Internet DRAFT - draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement
draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement
Internet Engineering Task Force P. Ashwood-Smith
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational R. Iyengar
Expires: January 16, 2014 T. Tsou
Huawei Technologies USA
A. Sajassi
Cisco Technologies
M. Boucadair
C. Jacquenet
France Telecom
M. Daikoku
KDDI corporation
July 15, 2013
NVO3 Operational Requirements
draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03
Abstract
This document provides framework and requirements for Network
Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3) Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM). This document for the most part gathers
requirements from existing IETF drafts and RFCs which have already
extensively studied this subject for different data planes and
layering. As a result this draft is high level and broad. We begin
to ask which are truly required for NVO3 and expect the list to be
narrowed by the working group as subsequent versions of this draft
are created.
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 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 January 16, 2014.
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. OSI Definitions of OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Relationship with Other OAM Work . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. NVO3 Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. OAM Framework for NVO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. OAM Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. OAM Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. NVO3 OAM Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Connectivity Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Connectivity Fault Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Connectivity Fault Verification . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.3. Connectivity Fault localization . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.4. Connectivity Fault Notification and Alarm Suppression 10
5.3. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Frame Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Frame Delay Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Frame Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. Frame Discard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.8. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. Data Path Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.10. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.11. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.12. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.13. Transport Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.14. Application Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.15. Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Items for Further Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
This document provides framework and requirements for Network
virtualization over Layer 3(NVO3) Operation, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM). Given that this OAM subject is far from new and
has been under extensive investigation by various IETF working groups
(and several other standards bodies) for many years, this document
draws from existing work, starting with [RFC6136]. As a result,
sections of [RFC6136] have been reused with minor changes with the
permission of the authors.
NVO3 OAM requirements are expected to be a subset of IETF/IEEE etc.
work done so far; however, we begin with a full set of requirements
and expect to prune them through several iterations of this document.
1.1. OSI Definitions of OAM
The scope of OAM for any service and/or transport/network
infrastructure technologies can be very broad in nature. OSI has
defined the following five generic functional areas commonly
abbreviated as "FCAPS" [NM-Standards]:
o Fault Management,
o Configuration Management,
o Accounting Management,
o Performance Management, and
o Security Management.
This document focuses on the Fault, Performance and to a limited
extent the Configuration Management aspects. Other functional
aspects of FCAPS and their relevance (or not) to NVO3 are for further
study.
Fault Management can typically be viewed in terms of the following
categories:
o Fault Detection;
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
o Fault Verification;
o Fault Isolation;
o Fault Notification and Alarm Suppression;
o Fault Recovery.
Fault detection deals with mechanism(s) that can detect both hard
failures such as link and device failures, and soft failures, such as
software failure, memory corruption, misconfiguration, etc. Fault
detection relies upon a set of mechanisms that first allow the
observation of an event, then the use of a protocol to dynamically
notify a network/system operator (or management system) about the
event occurrence, then the use of diagnostic tools to assess the
nature and severity of the fault.
After verifying that a fault has occurred along the data path, it is
important to be able to isolate the fault to the level of a given
device or link. Therefore, a fault isolation mechanism is needed in
Fault Management. A fault notification mechanism should be used in
conjunction with a fault detection mechanism to notify the devices
upstream and downstream to the fault detection point. The fault
notification mechanism should also notify NMS systems.
The terms "upstream" and "backward" are used here to denote the
direction(s) from which data traffic is flowing. The terms
"downstream" and "forward" denote the direction(s) to which data
traffic is forwarded.
For example, when there is a client/server relationship between two
layered networks (e.g., the NVO3 layer is a client of the outer IP
server layer, while the inner IP layer is a client of the NVO3 server
layer 2), fault detection at the server layer may result in the
following fault notifications:
o Sending a forward fault notification from the server layer to the
client layer network(s) using the fault notification format
appropriate to the client layer.
o Sending a backward fault notification to the server layer, if
applicable, in the reverse direction.
o Sending a backward fault notification to the client layer, if
applicable, in the reverse direction.
Finally, fault recovery deals with recovering from the detected
failure by switching to an alternate available data path (depending
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
on the nature of the fault) using alternate devices or links. In
fact, the controller can provision another virtual network, thus
automatically resolving the reported problem.
The controller may also directly monitor the status of virtual
network components such as Network Virtualization Edge elements
(NVEs) [NVO3-framework] in order to respond to their failures. In
addition to forward and backward fault notifications, the controller
may deliver notifications to a higher level orchestration component,
e.g., one responsible for Virtual Machine (VM) provisioning and
management.
Note, given that the IP network on which NVO3 resides is usually self
healing, it is expected that recovery by the NVO3 layer would not
normally be required, although there may be a requirement for that
layer to log that the problem has been detected and resolved. The
special cases of a static IP overlay network, or possibly of a
centrally controlled IP overlay network, may, however, require NVO3
involvement in fault recovery.
Performance Management deals with mechanism(s) that allow determining
and measuring the performance of the network/services under
consideration. Performance Management can be used to verify the
compliance to both the service-level and network-level metric
objectives/specifications. Performance Management typically consists
of measuring performance metrics, e.g., Frame Loss, Frame Delay,
Frame Delay Variation (aka Jitter), Frame throughput, Frame discard,
etc., across managed entities when the managed entities are in
available state. Performance Management is suspended across
unavailable managed entities.
1.2. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
1.3. Relationship with Other OAM Work
This document leverages requirements that originate with other OAM
work, specifically the following:
o [RFC6136] provides a template and some of the high level
requirements and introductory wording.
o [IEEE802.1ag] is expected to provide a subset of the requirements
for NVO3 both at the Tenant level and also within the L3 Overlay
network.
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
o [Y.1731] is expected to provide a subset of the requirements for
NVO3 at the Tenant level.
o Section 3.8 of [NVO3-DP-Reqs] lists several requirements
specifically concerning ECMP/LAG.
2. Terminology
The terminology defined in [NVO3-framework] and [NVO3-DP-Reqs] is
used throughout this document. We introduce no new terminology.
3. NVO3 Reference Model
Figure 1 below reproduces the generic NVO3 reference model as per
[NVO3-framework].
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant | | Tenant |
| End +--+ +---| End |
| System | | | | System |
+--------+ | ................... | +--------+
| +-+--+ +--+-+ |
| | NV | | NV | |
+--|Edge| |Edge|--+
+-+--+ +--+-+
/ . L3 Overlay . \
+--------+ / . Network . \ +--------+
| Tenant +--+ . . +----| Tenant |
| End | . . | End |
| System | . +----+ . | System |
+--------+ .....| NV |........ +--------+
|Edge|
+----+
|
|
+--------+
| Tenant |
| End |
| System |
+--------+
Figure 1: Generic reference model for DC network virtualization over
a Layer3 infrastructure
Figure 2 below, reproduces the Generic reference model for the NV
Edge (NVE) as per [NVO3-DP-Reqs].
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
+------- L3 Network ------+
| |
| Tunnel Overlay |
+------------+---------^-+ +--------+-------------^-+
| +----------+------+ | | | +------+----------+ | |
| | Overlay Module | | | | | Overlay Module | | |
| +--------+--------+ | | | +--------+--------+ | |
| | VNID | | | | VNID | |
| | OAM | | | OAM |
| +-------+-------+ | | | +-------+-------+ | |
| | VNI | | | | | VNI | | |
NVE1 | +-+-----------+-+ | | NVE2 | +-+-----------+-+ | |
| | VAPs | | | | | VAPs | | |
+----+-----------+-----V-+ +----+-----------+-----V-+
| | | |
-------+-----------+--------------------+-----------+-----_--
| | Tenant | |
| | Service IF | |
Tenant End Systems Tenant End Systems
Figure 2: Generic reference model for NV Edge
4. OAM Framework for NVO3
Figure 1 showed the generic reference model for a DC network
virtualization over an L3 (or L3VPN) infrastructure while Figure 2
showed the generic reference model for the Network Virtualization
(NV) Edge.
L3 network(s) or L3 VPN networks (either IPv6 or IPv4, or a
combination thereof), provide transport for an emulated layer 2
created by NV Edge devices. Unicast and multicast tunneling methods
(de-multiplexed by Virtual Network Identifier (VNID)) are used to
provide connectivity between the NV Edge devices. The NV Edge
devices then present an emulated layer 2 network to the Tenant End
Systems at a Virtual Network Interface (VNI) through Virtual Access
Points (VAPs). The NV Edge devices map layer 2 unicast to layer 3
unicast point-to-point tunnels and may either map layer 2 multicast
to layer 3 multicast tunnels or may replicate packets onto multiple
layer 3 unicast tunnels.
4.1. OAM Layering
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
The emulated layer 2 network is provided by the NV Edge devices to
which the Tenant End Systems are connected. This network of NV Edges
can be operated by a single service provider or can span across
multiple administrative domains. Likewise, the L3 Overlay Network
can be operated by a single service provider or span across multiple
administrative domains.
While each of the layers is responsible for its own OAM, each layer
may consist of several different administrative domains. Figure 3
shows an example.
OAM
---
TENANT |----------------------------| TENANT {all IP/ETH}
NV Edge |----------------------| NV Edge {t.b.d.}
IP(VPN) |---| IP (VPN) |---| IP(VPN) {IP(VPN)/ETH}
Figure 3: OAM layers in an NVO3 network
For example, at the bottom, at the L3 IP overlay network layer
IP(VPN) and/or Ethernet OAM mechanisms are used to probe link by
link, node to node etc. OAM addressing here means physical node
loopback or interface addresses.
Further up, at the NV Edge layer, NVO3 OAM messages are used to probe
the NV Edge to NV Edge tunnels and NV Edge entity status. OAM
addressing here likely means the physical node loopback together with
the VNI (to de-multiplex the tunnels).
Finally, at the Tenant layer, the IP and/or Ethernet OAM mechanisms
are again used but here they are operating over the logical L2/L3
provided by the NV-Edge through the VAP. OAM addressing at this
layer deals with the logical interfaces on Vswitches and Virtual
Machines.
4.2. OAM Domains
Complex OAM relationships exist as a result of the hierarchical
layering of responsibility and of breaking up of end-to-end
responsibility.
The OAM domain above NVO3, is expected to be supported by existing IP
and L2 OAM methods and tools.
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
The OAM domain below NVO3, is expected to be supported by existing IP
/L2 and MPLS OAM methods and tools. Where this layer is actually
multiple domains spliced together, the existing methods to deal with
these boundaries are unchanged. Note however that exposing LAG/ECMP
detailed behavior may result in additional requirements to this
domain, the details of which will be specified in the future versions
of this draft.
When we refer to an OAM domain in this document, or just 'domain', we
therefore refer to a closed set of NV Edges and the tunnels which
interconnect them. Inter-domain OAM considerations will be specified
in the future versions of this draft.
5. NVO3 OAM Requirements
The following numbered requirements originate from [RFC6136]. All
are included however where they seem obviously not relevant (to the
present authors) an explanation as to why is included.
5.1. Discovery
R1) NVO3 OAM MUST allow an NV Edge device to dynamically discover
other NV Edge devices that share the same VNI within a given NVO3
domain. This may be based on a discovery mechanism used to set up
data path forwarding between NVEs.
5.2. Connectivity Fault Management
5.2.1. Connectivity Fault Detection
R2) NVO3 OAM MUST allow proactive connectivity monitoring between two
or more NV Edge devices that support the same VNIs within a given
NVO3 domain. NVO3 OAM MAY act as a protection trigger. That is,
automatic recovery from transmission facility failure by switchover
to a redundant replacement facility may be triggered by notifications
from NVO3 OAM.
R3) NVO3 OAM MUST allow monitoring/tracing of all possible paths in
the underlay network between a specified set of two or more NV Edge
devices. Using this feature, equal cost paths that traverse LAG and/
or ECMP may be differentiated.
5.2.2. Connectivity Fault Verification
R4) NVO3 OAM MUST allow connectivity fault verification between two
or more NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given NVO3
domain.
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
5.2.3. Connectivity Fault localization
R5) NVO3 OAM MUST allow connectivity fault localization between two
or more NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given NVO3
domain.
5.2.4. Connectivity Fault Notification and Alarm Suppression
R6) NVO3 OAM MUST support fault notification to be triggered as a
result of the faults occurring in the underneath network
infrastructure. This fault notification SHOULD be used for the
suppression of redundant service-level alarms.
5.3. Frame Loss
R7) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI frame loss between
two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given NVO3
domain.
5.4. Frame Delay
R8) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI two-way frame delay
between two NV edge devices that support the same VNI within a given
NVO3 domain.
R9) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI one-way frame delay
between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given
NVO3 domain.
5.5. Frame Delay Variation
R10) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI frame delay
variation between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI
within a given NVO3 domain.
5.6. Frame Throughput
R11) NVO3 OAM MAY [*** Should this be stronger? ***] support
measurement of per VNI frame throughput throughput (in frames and
bytes) between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a
given NVO3 domain. This feature could be an effective way to confirm
whether or not assigned path bandwidth conforms to service level
agreement before providing the path between two NV Edge devices.
5.7. Frame Discard
R12) NVO3 OAM MAY support measurement of per VNI frame discard
between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
NVO3 domain. This feature MAY be effective to monitor bursty traffic
between two NV Edge devices.
5.8. Availability
A service may be considered unavailable if the service frames/packets
do not reach their intended destination (e.g., connectivity is down)
or the service is degraded (e.g., frame loss and/or frame delay and/
or delay variation threshold is exceeded). Entry and exit conditions
may be defined for the unavailable state. Availability itself may be
defined in the context of a service type. Since availability
measurement may be associated with connectivity, frame loss, frame
delay, and frame delay variation measurements, no additional
requirements are specified currently.
5.9. Data Path Forwarding
R13) NVO3 OAM frames MUST be forwarded along the same path (i.e.,
links (including LAG members) and nodes) as the NVO3 data frames.
R14) NVO3 OAM frames MUST provide a mechanism to exercise/trace all
data paths that result due to ECMP/LAG hops in the underlay network.
5.10. Scalability
R15) NVO3 OAM MUST be scalable such that an NV edge device can
support proactive OAM for each VNI that is supported by the device.
(Note - Likely very hard to achieve with hash based ECMP/LAG).
5.11. Extensibility
R16) NVO3 OAM should be extensible such that new functionality and
information elements related to this functionality can be introduced
in the future.
R17) NVO3 OAM MUST be defined such that devices not supporting the
OAM are able to forward the OAM frames in a similar fashion as the
regular NVO3 data frames/packets.
5.12. Security
R18) NVO3 OAM frames MUST be prevented from leaking outside their
NVO3 domain.
R19) NVO3 OAM frames from outside an NVO3 domain MUST be prevented
from entering the said NVO3 domain when such OAM frames belong to the
same level or to a lower-level OAM. (Trivially met because
hierarchical domains are independent technologies.)
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
R20) NVO3 OAM frames from outside an NVO3 domain MUST be transported
transparently inside the NVO3 domain when such OAM frames belong to a
higher-level NVO3 domain. (Trivially met because hierarchical
domains are independent technologies).
5.13. Transport Independence
Similar to transport requirement from [RFC6136], we expect NVO3 OAM
will leverage the OAM capabilities of the transport layer (e.g., IP
underlay).
R21) NVO3 OAM MAY allow adaptation/interworking with its IP underlay
OAM functions. For example, this would be useful to allow fault
notifications from the IP layer to be sent to the NVO3 layer and
likewise exposure of LAG / ECMP will require such non-independence.
5.14. Application Independence
R22) NVO3 OAM MUST [*** discuss -- is this too strong? ***] be
independent of the application technologies and specific application
OAM capabilities.
[Comment -- ECM: Noticed Nicira implementation has a dedicated NVP
manager node to play the role of FCAPS here. It is both application
layer and OAM layer. May not meet this requirement. In reality, due
to the nature of overlay network, very often, vendors are going to
make everything all together to a dedicated manager node.]
5.15. Prioritization
R23) NVO3 OAM messages MUST be preferentially treated in NVE and
between NVEs, since NVO3 OAM MAY be used to trigger protection
switching. As noted above (R2), protection switching is the
automatic replacement of a failed transmission facility with a
working one providing equal or greater capacity, typically within a
few tens of milliseconds from fault detection.
[Comment -- ECM: giving NVO3 OAM messages priority treatment may
interfere with measurements of frame delay and jitter.]
6. Items for Further Discussion
This section identifies a set of operational items which may be
elaborated further if these items fall within the scope of the NVO3.
o VNID renumbering support
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
* Means to change the VNID assigned to a given instance MUST [***
discuss: is this too strong? ***] be supported.
* System convergence subsequent to VNID renumbering MUST NOT take
longer than a few seconds, to minimize impact on the tenant
systems.
* A VNE MUST be able to map a VNID with a virtual network
context.
o VNI migration and management operations
* Means to delete an existing VNI MUST be supported.
* Means to add a new VNI MUST be supported.
* Means to merge several VNIs MAY be supported.
* Means to retrieve reporting data per VNI MUST be supported.
* Means to monitor the network resources per VNI MUST be
supported.
o Support of planned maintenance operations on the NVO3
infrastructure
* Graceful procedure to allow for planned maintenance operation
on NVE MUST be supported. This includes undoing any
configuration changes made for maintenance purposes after
completion of the maintenance.
o Support for communication among virtual networks
* For global reachability purposes, communication among virtual
networks MUST be supported. This can be enforced using a NAT
function.
o Activation of new network-related services to the NVO3
* Means to assist in activating new network services (e.g.,
multicast) without impacting running service should be
supported.
o Inter-operator NVO3 considerations
* As NVO3 may be deployed over inter-operator infrastructure,
coordinating OAM actions in each individual domain are required
to ensure an end-to-end OAM. In particular, this assumes
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
existence of agreements on the measurement and monitoring
methods, fault detection and repair actions, extending QoS
classes (e.g., DSCP mapping policies), etc.
[[DISCUSSION NOTE: Should inter-operator issues be declared
out of scope?]]
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
TBD
9. Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the contributions of David Black, Dennis
Qin, Erik Smith and Ziye Yang to this latest version.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[IEEE802.1ag]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, Amendment
5: Connectivity Fault Management", 2007.
[IEEE802.1ah]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, Amendment
6: Provider Backbone Bridges", 2008.
[NM-Standards]
ITU-T, "ITU-T Recommendation M.3400 (02/2000) - TMN
Management Functions", February 2000.
[NVO3-DP-Reqs]
Bitar, N., Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Jin, L.,
and B. Khasnabish, "NVO3 Data Plane Requirements", October
2012.
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
[NVO3-framework]
Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y.
Rekhter, "Framework for DC Network Virtualization", July
2012.
[RFC6136] Sajassi, A. and D. Mohan, "Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
(L2VPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Requirements and Framework", RFC 6136, March 2011.
[Y.1731] ITU-T, "ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731 (02/08) - OAM
functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based networks",
February 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Ashwood-Smith
Huawei Technologies
303 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 400
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3J1
Canada
Phone: +1 613 595-1900
Email: Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com
Ranga Iyengar
Huawei Technologies USA
2330 Central Expy
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: ranga.Iyengar@huawei.com
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies USA
2330 Central Expy
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Operational Requirements July 2013
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Technologies
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Masahiro Daikoku
KDDI corporation
3-10-10, Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 1028460
Japan
Email: ms-daikoku@kddi.com
Ashwood-Smith, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 16]