1 / 12

MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731

MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731. Italo Busi (Editor, Presenter) Huub van Helvoort (Editor) Jia He (Editor). Current contributors.

bebe
Download Presentation

MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731 Italo Busi (Editor, Presenter) Huub van Helvoort (Editor) Jia He (Editor)

  2. Current contributors • Christian Addeo (Alcatel-Lucent), Alessandro D’Alessandro (Telecom Italia), Simon Delord (Telstra), John Hoffmans (KPN), Ruiquan Jing (China Telecom), Wang Lei (CMCC), Han Li (CMCC), Vishwas Manral (IPInfusion), Julien Meuric (France Telecom), Masahiko Mizutani (Hitachi), Philippe Niger (France Telecom), Manuel Paul (Deutsche Telekom), Josef Roese (Deutsche Telekom), Vincenzo Sestito (Alcatel-Lucent), Yaakov Stein (RAD), Yuji Tochio (Fujitsu), Munefumi Tsurusawa (KDDI R&D Labs), Maarten Vissers (Huawei), Rolf Winter (NEC)

  3. History • First presented at IETF 74 • After IETF 75, great interest in progress this work expressed privately to the co-author • Updated version (v04) uploaded before IETF 77 but not presented • Objective: check real interest in progressing this work • A lot of public support expressed after IETF 77 on progressing this work as a Standard Track RFC • For example: draft-fang-mpls-tp-oam-considerations • Updated version (v05) presented at this meeting

  4. Conclusion from IETF 75 • Y.1731 toolset provides the benchmark for OAM capabilities in packet transport networks • Functionality • Lightweight high protocol performance • Operational simplicity • Expect same level of functionality, protocol performance and operational simplicity for MPLS-TP OAM • Defining new tools that are functionally equivalent • Encapsulating Y.1731 OAM PDU

  5. Changes in v04 • Some rephrases to improve clarity • Agreement reached on the method for encapsulation of Y.1731 OAM PDU • Description duplicated with Y.1731 replaced via normative reference • Addressed the issue raised about too many co-authors on the front page • Only three editors on the front page. All the other co-authors are listed at the end (as per chair and AD instructions) • Nurit Sprecher and Yaacov Weingarten dropped support

  6. Changes in v05 • Agreement reached not to use ACH TLV • Agreement on giving considerations about the encoding of IP-based MEG ID in CCM • Agreement reached on how to carry Target MIP/MEP ID information with LBM/LBR • Some rephrases to improve clarity • Alessandro D’Alessandro and Rolf Winter joined

  7. RFC 5586 Y.1731 Encapsulation of Y.1731 OAM PDU 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|0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Y.1731 Channel Type (0xXX) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MEL | Version | OpCode | Flags | TLV Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | OAM function specific fields | | (Y.1731 based) | + + : ... : | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ACH TLV not used

  8. TLV structure With fixed len MEG ID within CCM 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|0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Y.1731 Channel Type (0xXX) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MEL | Version | OpCode |R| Res. | Per | TLV Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number (0) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MEP ID | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | : MEG ID (48 bytes) : | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | TxFCf | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TxFCf | RxFCb | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RxFCb | TxFCb | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TxFCb | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | End TLV | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  9. MEG ID format (TLV-based) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved (0x01) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MEG ID Format | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MEG ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | : MEG ID Value : | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • ICC-based format already defined in Y.1731 • IP-based format to be defined: need to allocate a MEG ID Format and to define the MEG ID Value format

  10. TLV structure MIP/MEP ID within LBM 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|0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Y.1731 Channel Type (0xXX) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MEL | Version | OpCode | Flags | TLV Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Transaction ID/Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Target MEP/MIP ID TLV | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Originator MEP ID TLV | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | [optional TLV starts here] | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End TLV | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • Target MEP/MIP ID and Originator MEP ID, when present, MUST be the first two TLVs

  11. Open Issues • Define the encoding for IP-based identifiers • Under definition within draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers: common issue with all the other OAM drafts • Can be added in a “bis/update” document: not a blocking issue for the progress of this draft • Route Tracing • LTM/LTR currently addressing a different (Ethernet-specific) requirement • Add any additional description required

  12. Next Steps • Resolve pending open issues • Address any comment from the WG • Adoption as a WG document

More Related