Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam
DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: 18 August 2023 Huawei
B. Varga
Ericsson
14 February 2023
Operations, Administration and MaintenVersion field is neededance (OAM)
for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-11
Abstract
This document defines format and use principles of the Deterministic
Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over a DetNet
network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service ACH can be used
to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and
measure performance metrics.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 4
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering
Functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 8
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Registry . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
[RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet)
architecture and how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and
Ordering functions (PREOF) can be used to ensure a low packet drop
ratio in a DetNet domain.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
to detect and localize network defects, and to monitor network
performance. Some OAM functions (e.g., failure detection) are
usually performed proactively in the network, while others (e.g.,
defect localization) are typically performed on demand. These tasks
can be achieved through a combination of active and hybrid, as
defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods.
Also, this document defines format and use principles of the DetNet
service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data
plane [RFC8964].
2. Conventions used in this document
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with
longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for
Deterministic Networks".
CW Control Word
DetNet Deterministic Network
d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header
d-CW DetNet Control Word
GAL Generic Associated Channel Label
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
PW Pseudowire
E2E End-to-end
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
TSN IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking
LSR Label Switching Router
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label. The F-Label identifies the LSP
used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop
label used between label switching routers (LSR).
S-Label A DetNet "service" label. An S-Label is used between DetNet
nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An
S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-
layer.
Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides
connectivity between the DetNet nodes. One example of an underlay
layer is an MPLS network that provides LSP connectivity between
DetNet nodes.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
DetNet Node - a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. Examples
of DetNet nodes include DetNet domain Edge nodes, and DetNet nodes
that perform PREOF within the DetNet domain.
2.2. Keywords
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane
OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the
particular networking layer, thus it is critical that the data plane
encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms that comply with the OAM
requirements listed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]. One such
example that requires special consideration is requirement #5:
DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and
bi-directional DetNet paths.
Operation of a DetNet data plane with an MPLS underlay network is
specified in [RFC8964]. Within the MPLS underlay network, DetNet
flows are to be encapsulated analogous to pseudowires as specified in
[RFC3985], [RFC4385]. For reference, the Generic PW MPLS CW (as
defined in [RFC4385] and used with DetNet) is reproduced in Figure 1.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format
PREOF in the DetNet domain is composed of a combination of nodes that
perform replication and elimination functions. The Elimination sub-
function always uses the S-Label in conjunction with the packet
sequencing information (i.e., the Sequence Number encoded in the
d-CW). The Replication sub-function uses the S-Label information
only. An example of a PREOF sequence of operations for data packets
in a DetNet domain is shown in Figure 2.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
1111 11111111 111111 112212 112212 132213
CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2----CE2
\2 22222/ 3 /
\2222222 /----+ 3 /
+------R4------------------------+
333333333333333333333333
Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in
[RFC4385]. At the same time, a DetNet PW can be viewed as a Multi-
Segment PW, where DetNet service sub-layer functions are at the
segment endpoints. However, DetNet service sub-layer functions
operate per packet level (not per segment level). These per-packet
level characteristics of PREOF require additional fields for proper
OAM packet processing. Encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS [RFC8964]
active OAM packet is shown in Figure 3.
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane
Figure 4 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet
OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP [RFC9025].
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--+
| UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| IP Header | | IP encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 4: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP
Figure 5 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header
(d-ACH).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID |Level| Flags |Session|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format
The d-ACH encodes the following fields:
Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble
distinguishes an IP packet [RFC4928] from a DetNet data packet
[RFC8964].
Version - is a 4-bit field, and the value is the version number of
the d-ACH. Version field is needed if the update to d-ACH can not
be introduced in a backward-compatible way. This specification
defines version 0x1 to further differentiate d-ACH from PW ACH
defined in [RFC4385].
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
Sequence Number - is an unsigned 8-bit field. The sequence number
space is circular with no restriction on the initial value. The
originator DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number
field before the transmission of a packet. The originator node
MUST increase the value of the Sequence Number field by 1 for each
active OAM packet.
Channel Type - is a 16-bit field, and the value of DetNet
Associated Channel Type. It MAY be one of the values defined in
the IANA MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types) registry
[IANA-G-ACh-Types]. New values can be defined in the future.
Node ID - is an unsigned 20-bit field. The value of the Node ID
field identifies the DetNet node that originated the packet.
Methods of distributing Node ID are outside the scope of this
specification.
Level - is a 3-bit field. Level field is used to cope with the
"all active path forwarding" characteristics of the PREOF concept.
A hierarchical relationship between OAM domains can be created
using the Level field value.
Flags - is a 5-bit field. Flags field contains five 1-bit flags.
Section 5.1 creates the IANA DetNet Associated Channel Header
Flags registry for new flags to be defined. The flags defined in
this specification presented in Figure 6.
0 1 2 3 4
+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|U|U|U|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Field Format
U: Unused and for future use. MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored
on receipt.
Session ID is a 4-bits field. Session field is used to
distinguish OAM sessions originated from the same node (a given
Maintenance End Point may have multiple simultaneously active OAM
sessions).
The DetNet flow, according to [RFC8964], is identified by the S-label
that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. An Active OAM packet MUST
include d-ACH immediately following the S-label.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions (notably PREOF)
MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow to potentially lower
packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery, and
ensure in-order packet delivery. PREOF relies on sequencing
information in the DetNet service sub-layer. For a DetNet active OAM
packet, PREOF MUST use the bit string from bit 4 through bit 31
inclusive of the first 32-bit word of the d-ACH, i.e., the
concatenation of Version, Sequence Number, and Channel Type fields,
as the source of this sequencing information.
4. OAM Interworking Models
Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model.
In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network
domain. When using the peering model, state changes that are
detected by a Fault Management OAM protocol can be mapped from one
OAM domain into another or a notification, e.g., an alarm, can be
sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM
interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its
test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
Active DetNet OAM can be used to provide the E2E fault management and
performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. In the case of DetNet with
an MPLS data plane and a TSN underlay network, this implies
interworking of DetNet active OAM with TSN OAM, which is specified in
[RFC9037].
When the peering model is used in CFM OAM, then the node that borders
both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023]
specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment
Circuits and associated Ethernet PWs that are part of an E2E emulated
Ethernet service, and are also applicable to E2E OAM across DetNet
MPLS and TSN domains. The Connectivity Fault Management protocol
[IEEE.CFM] or in [ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a failure
in the TSN segment of the DetNet service. In the DetNet MPLS domain
BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection), specified in [RFC5880] and
[RFC5885], can be used. To provide E2E failure detection, the TSN
and DetNet MPLS segments could be treated as concatenated such that
the diagnostic codes (see Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880]) MAY be used to
inform the upstream DetNet MPLS node of a failure of the TSN segment.
Performance monitoring can be supported by [RFC6374] in the DetNet
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
MPLS and [ITU.Y1731] in the TSN domains, respectively. Performance
objectives for each domain should refer to metrics that additive or
be defined for each domain separately.
The following considerations apply when using the tunneling model of
OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN domains based on general
principles described in Section 4 [RFC9037]:
* Active OAM test packets MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID
as the monitored DetNet flow.
* Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
its S-label and Class of Service marking (the Traffic Class field
value).
Note that the tunneling model of the OAM interworking requires that
the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM
protocol selected on the ingress endpoint. For example, if BFD is
used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS
domain, BFD support (as defined in [RFC5885]) is necessary at any TSN
endpoint of the DetNet service.
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 4.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. To provide performance monitoring over
a DetNet IP domain, STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions [RFC8972] can
be used.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Registry
This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify
DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags bits. The registration
procedure is "IETF Review" [RFC8126]. The registry name is "DetNet
Associated Channel Header Flags". IANA should treat "DetNet
Associated Channel Header Flags" as the name of the registry group.
There are five flags in the five-bit Flags field, defined as in
Table 1.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
+=====+=============+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+=============+===============+
| 0-4 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: DetNet Associated
Channel Header Flags
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in DetNet specifications [RFC8655],
[RFC9055], [RFC8964] are applicable to this document. Security
concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping
[RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification.
7. Acknowledgment
Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
the document. The authors are enormously grateful to Janos Farkas
for his detailed comments and the inspiring discussion that made this
document clearer and stronger. The authors recognize helpful reviews
and suggestions from Andrew Malis, David Black, Tianran Zhou, and
Kiran Makhijani. And special thanks are addressed to Ethan Grossman
for his fantastic help in improving the document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
C. J., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-08, 1 February 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
oam-framework-08>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
[RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7023>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8655>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8964>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9025>.
8.2. Informational References
[IANA-G-ACh-Types]
IANA, "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
parameters.xhtml#mpls-g-ach-types>.
[IEEE.CFM] IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE
802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013.
[ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
2013.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3985>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4385>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4928>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5880>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5885>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6374>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7799>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8029>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8762>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS February 2023
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8972>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9037>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9055>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 13]
