of failure (e.g. LSP-PING)
c. ingress PE notification of failure (e.g. RSVP Path-err)
15. Security Considerations
The mapping messages described in this document do not change the
security functions inherent in the actual messages.
16. IANA Considerations
There is none at this time.
17. References
17.1. Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
Internet Draft <draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt>, July 2005
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
[FRF.19] Frame Relay Forum, "Frame Relay Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance Implementation Agreement", March 2001
[ICMP] Postel, J. "Internet Control Message Protocol" RFC 792
[ITU-T I.610] Recommendation I.610 "B-ISDN operation and maintenance
principles and functions", February 1999
[ITU-T I.620] Recommendation I.620 "Frame relay operation and
maintenance principles and functions", October 1996
[ITU-T Q.933] Recommendation Q.933 "ISDN Digital Subscriber
Signalling System No. 1 (DSS1) Signalling specifications for
frame mode switched and permanent virtual connection control and
status monitoring" February 2003
[RFC3931] Lau, J., et. al. "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version 3",
RFC 3931, March 2005
[RFC4023] Worster. T., et al., "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic
Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 4023, March 2005
[RFC4379] Kompella, K., et. al., "Detecting MPLS Data Plane
Failures", RFC4379, February 2006
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Smith, T., "Pseudowire Setup and
Maintenance using LDP", RFC4447, April 2006
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., et al., "Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit Connection
Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5085, December 2007
[VCCV-BFD] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-02, June 2008
17.2. Informative References
[CONGESTION] Rosen, E., Bryant, S., Davie, B., "PWE3 Congestion
Control Framework", draft-ietf-pwe3-congestion-frmwk-01.txt, May
2008
[ETH-OAM-IWK] Mohan, D., et al., "MPLS and Ethernet OAM
Interworking", draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-01, July 2008
[L2TP-Status] McGill, N. Pignataro, C., "L2TPv3 Extended Circuit
Status Values", draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-
01 (work in progress), June 2008.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
[RFC3916] Xiao, X., McPherson, D., Pate, P., "Requirements for
Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 3916, September
2004
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Pate, P., "PWE3 Architecture", RFC 3985, March
2005
[RFC4377] Nadeau, T. et.al., "OAM Requirements for MPLS Networks",
RFC4377, February 2006
[RFC4446] Martini, L., et al., "IANA Allocations for pseudo
Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", RFC4446,
April 2006
[RFC4454] Singh, S., Townsley, M., and C. Pignataro, "Asynchronous
Transfer Mode (ATM) over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 4454, May 2006
[RFC4717] Martini, L., et al., "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
of ATM Cells/Frame Over IP and MPLS Networks", RFC4717,
December 2006
[RFC4842] Malis, A., et. al., "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over
Packet (CEP)", RFC 4842, April 2007
18. Editor's Addresses
Mustapha Aissaoui
Alcatel-lucent
600 March Rd
Kanata, ON, Canada K2K 2E6
Email: mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com
Peter B. Busschbach
Alcatel-Lucent
67 Whippany Road
Whippany, NJ, 07981
Email: busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com
David Allan
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Ave.,
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Email: dallan@nortel.com
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112
Email: lmartini@cisco.com
Thomas D. Nadeau
BT
BT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
United Kingdom
EMail: tom.nadeau@bt.com
Monique Morrow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Glatt-com
CH-8301 Glattzentrum
Switzerland
EMail: mmorrow@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping November 2008
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Nadeau, et al. Expires May 3, 2009 [Page 34]