Internet DRAFT - draft-mda-mpls-tp-p2mp-oam-framework
draft-mda-mpls-tp-p2mp-oam-framework
MPLS Working Group K.Arai, Ed.
H.Date
M.Murakami
NTT
Internet Draft W.Cheng
CMCC
Intended status: Informational
Expires: October 2, 2015 March 31, 2015
Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TP OAM
draft-mda-mpls-tp-p2mp-oam-framework-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 October 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
The MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) is being standardized to enable
carrier-grade packet transport.
This document discusses and specifies the P2MP framework primarily
related to OAM and related management in MPLS-TP networks. This
document mainly refers to RFC5654 and RFC6371. The main focus is on
the details that are not covered or not clarified in relevant RFCs
such as RFC5654, RFC5860, RFC5921, RFC5951, RFC6371, and RFC7167.
Note: This I-D was made and updated including the discussions in
ITU-T SG15, which were described in Liaison Statements such as
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1235/)
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union
Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include
an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3
architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a
packet transport network.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Conventions used in this document............................ 4
2.1. Terminology ............................................ 4
2.2. Definitions ............................................ 5
3. P2MP OAM and management...................................... 5
3.1. General aspects of architecture ........................ 5
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
3.1.1. Return path ........................................ 5
3.1.2. M-leaves management scenario in P2MP path........... 6
3.1.3. Refinement of existing requirements on P2MP transport
path ..................................................... 7
3.1.4. Addition and removal of branch tree in P2MP transport
path ..................................................... 8
3.2. General aspects of P2MP OAM ............................. 8
3.3. OAM functions for proactive monitoring ................. 11
3.3.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification(CC-V)11
3.3.2. Remote Defect Indication .......................... 12
3.3.3. Alarm Reporting ................................... 12
3.3.4. Lock Reporting .................................... 12
3.3.5. Packet Loss Measurement ........................... 12
3.3.6. Packet Delay Measurement .......................... 12
3.3.7. Client Failure Indication ......................... 12
3.4. OAM functions for on-demand monitoring ................. 12
3.4.1. Connectivity verification ......................... 12
3.4.2. Packet loss measurement ........................... 13
3.4.3. Diagnostic tests .................................. 13
3.4.4. Route Tracing ..................................... 13
3.4.5. Packet delay measurement .......................... 13
3.5. OAM functions for administration control ............... 13
3.5.1. Lock Instruct ..................................... 13
4. Layer Models ................................................ 14
5. Applicable Scenarios ........................................ 15
6. Security Considerations ..................................... 15
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 15
8. References .................................................. 15
8.1. Normative References ................................... 15
8.2. Informative References ................................. 15
9. Acknowledgments ............................................. 15
1. Introduction
The demand for P2MP traffic is expected to quickly increase due to
the increase in new services such as IP-TV,compressed & uncompressed
video distribution, and smart TV. In light of the global trend in
improving energy efficiency as well as general network cost
reduction, a point-to-multipoint (P2MP) transport function in MPLS-
TP could be one of the solutions for providing these services from
the perspective of efficient use of network resources.
RFC5654[1] defines the following requirements that are specific to
P2MP.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
- Traffic-engineered point-to-multipoint (P2MP) transport
paths.(item 6).
- Unidirectional point-to-multipoint(P2MP) transport paths (item 8)
- Being capable of using P2MP server (sub)layer capabilities when
supporting P2MP MPLS-TP transport paths(item 40)
- The MPLS-TP control plane MUST support establishing all the
connectivity patterns defined for the MPLS-TP data plane (i.e.
unidirectional P2MP) including the configuration of protection
functions and any associated maintenance functions.(item 50)
- Unidirectional 1+1 protection for P2MP connectivity (item 65 C)
- Unidirectional 1:n protection for P2MP connectivity(item 67 B)
- MPLS-TP recovery in a ring MUST protect unidirectional P2MP
transport paths.(item 95)
RFC5860 [2] defines MPLS-TP OAM requirements including those for
unidirectional P2MP transport paths. With a unidirectional P2MP
transport path, two cases are assumed as per Section 3.3 of
RFC6371[3]. One is when no return path exists or not used and the
other is when an "out-of-band" return path exists and used.
In I-D[4], only a summary of various items specific to MPLS-TP P2MP
framework. For example, according to the editor's note, this section
will contain a summary of P2MP OAM, as described in RFC6371 [3],
which defines the overall OAM architecture for MPLS-TP.
Therefore, this draft intends to specify details of a P2MP framework
that complements P2MP requirements and the framework of existing
RFCs, particularly in terms of OAM, management, and recovery.
Note: MPLS-TP functions that are applicable specifically to P2MP
transport paths are outside the scope of RFC5921.
2. 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 [1].
2.1. Terminology
EMS Element management system
LSP Label Switched Path
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
NE Network Element
NMS Network Management System
2.2. Definitions
None
3. P2MP OAM and management
3.1. General aspects of architecture
3.1.1. Return path
The support of P2MP OAM on the data path should be independent of
the availability of a return path or the mechanism that supports the
return path. Basically, only unidirectional P2MP is supported in
MPLS-TP. This means that an "in-band" return path is out of the
scope of MPLS-TP requirements. In this section, two cases, with out-
band return path and without return path, are considered basic and
the requirements that should be met when return paths exist should
be independently specified in other document, if needed.
P2MP considerations are described in Section 3.7 of RFC6371. The RFC
has already described some requirements with out-band return path(s).
On the other hand, even if there is no return path, most OAM
requirements in RFC5860 can be met by supporting the management
interface through which EMS/NMS can retrieve the received OAM
packets.
The "return path" may be considered to be directed to the entity
that originally requested the measurements because this may not be
the head end of the P2MP connection. Therefore, the following return
path should be distinctly differentiated.
RP-N: A return path to the EMS/NMS through the management
interface (RP-N) (this case is referred to as that in which no
return path exists)
RP-HE: A return path to a head end (root) of a P2MP path using any
kind of out-of-band path (this case is referred to as that in
which an out-of-band return path exists)
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
The interpretation of return path usually corresponds to RP-HE.
These two kinds of return paths may be applied at the same time,
depending on the situations.
3.1.2. M-leaves management scenario in P2MP path
Generally, a function to monitor only the subset leaves of a P2MP
transport path is required to appropriately monitor the status of
P2MP transport paths. The supplemental requirements are as follows.
1) M-leaves management, which enables NMS to perform OAM functions
at a set of leaves on a P2MP transport path, must be supported.
2) M-leaves must be selectable by the operator or administrator
using NMS.
3) M-leaves management should be independently enabled/disabled in
each OAM function.
4) In M-leave monitoring, one scenario should be selected to avoid
future interoperability problems between related entities (NE,
EMS, and NMS).
There are four scenarios considered in MPLS-TP networks that consist
of NEs, EMS, and NMS.
In scenario 1, OAM protocol extension is necessary. OAM packets sent
from the source MEP must include a subset of leaf-MEPs. A sink MEP
determines if it should be notified of the management process within
an NE based on the leaf-IDs included in the OAM packet. However,
this is not supported in RFC6371.
In scenario 2, OAM packets that are supported in RFC6371 and are
targeted at all leaves can be utilized. As a result, no extension is
necessary in the P2MP OAM protocol. On the other hand, a subset of
M-leave/sink MEPs must be configured at an EMS from an NMS. In
addition, a pre-configuration of a subset of M-leave/sink MEPs is
needed at related NEs from the EMS. Only the notification-enabled M-
leaves/nodes notify the EMS of its monitoring results.
In scenario 3, OAM packets that are supported in RFC6371 and are
targeted at all leaves can also be utilized. There is no P2MP OAM
protocol extension. On the other hand, NMS configuration on M-
leaves/sink MEPs is needed. In addition, a subset of M-leave/sink
MEPs must be configured at the EMS from the NMS. However, no pre-
configuration of a subset of M-leaves/NEs is needed.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
In scenario 4, OAM packets that are supported in RFC6371 and are
targeted at all leaves can also be utilized. There is no P2MP OAM
protocol extension. Only NMS configuration on M-leaves/sink MEPs is
needed. A configuration of a subset of M-leave/sink MEPs at the EMS
from the NMS is not necessary. No pre-configuration of a subset of
M-leaves/NEs is needed.
Considering some negative impacts such as the efficient use of a
data communication network (DCN), insufficient manageability of
network element (NE), traffic congestion at EMS/NMS, and heavy load
for OAM packet processes at EMS/NMS, scenario 2 is required in
MPLS-TP p2mp network.
3.1.3. Refinement of existing requirements on P2MP transport path
MPLS-TP RFCs are sufficiently mature in terms of the requirements
and framework of MPLS-TP P2P. On the other hand, in terms of MPLS-TP
P2MP, some parts of MPLS-TP RFCs and Recommendations could be
refined and clarified.
(R1) CV requirement of RFC5860
CV is ambiguously defined in RFC5860 "MPLS-TP OAM requirement".
According to this definition of RFC5860, it seems to be source-MEP
oriented and not correct in P2MP.
Current text: The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to
enable an End Point to determine whether or not it is connected to
specific End Point(s) by means of the expected PW, LSP, or Section.
In unidirectional P2MP, the source MEP cannot determine whether or
not it is connected to specific End Point(s). Therefore, in P2MP,
the definition of connectivity verification should be corrected in
P2MP framework draft and OAM Recommendation as follows.
Proposed text: The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to
enable a sink End Point to determine whether or not it is connected
to a specific source End Point by means of the expected PW or LSP.
(R2) CC Requirement of RFC6371
According to RFC6371, it is assumed that CC means that CC OAM packet
does not include either a source MEP or destination MEP. Only
unidirectional P2MP is supported in MPLS-TP, so the continuity of
the CC OAM packets are received by sink MEPs, and a sink MEP should
notify the equipment fault management process of the detected defect.
However, the following current text doesn't correctly describe the
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
unidirectional feature that is specific to P2MP transport path.
Therefore, the requirement should be modified.
Current text in RFC: Proactive Continuity Check functions, as
required in Section 2.2.2 of RFC 5860 [11], are used to detect a
loss of continuity (LOC) defect between two MEPs in an MEG.
Proactive Connectivity Verification functions, as required in
Section 2.2.3 of RFC 5860 [11], are used to detect an unexpected
connectivity defect between two MEGs (e.g., mismerging or
misconnection), as well as unexpected connectivity within the MEG
with an unexpected MEP.
Proposed text: Proactive Continuity Check functions, as required in
Section 2.2.2 of RFC5860, are used to detect a loss of continuity
(LOC) defect from the source MEP to sink MEP(s). Proactive
Connectivity Verification functions, as required in Section 2.2.3 of
RFC5860, are used to detect an unexpected connectivity defect from
the source MEP to sink MEP(s) (e.g., mismerging or misconnection),
as well as unexpected connectivity within MEG with an unexpected
source MEP.
(R3) Optional requirements on CC-V OAM packets
In a P2MP transport path, it is highly desirable that in order to
save OAM bandwidth consumption, CV, when used, be linked with CC
into CC-V OAM packets.
3.1.4. Addition and removal of branch tree in P2MP transport path
When additional branches, in other words, additional destination NEs
(leaves) need to be added to an existing transport path after a
connection service is provided via the P2MP path, an operator must
be capable of adding a new branch tree to the P2MP transport path
flexibly from any point on the path without service interruption.
The reason is that merging and crossover of the P2MP LSP branch tree
must be rejected because it is not efficient in terms of network
resources. As a result, the following requirement must be supported
in the MPLS-TP P2MP transport path.
3.2. General aspects of P2MP OAM
P2MP transport paths are unidirectional; therefore, there is
generally no in-band return path as in the MPLS-TP transport path
per se. However, there are basically two approaches for handling OAM
requirements in P2MP MPLS-TP.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
The first one is used to report the results of the
monitoring/measurement of OAM packets from the OAM target node to
the EMS/NMS when the NMS usually instantiates OAM functions and
requires the results of OAM monitoring functions. This approach is
called RP-N. The second approach is the return path to a root
(source MEP) of a P2MP path using different methods such as a
unidirectional p2p transport paths, and other technology-layers,
such as IP, Ethernet, and OTN, when an NE within which a root MEP
resides instantiates OAM functions or receive results of OAM
monitoring functions. This approach is called as RP-HE. The
following requirements are supported in terms of network elements
when considering RP-N.
1. OAM functions of a MEG of a P2MP transport path should be
configurable using the EMS/NMS.
2. Source nodes at which the source MEP reside and OAM packets are
generated should receive OAM related information such as
enabling/disabling OAM functions and setting/changing OAM
attributes from the EMS/NMS on a P2MP transport path.
3. Sink nodes at which targeting MIPs or MEPs reside and OAM packets
are parsed should report OAM related information such as OAM
monitoring results and consequent OAM actions to the EMS/NMS.
4. Each OAM function of a P2MP transport path should be able to be
independently configured using the EMS/NMS based on the
classification of OAM functional requirements in RFC5860.
5. An on-demand OAM function must be able to perform an OAM function
for only a specific target MIP or MEP as well as all MEPs in a
P2MP transport path, as specified in Section 3.7 of RFC6371[3].
6. To manage M leaves(i.e., subset of all leaves) in an on-demand OAM
function from the EMS/NMS, a unified mechanism must be provided.
Note: Currently, sending an OAM packet that is targeted at a
subset of M leaves by using an aggregating mechanism such as an
OAM packet including several MIP or MEP identifiers is out of the
scope of RFC6371[3] as described in Section 3.7 of that document.
7. Mismatches of configuration information between a root MEP and any
leaf-MEP, at which proactive or on-demand monitoring is enabled,
should be detected as a configuration mismatch alarm and be
reported to the EMS/NMS by parsing received OAM packets,
particularly when a static setting is applied.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
Generally when each OAM function is enabled, as described in Section
5.1 of RFC6371[3], the source MEP function should be enabled prior
to the corresponding sink MEPs' function.
Regarding configuration considerations, the following are additional
requirements for unidirectional P2MP transport path, particularly
when RP-HE does not exist.
8. The configuration of each OAM function between the source MEP and
sink MEP(s) in an MEG of a transport path should be able to be
synchronized using the NMS, when a new P2MP transport path is set.
9. OAM functions of a newly added/deleted branch transport path from
any point of an existing transport path must be able to be
configured and enabled/disabled on a newly integrated/combined
P2MP transport path without affecting client traffic to existing
end points of the P2MP transport path other than the added/removed
branch transport path.
10.The configuration of newly added/removed specific sink
MEP(s)to the existing source MEP in the MEG in proactive
monitoring should be able to be synchronized with that of the
source MEP by using the NMS.
11.The EMS/NMS should provide a tool for manually configuring
consistent values of each piece of configuration information to a
root MEP and all the related leaf MEPs in a MEG of a P2MP
transport path for both pro-active and on-demand OAM functions.
12.Mismatches of configuration information between a leaf MEP and
any other leaf MEP(s) or a root MEP and leaf MEP(s), at which
proactive monitoring will be enabled, should be able to be
detected through the configuration management process of the
EMS/NMS as a configuration mismatch alarm or notification without
receiving OAM packets from a source MEP(before OAM functions are
enabled).
Note: This requirement is not necessary if the EMS/NMS provides a
tool to manually configure a consistent value of each piece of
configuration information to a root MEP.
13.The enabling or disabling of proactive OAM functions and
configuration mismatch alarms of the OAM functions must be
independently configurable at each leaf-MEP as well as on all the
leaf MEPs on a P2MP transport path, considering maintenances or a
case in which one or more leaf MEPs is newly added or removed
later.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
14.Mismatches of configuration information between a leaf MEP and
any other leaf MEP(s) or a root MEP and leaf MEP(s), at which on-
demand OAM monitoring is enabled, must be detected as a
configuration management process before conducting OAM functions.
3.3. OAM functions for proactive monitoring
The proactive OAM functions are used to detect a fault/defect or to
automatically reports a change in the status of a transport path.
3.3.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification(CC-V)
The continuity Check function enables one or more leaf MEPs on a
unidirectional P2MP transport path to monitor the continuity of OAM
packets from root MEP and detect one or more loss of continuity(LOC)
defects between the root MEP and leaf MEPs.
The connectivity verification function enables one or more leaf MEPs
on a P2MP transport path to monitor the connectivity of OAM packets
from a specific root MEP and detect an unexpected connectivity
defect between two MEGs(two P2MP transport paths)
As described in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of RFC5860[2], CC-V MUST be
supported even when RP-HE does not exist.
As described in RFC6371[3], CC-V OAM packets are used for a P2MP
transport path. Defect detection mechanisms in P2MP transport paths
are the same as those of the P2MP transport path specified in
section 5.1.1 of RFC6371 [3]. That is, loss of continuity(LoC)
defect, mis-connectivity defect, period mis-configuration defect and
unexpected encapsulation defect. Entry and exit criteria are also
the same as those of the P2MP transport paths in RFC6371 [3].
However, in a P2MP transport path, all the leaf MEPs that detect a
defect must be indentified and differentiated from a normal leaf
MEP(s), which does not detect a defect.
Configuration is specified in Section 5.1.3 of RFC6371[3]. The
following configuration information must be configured: MEG-ID, MEP-
ID, list of the other MEPs in the MEG that are different between the
root MEP and leaf MEP, PHB for E-LSP and transmission rate.
Consequent actions of a unidirectional P2MP transport path are also
covered in Section 5.1.2 of RFC6371 [3]. Operators should be able to
enable/disable each consequent action.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
All MEPs inside a MEG need to be configured and retain the
information when a proactive OAM function is enabled, as described
in Section 5.1.3 of RFC6371[3]. If there is no RP-HE, it is premised
that the EMS/NMS exists. Therefore, the above parameters are
statically configured.
3.3.2. Remote Defect Indication
This OAM function is not available on a P2MP transport path when
return paths do not exist. This OAM function can be implemented only
in RP-HE. However, the return path is out of the scope of MPLS-TP
requirements.
3.3.3. Alarm Reporting
For further study(FFS)
3.3.4. Lock Reporting
FFS
3.3.5. Packet Loss Measurement
FFS
3.3.6. Packet Delay Measurement
FFS
3.3.7. Client Failure Indication
FFS
3.4. OAM functions for on-demand monitoring
3.4.1. Connectivity verification
The connectivity verification function enables one or more leaf MEPs
on a P2MP transport path to monitor the connectivity of OAM packets
from a specific root MEP and detect an unexpected connectivity
defect between two MEGs (two P2MP transport paths)
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
1. Connectivity verification functions MUST be supported when return
paths in a unidirectional P2MP transport path do not exist.
As described in RFC6371 [3], CC-V OAM packets are used for a P2MP
transport path. Defect detection mechanisms in P2MP transport paths
are the same as those of the P2MP transport path specified in
section 5.1 of RFC6371. That is, loss of continuity defect, mis-
connectivity defect, period mis-configuration defect and unexpected
encapsulation defect. Entry and exit criteria are also the same as
those of the P2MP transport path in RFC6371 [3]. Moreover,
consequent actions of a unidirectional P2MP transport path are also
covered in Section 5.1.2 of the RFC [3]
Regarding configuration consideration, the following additional
requirements on a unidirectional P2MP transport path when a return
path does not exist.
3.4.2. Packet loss measurement
FFS
3.4.3. Diagnostic tests
Diagnostic test functions MUST be supported when a return path in
a unidirectional P2MP transport path doesn't exist.
Other requirements are ffs.
3.4.4. Route Tracing
Route tracing function MUST be supported when a return path in a
unidirectional P2MP transport path doesn't exist.
Other requirements are ffs.
3.4.5. Packet delay measurement
FFS
3.5. OAM functions for administration control
3.5.1. Lock Instruct
FFS.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
4. Layer Models
Generally, MPLS-TP technology consists of two technical basis: one
is LSP and the other is Pseudowire (PW). In PW, two types of multi-
segment PW are supported: one is single-segment PW(SS-PW) and multi-
segment PW(MS-SW). Considering the combination of those technologies,
there are a few types of combinations considered in layering models
of MPLS-TP. Fig.1 shows those examples.
------------ ------------ ------------
Channel layer | P2MP SS-PW | | P2MP MS-PW | | P2MP MS-PW |
------------ ------------ ------------
Path layer | P2MP LSP | | P2P LSP | | P2MP LSP |
------------ ------------ ------------
Server layer | P2P any | | P2P any | | P2P any |
------------ ------------ ------------
Model 1 Moldel 2 Model 3
Figure 1 : Examples of Layer models in P2MP MPLS-TP
In principal, server layer is provided by any technologies such as
Ethernet, OTN and MPLS-TP in P2P link. On the other hand, channel layer
and path layer are provided by PW and LSP and both technologies support
P2MP as well as P2P in current MPLS technology. From the perspective,
three possible models are described in Fig.1.
There are still some discussion on which model should be adopted in
MPLS-TP. The key issue is on some ambiguity of the boundary of PW
function and LSP function. This OAM framework draft firstly focuses on
Model 1, in which P2MP SS-PW is applied in a channel layer and P2MP LSP
is applied in a path layer. Model 2 and Model 3 are for further study.
Regarding P2MP PW, as shown in [4], P2MP PW survivability has not been
discussed yet. P2MP PW requirements are being developed in [5].
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
5. Applicable Scenarios
P2MP MPLS-TP LSP could be applied not only to point to multi-point
topology networks, but also to p2mp portions which constructs multi-
point to multi-point services. OAM functions described in this document
can be utilized for meeting those requirements.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not raise any particular security considerations.
7. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions required by this draft.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Niven-Jenkins, B., et all, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport
Profile", RFC5654, September 2009
[2] Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., Ward, D., "Requirements for OAM in
MPLS Transport Networks", RFC5860, May 2010
[3] Busi, I., Dave, A. , "Operations, Administration and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks ",
RFC6371, September 2011
[4] Frost, Dan.,et all, "A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS
in Transport Networks", RFC7167, April 2014
[5] Bocci, M., Heron, G., Jounay, F. and Y. Kamite, "Requirements
and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS
PSNs", RFC7338, September 2014, October 2013.
9. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank all members (including MPLS-TP
steering committee, the Joint Working Team, the MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Group
in ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of MPLS
Transport Profile.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP p2mp OAM framework March 2015
Authors' Addresses
Kaoru Arai
NTT
arai.kaoru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Hiroki Date
NTT
date.hiroki@lab.ntt.co.jp
Makoto Murakami
NTT
murakami.makoto@lab.ntt.co.jp
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Arai, et al. Expires October 2, 2015 [Page 16]
