Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam
DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: 15 July 2024 Huawei
B. Varga
Ericsson
12 January 2024
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15
Abstract
This document defines format and usage principles of the
Deterministic Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel over a
DetNet network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service
Associated Channel can be used to carry test packets of active
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance protocols that are used
to detect DetNet failures and measure performance metrics.
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 https://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 15 July 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 4
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering
Functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 8
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Registry . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
[RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet)
architecture and how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and
Ordering functions (PREOF) can be used to ensure a low packet drop
ratio in a DetNet domain.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
to detect and localize network defects, and to monitor network
performance. Some OAM functions (e.g., failure detection) are
usually performed proactively in the network, while others (e.g.,
defect localization) are typically performed on demand. These tasks
can be achieved through a combination of active and hybrid OAM
methods, as classified in [RFC7799]. This document presents a format
for active OAM in DetNet networks with MPLS data plane.
Also, this document defines format and usage principles of the DetNet
service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data
plane [RFC8964].
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The term "DetNet OAM" is used in this document interchangeably with
longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for
Deterministic Networks".
DetNet Deterministic Network
d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
PW Pseudowire
E2E End-to-end
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
TSN IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking
CFM Connectivity Fault Management
F-Label - a DetNet "forwarding" label. The F-Label identifies the
LSP used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-
hop label used between label switching routers.
S-Label - a DetNet "service" label. An S-Label is used between
DetNet nodes that implement the DetNet service sub-layer functions.
An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service
sub-layer.
Underlay Network or Underlay Layer - the network that provides
connectivity between the DetNet nodes. One example of an underlay
layer is an MPLS network that provides Label Switched Path (LSP)
connectivity between DetNet nodes.
DetNet Node - a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. Examples
of DetNet nodes include DetNet domain Edge nodes, and DetNet nodes
that perform PREOF within the DetNet domain.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
2.2. Keywords
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane
OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the
particular networking layer, thus it is critical that the data plane
encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms that comply with the OAM
requirements listed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework].
Operation of a DetNet data plane with an MPLS underlay network is
specified in [RFC8964]. Within the MPLS underlay network, DetNet
flows are to be encapsulated analogous to pseudowires as specified in
[RFC3985], [RFC4385]. For reference, the Generic Pseudowire (PW)
MPLS Control Word (as defined in [RFC4385] and used with DetNet) is
reproduced in Figure 1.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format
PREOF in the DetNet domain is composed of a combination of nodes that
perform replication and elimination functions. The Elimination sub-
function always uses the S-Label in conjunction with the packet
sequencing information (i.e., the Sequence Number encoded in the
DetNet Control Word). The Replication sub-function uses the S-Label
information only.
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses the PW Associated Channel Header
defined in [RFC4385]. At the same time, a DetNet PW can be viewed as
a Multi-Segment PW, where DetNet service sub-layer functions are at
the segment endpoints. However, DetNet service sub-layer functions
operate per packet level (not per segment). These per-packet level
characteristics of PREOF require additional fields for proper OAM
packet processing. Encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS [RFC8964] active
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
OAM packet is shown in Figure 2.
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 2: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane
Figure 3 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet
OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP [RFC9025].
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--+
| UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| IP Header | | IP encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
Figure 4 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header
(d-ACH).
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID |Level| Flags |Session|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: d-ACH Format
The d-ACH encodes the following fields:
Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This allows the packet to be
distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and from a DetNet data
packet [RFC8964].
Version - a 4-bit field. This document specifies version 0.
Sequence Number - is an unsigned circular 8-bit field. Because a
test packet of DetNet active OAM includes d-ACH, Section 4.2.1 of
[RFC8964] does not apply to handling the Sequence Number field in
DetNet OAM over the MPLS data plane. The sequence number space is
circular with no restriction on the initial value. The originator
DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number field before
the transmission of a packet. the initial value SHOULD be random
(unpredictable). The originator node SHOULD increase the value of
the Sequence Number field by 1 for each active OAM packet. The
originator MAY use other strategies, e.g., for negative testing of
Packet Ordering Functions.
Channel Type - is a 16-bit field, and the value of DetNet
Associated Channel Type. It MUST be one of the values listed in
the IANA MPLS Generalized Associated Channel Types (including
Pseudowire Associated Channel Types) registry [IANA-G-ACh-Types].
Node ID - is an unsigned 20-bit field. The value of the Node ID
field identifies the DetNet node that originated the packet. A
DetNet node MUST be provisioned with a Node ID that is unique in
the DetNet domain. Methods of distributing Node ID are outside
the scope of this specification.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
Level - is a 3-bit field. Semantically, the Level field is
anlogous to the Maintenance Domain Level in [IEEE.802.1Q]. The
Level field is used to cope with the "all active path forwarding"
(defined by the TSN Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 WG
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]) characteristics of the PREOF concept. A
hierarchical relationship between OAM domains can be created using
the Level field value, illustrated by Figure 18.7 in
[IEEE.802.1Q].
Flags - is a 5-bit field. The Flags field contains five 1-bit
flags. Section 5.1 creates the IANA d-ACH Flags registry for new
flags to be defined. The flags defined in this specification are
presented in Figure 5.
0 1 2 3 4
+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|U|U|U|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Field Format
U: Unused and for future use. MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored
on receipt.
Session ID is a 4-bit field. The Session field distinguishes OAM
sessions originating from the same node (a given Maintenance End
Point may have multiple simultaneously active OAM sessions) at the
given Level.
A DetNet flow, according to [RFC8964], is identified by the S-Label
that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. An Active OAM packet MUST
include d-ACH immediately following the S-Label.
3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions (notably PREOF)
MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow to potentially reduce
packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery, and
ensure in-order packet delivery. PREOF relies on sequencing
information in the DetNet service sub-layer. For a DetNet active OAM
packet, PREOF MUST use the Sequence Number field value as the source
of this sequencing information. App-flow and OAM use different
sequence number spaces. PREOF algorithms are executed with respect
to the sequence number space identified by the flow's characteristic
information. Although the Sequence Number field in d-ACH has a range
from 0 through 255, it provides sufficient space because the rate of
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
DetNet active OAM packet is significantly lower compared to the rate
of DetNet packets in an App-flow; therefore, wrapping around is not
an issue.
4. OAM Interworking Models
Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model.
In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network
domain. When using the peering model, state changes that are
detected by a Fault Management OAM protocol can be mapped from one
OAM domain into another or a notification, e.g., an alarm, can be
sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM
interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its
test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
Active DetNet OAM can provide the end-to-end (E2E) fault management
and performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. In the case of DetNet
with an MPLS data plane and an IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking
(TSN) sub-network, this implies the interworking of DetNet active OAM
with TSN OAM, which data plane aspects are specified in [RFC9037].
When the peering model (Section 4) is used in Connectivity Fault
Management (CFM) OAM protocol [IEEE.802.1Q], then the node that
borders both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST support [RFC7023].
[RFC7023] specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet
Attachment Circuits and associated Ethernet PWs that are part of an
E2E emulated Ethernet service, and are also applicable to E2E OAM
across DetNet MPLS and TSN domains. The CFM [IEEE.802.1Q] or in
[ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a failure in the TSN
segment of the DetNet service. In the DetNet MPLS domain BFD
(Bidirectional Forwarding Detection), specified in [RFC5880] and
[RFC5885], can be used. To provide E2E failure detection, the TSN
and DetNet MPLS segments could be treated as concatenated such that
the diagnostic codes (see Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880]) MAY be used to
inform the upstream DetNet MPLS node of a failure of the TSN segment.
Performance monitoring can be supported by [RFC6374] in the DetNet
MPLS and [ITU.Y1731] in the TSN domains, respectively. Performance
objectives for each domain should refer to metrics that is composable
[RFC6049] or be defined for each domain separately.
The following considerations apply when using the tunneling model of
OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN domains based on general
principles described in Section 4 of [RFC9037]:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
* Active OAM test packets MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID
as the monitored DetNet flow.
* Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
its S-Label and Class of Service marking (the Traffic Class field
value).
Mapping between a DetNet flow and TSN Stream in the TSN sub-network
is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC9037]. The mapping has to be done
only on the edge node of the TSN sub-network, and intermediate TSN
nodes do not need to recognize the S-Label. An edge node has two
components:
1. A passive Stream identification function.
2. An active Stream identification function.
The first component identifies the DetNet flow (using Clause 6.8 of
[IEEE.802.1CBdb]), and the second component creates the TSN Stream by
manipulating the Ethernet header. That manipulation simplifies the
identification of the TSN Stream in the intermediate TSN nodes by
avoiding the need for them to look outside of the Ethernet header.
DetNet MPLS OAM packets use the same S-Label as the DetNet flow data
packets. The above-described mapping function treats these OAM
packets as data packets of the DetNet flow. As a result, DetNet MPLS
OAM packets are fate-sharing within the TSN sub-network. As an
example of the mapping between DetNet MPLS and TSN, see Annex C.1 of
[IEEE.802.1CBdb] that, in support of [RFC9037], describes how to
match MPLS DetNet flows and TSN Streams can be achieved.
Note that the tunneling model of the OAM interworking requires that
the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM
protocol selected on the ingress endpoint. For example, if BFD is
used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS
domain, BFD support (as defined in [RFC5885]) is necessary at any TSN
endpoint of the DetNet service.
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 4.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. For example, respective BFD sessions in
DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP domains can be in a concatenated
relationship as described in Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880]. To provide
performance monitoring over a DetNet IP domain, STAMP [RFC8762] and
its extensions [RFC8972] can be used to measure packet loss and
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
packet delay metrics. Such performance metrics can be used to
calculate composable metrics [RFC6049] within DetNet MPLS and DetNet
IP domains to reflect the end-to-end DetNet service performance.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Registry
This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify d-ACH
Flags bits. The registration procedure is "IETF Review" [RFC8126].
The registry name is "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH)
Flags". IANA should treat "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH)
Flags" as the name of the registry group. There are five flags in
the five-bit Flags field, defined as in Table 1.
+=====+=============+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+=============+===============+
| 0-4 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: DetNet Associated
Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in DetNet specifications [RFC8655],
[RFC9055], [RFC8964], and [I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework] are
applicable to this document. Security concerns and issues related to
MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping [RFC8029], and BFD over PW [RFC5885]
also apply to this specification.
7. Acknowledgment
Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
the document. The authors are enormously grateful to Janos Farkas
for his detailed comments and the inspiring discussion that made this
document clearer and stronger. The authors recognize helpful reviews
and suggestions from Andrew Malis, David Black, Tianran Zhou, and
Kiran Makhijani. And special thanks are addressed to Ethan Grossman
for his fantastic help in improving the document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7023>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.
8.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
C. J., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11, 8 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
oam-framework-11>.
[IANA-G-ACh-Types]
IANA, "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
parameters.xhtml#mpls-g-ach-types>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
[IEEE.802.1CBdb]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Frame Replication and Elimination for
Reliability Amendment 2: Extended Stream Identification
Functions", IEEE 802.1CBdb, 2021.
[IEEE.802.1Q]
IEEE, "Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q, 2014.
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]
IEEE, "Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group",
IEEE 802.1Q, <https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/>.
[ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
2013.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS January 2024
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 15 July 2024 [Page 14]
