--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-08.txt 2015-12-18 01:15:07.671093422 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-09.txt 2015-12-18 01:15:07.711094377 -0800 @@ -1,26 +1,26 @@ Network Working Group A. D'Alessandro Internet-Draft Telecom Italia Intended status: Standards Track L. Andersson -Expires: June 4, 2016 Huawei Technologies +Expires: June 20, 2016 Huawei Technologies M. Paul Deutsche Telekom S. Ueno NTT Communications K. Arai Y. Koike NTT - December 2, 2015 + December 18, 2015 Enhanced path segment monitoring - draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-08.txt + draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-09.txt Abstract The MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) has been standardized to enable carrier-grade packet transport and to complement converged packet network deployments. The most attractive features of MPLS-TP are the OAM functions. These functions enable maintenance tools that may be exploited by network operators and service providers for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out- of-service measurements. @@ -47,21 +47,21 @@ 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 http://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 June 4, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -84,35 +84,38 @@ 6.1. Non-intrusive segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Single and multiple level monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. EPSM and end-to-end proactive monitoring independence . . 10 6.4. Arbitrary segment monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.5. Fault while EPSM is operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.6. EPSM maintenance points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction A packet transport network enables carriers and service providers to use network resources efficiently. It reduces operational complexity and provides carrier-grade network operation. Appropriate maintenance functions that support fault location, survivability, pro-active performance monitoring, pre-service and in-service measurements, are essential to ensure the quality of service and the reliability of a network. They are essential in transport networks 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. According to the MPLS-TP OAM requirements RFC 5860 [RFC5860], mechanisms MUST be available for alerting a service provider of a fault or defect that affects their services. In addition, to ensure that faults or service degradation can be localized, operators need a function to diagnose the detected problem. Using end-to-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 fault or service degradation accurately. @@ -618,38 +621,42 @@ 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. The authors would also like to thank Alexander Vainshtein, Dave Allan, Fei Zhang, Huub van Helvoort, Malcolm Betts, Italo Busi, Maarten Vissers, Jia He and Nurit Sprecher for their comments and enhancements to the text. -11. Normative References +11. References + +11.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, . [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed., "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010, . +11.2. Informative References + [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, . [RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371, September 2011, .