Network Working Group A. Takacs Internet-Draft B. Gero Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Expires: May 7, 2009 D. Fedyk D. Mohan Nortel November 3, 2008 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2009. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 Abstract The GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) work is extending GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the establishment of Ethernet LSPs. IEEE Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) specifies an adjunct OAM flow to check connectivity in Ethernet networks. CFM can be also used with Ethernet LSPs for fault detection and triggering recovery mechanisms. The ITU-T Y.1731 specification builds on CFM and specifies additional OAM mechanisms, including Performance Monitoring, for Ethernet networks. This document specifies extensions of GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the setup of the associated Ethernet OAM (CFM and Y.1731) entities adding a technology specific TLV to [OAM-CONF-FWK]. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 Changes from previous version Technology independent extensions were moved to a separate framework document leaving only the Ethernet specific extensions in this document. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 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 in Table of Contents 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview of Ethernet OAM operation in PBB-TE networks . . . . 6 3. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Operation overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.1. MD Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.2. Short MA Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.3. MEP ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.4. Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4. Ethernet OAM configuration errors . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20 Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 1. Background Provider Backbone Bridging - Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) [IEEE-PBBTE] decouples the Ethernet data and control planes by explicitly supporting external control/management mechanisms to configure static filtering entries in bridges and create explicitly routed Ethernet connections. In addition PBB-TE defines mechanisms for 1:1 protection switching of bidirectional Ethernet connections. Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) defines an adjunct connectivity monitoring OAM flow to check the liveliness of Ethernet networks [IEEE-CFM]. With PBB-TE Ethernet networks will support explicitly-routed Ethernet connections. CFM can be used to track the liveliness of PBB-TE connections and detect data plane failures. In IETF the GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) [GELS-Framework] work is extending the GMPLS control plane to support the establishment of point-to-point PBB-TE data plane connections. We refer to GMPLS established PBB-TE connections as Ethernet LSPs. GELS enables the application of MPLS-TE and GMPLS provisioning and recovery features in Ethernet networks. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 2. Overview of Ethernet OAM operation in PBB-TE networks For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of point-to-point PBB-TE connections. PBB-TE [IEEE-PBBTE] defines point-to-point Ethernet Switched Paths (ESPs) as a provisioned traffic engineered unidirectional connectivity, identified by the 3-tuple [ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP- VID] where the ESP-MAC DA is the destination address of the ESP, the ESP-MAC SA is the source address of the ESP, and the ESP-VID is a VLAN identifier allocated for explicitly routed connections. To form a bidirectional PBB-TE connection two co-routed point-to-point ESPs are combined. The combined ESPs must have the same ESP-MAC addresses but may have different ESP-VIDs. Note that although it would be possible to use GMPLS to setup a single unidirectional ESP, the Ethernet OAM mechanisms are only full functional when bidirectional connections are established with co- routed ESPs. Hence, we focus on bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. At both ends of the bidiretional point-to-point PBB-TE connection one Maintenance Endpoint (MEP) is configured. The MEPs monitoring a PBB-TE connection must be configured with the same Maintenance Domain Level (MD Level) and Maintenance Association Identifier (MAID). Each MEP has a unique identifier, the MEP ID. Besides these identifiers a MEP monitoring a PBB-TE connection must be provisioned with the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP-VID] of the two ESPs. MEPs exchange Connectivity Check Messages (CCMs) periodically with fixed intervals. Eight distinct intervals are defined in [IEEE-CFM]: Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 +---+--------------------+----------------+ | # | CCM Interval (CCI) | 3 bit encoding | +---+--------------------+----------------+ | 0 | Invalid | 000 | | | | | | 1 | 3 1/3 ms | 001 | | | | | | 2 | 10 ms | 010 | | | | | | 3 | 100 ms | 011 | | | | | | 4 | 1 s | 100 | | | | | | 5 | 10 s | 101 | | | | | | 6 | 1 min | 110 | | | | | | 7 | 10 min | 111 | +---+--------------------+----------------+ Table 1: CCM Interval encoding If 3 consecutive CCM messages are not received by one of the MEPs it declares a connectivity failure and signals the failure in subsequent CCM messages, by setting the Remote Defect Indicator (RDI) bit, to the remote MEP. If a MEP receives a CCM message with RDI set it immediately declares failure. The detection of a failure may trigger protection switching mechanisms or may be signalled to a management system. However, what happens once a failure is detected is out of the scope of this document. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 3. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions 3.1. Operation overview To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. To monitor an Ethernet LSP a set of parameters must be provided to setup a Maintenance Association and related MEPs. o A unique MAID must be allocated for the PBB-TE connection and both MEPs must be configured with the same information. The MAID consists of an optional Maintenance Domain Name (MD Name) and a mandatory Short Maintenance Association Name (Short MA Name). Various formating rules for these names have been defined by [IEEE-CFM]. Since these information is also carried in all CCM messages, the combined length of the Names is limited to 44 bytes. How these parameters are determined is out of scope of this document. o Each MEP must be provisioned with a MEP ID. The MEP ID uniquely identifies a given MEP within a Maintenance Association. That is, the combination of MAID and MEP ID must uniquely identify a MEP. How the value of the MEP ID is determined is out of scope of this document. o The Maintenance Domain Level (MD Level) allows hierarchical separation of monitoring entities. [IEEE-CFM] allows differentiation of 8 levels. How the value of the MD Level is determined is out of scope of this document. Note that most probably for all Ethernet LSPs a single (default) MD Level will be used. o The desired CCM Interval must be specified by the management system based on service requirements or operator policy. The same CCM Interval must be set in each of the MEPs monitoring a given Ethernet LSP. How the value of the CCM Interval is determined is out of scope of this document. o The desired CCM priority to be set by MEPs for the CCM frames can be specified. The same CCM priority must be set in each of the MEPs monitoring a given Ethernet LSP. How CCM priority is determined is out of scope of this document. o MEPs must be aware of their own and the reachability parameters of the remote MEP. In the case of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections this requires that the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC A, ESP-MAC B, ESP-VID1] and [ESP-MAC B, ESP-MAC A, ESP-VID2] are configured in each MEP, where the ESP-MAC A is the same as the Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 8] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 local MEP's MAC and ESP-MAC B is the same as remote MEP's MAC. The GMPLS Ethernet Label for forwarding, as defined in [GELS-PBBTE], consists of the ESP-MAC DA and ESP-VID. Hence the necessary reachability parameters for the MEPs can be obtained from Ethernet Labels (i.e., carried in the "downstream" and upstream labels). Assuming the procedures described in [GELS-PBBTE] for bidirectional Ethernet LSP establishment the MEP configuration should be as follows. When the RSVP-TE signalling is initiated for the bidirectional Ethernet LSP the local node generates a Path message and: o Allocates an Upstream Label from its MAC address (ESP-MAC A) and locally selected VID (ESP-VID1), that it would like to use to receive traffic; o Inserts an Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, specifying the CCM Interval and MD Level; o Adds an MD Name Sub-TLV (optional) and a Short MA Name Sub-TLV to the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV, that will unambiguously identify a Maintenance Association for this specific PBB-TE connection. Note that values for these parameters may be derived from the GMPLS LSP identification parameters; o Adds a MEP ID Sub-TLV to the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV. It selects two distinct integer values to identify the local and remote MEPs within the Maintenance Association created for monitoring of the point-to-point PBB-TE connection. Once the remote node receives the Path message it can use the UPSTREAM_LABEL to extract the reachability information of the initiator. Then it allocates a LABEL by selecting the MAC address (ESP-MAC B) and VID (ESP-VID2) it would like to use to receive traffic. These parameters determine the reachability information of the local MEP. That is, the 3-tuples [ESP-MAC A, ESP-MAC B, ESP- VID1] and [ESP-MAC B, ESP-MAC A, ESP-VID2] are derived from the Ethernet Labels. In addition the information received in the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV is used to configure the local MEP. Once the Resv message successfully arrives to the initiator it can extract the remote side's reachability information from the LABEL object whereby this node has also obtained all the information needed to establish its local MEP. Once the MEPs are established the monitoring of the LSP is operational. In certain situations, e.g., maintenance, re- Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 9] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 optimisation of LSPs, it is desirable to explicitly enable or disable the monitoring of LSPs (i.e., start/stop exchanging CC messages). To allow administrative control of LSP monitoring the "Monitoring Disabled" (M) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object is used [OAM-CONF-FWK]. 3.2. OAM Configuration TLV This TLV is specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] and is used to select which OAM technology/method should be used for the LSP. In this document a new OAM Type: Ethernet OAM is defined. OAM Type Description ------------ ------------------ 0 Reserved 1 Ethernet OAM 2-256 Reserved The receiving node when the Ethernet OAM Type is requested should look for the corresponding technology specific Ethernet OAM configuration TLV. 3.3. Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV The Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV (depicted below) is defined for Ethernet OAM specific configuration parameters. The Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Path messages. This new TLV accommodates generic Ethernet 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (3) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version |MD L.| Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ sub TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: indicates a new type: the Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV (3) (IANA to define). Length: indicates the total length including sub-TLVs. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 10] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 Version: identifies the CFM protocol version according to [IEEE-CFM]. If a node does not support a specific CFM version an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version" MD L. (MD Level): indicates the desired MD Level. The values are according to [IEEE-CFM]. If a node does not support a specific MD Level an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Level". 3.3.1. MD Name Sub-TLV The optional MD Name sub-TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (1) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Format | Name Length | Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ MD Name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 1, MD Name Sub-TLV (IANA). Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding. Format: according to [IEEE-CFM]. Name Length: the length of the MD Name field in bytes. This is necessary to allow non 4 byte padded MD Name lengths. MD Name: variable length field, formatted according to the format specified in the Format field. If an undefined Format is specified an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MD Name Format". Also the combined length of MD Name and Short MA Name must be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is violated an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length Problem". Note that it is allowed to have no MD Name, as such the MD Name sub-TLV is optional. In this case the MA Name must uniquely identify a Maintenance Association. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 11] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 3.3.2. Short MA Name Sub-TLV The Short MA Name sub-TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (2) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Format | Name Length | Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Short MA Name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 2, Short MA Name Sub-TLV (IANA) Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding. Format: according to [IEEE-CFM]. Name Length: the length of the MA Name field in bytes. This is necessary to allow non 4 byte padded MA Name lengths. Short MA Name: variable length field formatted according to the format specified in the Format field. If an undefined Format is specified an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MA Name Format". Also the combined length of MD Name and Short MA Name must be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is violated an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length Problem". Note that it is allowed to have no MD Name, in this case the MA Name must uniquely identify a Maintenance Association. 3.3.3. MEP ID Sub-TLV The MEP ID Sub-TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (3) (IANA) | Length (4) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local MEP ID |T|R| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote MEP ID |T|R| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 12] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 Type: 3, MEP ID Sub-TLV (IANA) Length: indicates the total length of the TLV including padding. Local MEP ID: a 16 bit integer value in the range 1-8191 of the MEP ID on the initiator side. Remote MEP ID: a 16 bit integer value in the range 1-8191 of the MEP ID to be set for the MEP established at the receiving side. This value is determined by the initiator node. This is possible, since a new MAID is assigned to each PBB-TE connection, and MEP IDs must be only unique within the scope of the MAID. Two flags are defined Transmit (T) and Receive (R). When T is set the corresponding MEP must send OAM packets. When R is set the corresponding MEP must expect to receive OAM packets. These flags are used to configure the role of MEPs. 3.3.4. Continuity Check (CC) Sub-TLV The Continuity Check (CC) sub-TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (4) (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prio | CCM I | Reserved (set to all 0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prio: Indicates the priority to be set for CCM frames. In Ethernet 3 bits carried in VLAN TAGs identify priority information. CCM I (CCM Interval): CCM Interval, according to the 3 bit encoding [IEEE-CFM] shown in Table 1. If a node does not support the requested CCM Interval an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/ Unsupported CC Interval". 3.4. Ethernet OAM configuration errors In addition to error values specified in [OAM-CONF-FWK] this document defines the following values for the "OAM Problem" Error Code. o If a node does not support a specific CFM version an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version". Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 13] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 o If a node does not support a specific MD Level an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Level". o If an undefined MD name format is specified an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MD Name Format". o If an undefined MA name format is specified an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unknown MA Name Format". o If the combined length of MD Name and Short MA Name must be less or equal to 44bytes, if this is violated an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Name Length Problem". o If a node does not support the requested CCM Interval an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported CC Interval". Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 14] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 4. IANA Considerations This document specifies a new Ethernet OAM Configuration TLV to be carried in the OAM Configuration TLV in LSP_ATTRIBUTES and LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects in Path messages. The following values need to be assigned under the Error Code: "OAM Problem": "Unsupported OAM Version", "Unsupported OAM Level", "Unknown MD Name Format", "Unknown MA Name Format", "Name Length Problem", "Unsupported CC Interval". Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 15] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 5. Security Considerations The signalling 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 would request liveliness monitoring, with frequent periodic messages, for a high number of LSPs, targeting a single network element. Security aspects will be covered in more detailed in subsequent versions of this document. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 16] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Francesco Fondelli, Adrian Farrel, Loa Andersson, Eric Gray and Dimitri Papadimitriou for their useful comments. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 17] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 7. References [GELS-Framework] "GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework", Internet Draft, work in progress. [GELS-PBBTE] "GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE", Internet Draft, work in progress. [GMPLS-OAM] "OAM Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks", Internet Draft, work in progress. [IEEE-CFM] "IEEE 802.1ag, Draft Standard for Connectivity Fault Management", work in progress. [IEEE-PBBTE] "IEEE 802.1Qay Draft Standard for Provider Backbone Bridging Traffic Engineering", work in progress. [OAM-CONF-FWK] "OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE", Internet Draft, work in progress. [RFC3469] "Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery", RFC 3469, February 2003. [RFC3471] "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4377] "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi- Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006. [RFC4420] "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 18] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 Authors' Addresses Attila Takacs Ericsson Laborc u. 1. Budapest, 1037 Hungary Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com Balazs Gero Ericsson Laborc u. 1. Budapest, 1037 Hungary Email: balazs.gero@ericsson.com Don Fedyk Nortel 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 USA Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com Dinesh Mohan Nortel 3500 Carling Ave Ottawa, ON, K2H8E9 Canada Email: mohand@nortel.com Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 19] Internet-Draft GMPLS based Ethernet OAM Configuration October 2008 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. Intellectual Property 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. Takacs, et al. Expires May 2, 2009 [Page 20]