idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits25983/draft-bocci-pwe3-ge-ach-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 25. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 335. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 312. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 319. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 325. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (June 20, 2008) is 5076 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) -- No information found for draft-vigoureux-mpls-oam-requirements-mpls-transport - is the name correct? -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4379 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group M.Bocci 2 Internet Draft M.Vigoureux 3 M.Lasserre 4 L.Levrau 5 I.Busi 6 Alcatel-Lucent 8 D.Ward 9 S.Bryant 10 Cisco 12 Intended status: Proposed Standard June 20, 2008 13 Expires: December 2008 15 MPLS Generic Associated Channel 17 draft-bocci-pwe3-ge-ach-00.txt 19 Status of this Memo 21 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that 22 any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is 23 aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she 24 becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 25 BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 29 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 30 Drafts. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 38 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 39 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 40 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2008. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 48 Abstract 50 This draft describes a generic associated channel header (GE-ACH) 51 that provides a control channel associated with an MPLS LSP, 52 pseudowire or MPLS section. The VCCV ACH defined for PWs in RFC 5085 53 is generalized to allow a larger set of control channel and OAM 54 functions to be used to meet the requirements of packet transport and 55 other applications of MPLS. 57 Conventions used in this document 59 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 60 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 61 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1]. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction................................................3 66 1.1. Objectives.............................................3 67 1.2. Scope..................................................3 68 1.3. Terminology............................................4 69 2. Generic Associated Channel...................................4 70 2.1. Generic Associated Channel Header.......................4 71 3. Congestion Considerations....................................5 72 4. Security Considerations......................................5 73 5. IANA Considerations.........................................5 74 6. Acknowledgments.............................................6 75 7. References..................................................6 76 7.1. Normative References....................................6 77 7.2. Informative References..................................7 78 Author's Addresses.............................................7 79 Intellectual Property Statement.................................8 80 Disclaimer of Validity.........................................8 82 1. Introduction 84 There is a need for Operations and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms that 85 can be used for edge-to-edge (i.e. between originating and 86 terminating LSRs or T-PEs) and segment fault detection (e.g. between 87 any two LSRs or S-PEs along the path of an LSP or PW), diagnostics, 88 maintenance and other functions for a Pseudowire and an LSP. Some of 89 these functions can be supported using tools such as VCCV [3] or LSP- 90 Ping [7]. However, a requirement has been indicated to extend these 91 toolsets, in particular where MPLS networks are used for packet 92 transport services and network operations [6]. These include 93 performance monitoring, automatic protection switching, and support 94 for management and signaling communication channels. These tools must 95 be applicable to, and function in essentially the same manner (from 96 an operational point of view) on both MPLS PWs and MPLS LSPs. They 97 must also operate in-band on the PW or LSP such that they do not 98 depend on PSN routing, user data traffic or ultimately on control 99 plane functions. 101 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) can use an 102 associated channel to provide a control channel between a PW's 103 ingress and egress points over which OAM and other control messages 104 can be exchanged. In this draft, we propose a generic associated 105 channel header (GE-ACH) to enable the same control channel mechanism 106 be used for MPLS Sections, LSPs and PWs. The associated channel 107 header (ACH) specified in RFC 4385 [2] is used with additional code 108 points to support additional MPLS OAM functions. 110 1.1. Objectives 112 This draft proposes a mechanism to provide for the OAM needs of 113 transport applications. It creates a generic OAM identification 114 mechanism that may be applied to all MPLS LSPs, while maintaining 115 compatibility with the PW associated channel header (ACH) [2]. It 116 also normalizes the use of the ACH for PWs in a transport context. 118 1.2. Scope 120 This draft defines the encapsulation header for LSP, MPLS Section and 121 PW associated channel messages. 123 It does not define how associated channel capabilities are signaled 124 or negotiated between LSRs or PEs, the operation of various OAM 125 functions, or the messages transmitted on the associated channel. 127 This draft does not deprecate existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms. 129 1.3. Terminology 131 ACH: Associated Channel Header 133 MPLS Section: A Section is a network segment between two LSRs that 134 are immediately adjacent 136 2. Generic Associated Channel 138 VCCV [3] defines three control channel types that may be used to 139 multiplex OAM messages onto a PW. CC type 1, uses an associated 140 channel header and is referred to as "In-band VCCV", CC type 2 which 141 uses the router alert label to indicate VCCV packets and is referred 142 to as "Out of Band VCCV", and CC type 3 that uses the TTL to force 143 the packet to be processed by the destination routers control plane 144 (known as "MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1"). 146 This draft proposes that in transport applications only the type 1 147 (associated channel header) mechanism is used for LSP OAM and for PW 148 OAM. In transport applications a static or traffic engineered LSP is 149 normally used, thus the data and the OAM will follow the same path. 150 This does not preclude the use of the GE-ACH mechanism described in 151 this draft for other applications of MPLS. 153 Note that VCCV also includes mechanisms for negotiating the control 154 channel and connectivity verification (i.e. OAM tool) types between 155 PEs. 157 This section defines a generic associated channel header (GE-ACH) 158 that identifies packets on the associated channel. 160 2.1. Generic Associated Channel Header 162 The format of the GE-ACH for LSP, Section and PW associated channel 163 traffic is shown in Figure 1: 165 0 1 2 3 166 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 1 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type | 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 Figure 1 Generic Associated Channel Header 173 The first nibble is set to 0001b to indicate a channel associated 174 with a PW or LSP. The Version and Reserved fields are set to 0, as 175 specified in RFC 4385 [2]. 177 Values for the channel type used for VCCV are specified in RFC 4446 178 [4]. 180 This draft specifies the following additional channel types: 182 0xXX - for OAM functions 184 0xYY - for APS functions 186 0xKK - for Management Communications Channel (MCC) functions 188 0xZZ - for Signaling Communications Channel (SCC) functions 190 The functionality of these channel types will be defined elsewhere. 192 3. Congestion Considerations 194 The congestion considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [1] apply. Further 195 generic associated channel-specific congestion considerations will be 196 detailed in a future revision of this draft. 198 4. Security Considerations 200 The security considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [1] apply. Further 201 generic associated channel-specific congestion considerations will be 202 detailed in a future revision of this draft. 204 5. IANA Considerations 206 This draft requests that code points for the following GE-ACH channel 207 types be allocated from the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry 208 [4]: 210 0xXX - for OAM functions 212 0xYY - for APS functions 214 0xKK - for Management Communications Channel (MCC) functions 216 0xZZ - for Signaling Communications Channel (SCC) functions 217 The PW Associated Channel Type registry is currently allocated based 218 on the IETF consensus process, described in [5]. This allocation 219 process was chosen based on the consensus reached in the PWE3 working 220 group that pseudowire associated channel mechanisms should be 221 reviewed by the IETF and only those that are consistent with the PWE3 222 architecture and requirements should be allocated a code point. 224 However, a requirement has emerged to allow for vendor-specific 225 optimizations or extensions to OAM and other control protocols 226 running in an associated channel, by supporting vendor specific code 227 points [6]. This would prevent code points used for such functions 228 from being allocated through the IETF standards process in future. 229 Vendor specific code point space thus protects an installed base of 230 equipment from potential inadvertent overloading of code points. 232 Each draft specifying ACH protocols must provide a solution for 233 supporting vendor-specific types, in accordance with [6], in addition 234 to those allocated by IETF consensus. The details of these solutions 235 are outside the scope of this draft. 237 6. Acknowledgments 239 The authors gratefully acknowledge the input of Lou Berger and George 240 Swallow. 242 7. References 244 7.1. Normative References 246 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 247 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 249 [2] S. Bryant et al., "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) 250 Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006 252 [3] Nadeau, T. & Pignataro, S., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit 253 Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for 254 Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007 256 [4] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge 257 Emulation (PWE3)", RFC 4446, April 2006 259 [5] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., " Guidelines for Writing an IANA 260 Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998 262 7.2. Informative References 264 [6] M. Vigoureux et al., "Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport 265 Networks", draft-vigoureux-mpls-oam-requirements-mpls- 266 transport-00.txt,April 2008 268 [7] K. Kompella, G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label 269 Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006 271 Author's Addresses 273 Matthew Bocci 274 Alcatel-Lucent 275 Voyager Place, 276 Maidenhead, 277 Berks, UK 278 Phone: +44 1633 413600 279 Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk 281 Marc Lasserre 282 Alcatel-Lucent 283 Email: mlaserre@alcatel-lucent.com 285 Martin Vigoureux 286 Alcatel-Lucent 287 Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr 289 Lieven Levrau 290 Alcatel-Lucent 291 Email: llevrau@alcatel-lucent.com 293 David Ward 294 Cisco 295 170 W. Tasman Dr. 296 San Jose, CA 95134 USA 297 Phone: +1-408-526-4000 298 Email: dward@cisco.com 299 Stewart Bryant 300 Cisco 301 stbryant@cisco.com 303 Intellectual Property Statement 305 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 306 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 307 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 308 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 309 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 310 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 311 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 312 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 314 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 315 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 316 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 317 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 318 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 319 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 321 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 322 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 323 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 324 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 325 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 327 Disclaimer of Validity 329 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 330 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 331 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 332 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 333 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 334 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 335 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 337 Copyright Statement 339 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 341 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 342 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 343 retain all their rights. 345 Acknowledgment 347 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 348 Internet Society.