draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-08.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-09.txt
	Network Working Group A. D'Alessandro		Network Working Group A. D'Alessandro
	Internet-Draft Telecom Italia		Internet-Draft Telecom Italia
	Intended status: Standards Track L. Andersson		Intended status: Standards Track L. Andersson
	Expires: June 4, 2016 Huawei Technologies		Expires: June 20, 2016 Huawei Technologies
	M. Paul		M. Paul
	Deutsche Telekom		Deutsche Telekom
	S. Ueno		S. Ueno
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	K. Arai		K. Arai
	Y. Koike		Y. Koike
	NTT		NTT
	December 2, 2015		December 18, 2015
	Enhanced path segment monitoring		Enhanced path segment monitoring
	draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-08.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-09.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	The MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) has been standardized to enable		The MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) has been standardized to enable
	carrier-grade packet transport and to complement converged packet		carrier-grade packet transport and to complement converged packet
	network deployments. The most attractive features of MPLS-TP are the		network deployments. The most attractive features of MPLS-TP are the
	OAM functions. These functions enable maintenance tools that may be		OAM functions. These functions enable maintenance tools that may be
	exploited by network operators and service providers for fault		exploited by network operators and service providers for fault
	location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-		location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
	of-service measurements.		of-service measurements.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 12		skipping to change at page 2, line 12
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 49		skipping to change at page 2, line 49
	6.1. Non-intrusive segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.1. Non-intrusive segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.2. Single and multiple level monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2. Single and multiple level monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.3. EPSM and end-to-end proactive monitoring independence . . 10		6.3. EPSM and end-to-end proactive monitoring independence . . 10
	6.4. Arbitrary segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.4. Arbitrary segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.5. Fault while EPSM is operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.5. Fault while EPSM is operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.6. EPSM maintenance points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.6. EPSM maintenance points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
			11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
			11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	A packet transport network enables carriers and service providers to		A packet transport network enables carriers and service providers to
	use network resources efficiently. It reduces operational complexity		use network resources efficiently. It reduces operational complexity
	and provides carrier-grade network operation. Appropriate		and provides carrier-grade network operation. Appropriate
	maintenance functions that support fault location, survivability,		maintenance functions that support fault location, survivability,
	pro-active performance monitoring, pre-service and in-service		pro-active performance monitoring, pre-service and in-service
	measurements, are essential to ensure the quality of service and the		measurements, are essential to ensure the quality of service and the
	reliability of a network. They are essential in transport networks		reliability of a network. They are essential in transport networks
	and have evolved along with PDH, ATM, SDH and OTN.		and have evolved along with PDH, ATM, SDH and OTN.
	Similar to legacy technologies, MPLS-TP does also not scale when an		Similar to legacy technologies, MPLS-TP also does not scale when an
	arbitrary number of OAM functions is enabled.		arbitrary number of OAM functions is enabled.
	According to the MPLS-TP OAM requirements RFC 5860 [RFC5860],		According to the MPLS-TP OAM requirements RFC 5860 [RFC5860],
	mechanisms MUST be available for alerting a service provider of a		mechanisms MUST be available for alerting a service provider of a
	fault or defect that affects their services. In addition, to ensure		fault or defect that affects their services. In addition, to ensure
	that faults or service degradation can be localized, operators need a		that faults or service degradation can be localized, operators need a
	function to diagnose the detected problem. Using end-to-end		function to diagnose the detected problem. Using end-to-end
	monitoring for this purpose is insufficient. In fact by using end-		monitoring for this purpose is insufficient. In fact by using end-
	to-end OAM monitoring, an operator will not be able to localize a		to-end OAM monitoring, an operator will not be able to localize a
	fault or service degradation accurately.		fault or service degradation accurately.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 5		skipping to change at page 15, line 5
	The author would like to thank all members (including MPLS-TP		The author would like to thank all members (including MPLS-TP
	steering committee, the Joint Working Team, the MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Group		steering committee, the Joint Working Team, the MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Group
	in ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of MPLS		in ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of MPLS
	Transport Profile.		Transport Profile.
	The authors would also like to thank Alexander Vainshtein, Dave		The authors would also like to thank Alexander Vainshtein, Dave
	Allan, Fei Zhang, Huub van Helvoort, Malcolm Betts, Italo Busi,		Allan, Fei Zhang, Huub van Helvoort, Malcolm Betts, Italo Busi,
	Maarten Vissers, Jia He and Nurit Sprecher for their comments and		Maarten Vissers, Jia He and Nurit Sprecher for their comments and
	enhancements to the text.		enhancements to the text.
	11. Normative References		11. References
			11.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol		[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
	Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,		Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
	[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,		[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
	"Requirements for Operations, Administration, and		"Requirements for Operations, Administration, and
	Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860,		Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.
			11.2. Informative References
	[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,		[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
	L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport		L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
	Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,		Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
	[RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,		[RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,
	Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based		Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based
	Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371,		Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371,
	September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.		September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	7 lines changed or deleted		14 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/