Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Updated draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:29:53 -0500

Apologies but I just realized I hadn't reviewed this document post the Vancouver IETF meeting when I was asked. My comments are included. I do not feel this document is ready to go forward as there are some major omissions as noted below.

	--Tom

	I have reviewed this document. Comments inline start with TOM:.  
General comments are:

1) Psedowire OAM message mapping and ethernet OAM are missing.

2) There is no discussion about OAM for L2VPN or L3VPN explicitly here. It is important to explain this applicability.

3) BFD for MPLS is not explained. It is a very viable replacement for CV instead of LSP Ping.

--Tom

Operations and Management Area Working Group                  T. Mizrahi
Internet Draft                                                   Marvell
Intended status: Informational                               N. Sprecher
Expires: July 2014                                                   NSN
                                                           E. Bellagamba
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           Y. Weingarten

                                                         January 9, 2014

                              An Overview of
          Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools
                   draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-12.txt

Abstract

   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) is a general term
   that refers to a toolset for fault detection and isolation, and for
   performance measurement. Over the years various OAM tools have been
   defined for various layers in the protocol stack.

   This document summarizes some of the OAM tools defined in the IETF in
   the context of IP unicast, MPLS, MPLS for the transport profile
   (MPLS-TP), pseudowires, and TRILL. This document focuses on tools for
   detecting and isolating failures in networks and for performance
   monitoring. Control and management aspects of OAM are outside the
   scope of this document. Network repair functions such as Fast Reroute
   (FRR) and protection switching, which are often triggered by OAM
   protocols, are also out of the scope of this document.

   The target audience of this document includes network equipment
   vendors, network operators and standard development organizations,
   and can be used as an index to some of the main OAM tools defined in
   the IETF. This document provides a brief description of each of the
   OAM tools in the IETF. At the end of the document a list of the OAM
   toolsets and a list of the OAM functions are presented as a summary.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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 ................................................. 4
      1.1. Background .............................................. 4
      1.2. Target Audience.......................................... 5
      1.3. OAM-related Work in the IETF ............................ 5
      1.4. Focusing on the Data Plane .............................. 6
   2. Terminology .................................................. 7
      2.1. Abbreviations ........................................... 7
      2.2. Terminology used in OAM Standards ....................... 9
         2.2.1. General Terms ...................................... 9
         2.2.2. Operations, Administration and Maintenance ......... 9
         2.2.3. Functions, Tools and Protocols .................... 10
         2.2.4. Data Plane, Control Plane and Management Plane .... 10
         2.2.5. The Players ....................................... 11
         2.2.6. Proactive and On-demand Activation ................ 12
         2.2.7. Connectivity Verification and Continuity Checks ... 12
         2.2.8. Connection Oriented vs. Connectionless Communication13
         2.2.9. Point-to-point vs. Point-to-multipoint Services ... 14

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

         2.2.10. Failures ......................................... 15
   3. OAM Functions ............................................... 15
   4. OAM Tools in the IETF - a Detailed Description .............. 16
      4.1. IP Ping ................................................ 16
      4.2. IP Traceroute .......................................... 17
      4.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) ............... 18
         4.3.1. Overview .......................................... 18
         4.3.2. Terminology ....................................... 18
         4.3.3. BFD Control ....................................... 18
         4.3.4. BFD Echo .......................................... 19
      4.4. MPLS OAM ............................................... 19
      4.5. MPLS-TP OAM ............................................ 20
         4.5.1. Overview .......................................... 20
         4.5.2. Terminology ....................................... 21
         4.5.3. Generic Associated Channel ........................ 22
         4.5.4. MPLS-TP OAM Toolset ............................... 23
            4.5.4.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification 23
            4.5.4.2. Route Tracing ................................ 24
            4.5.4.3. Lock Instruct ................................ 24
            4.5.4.4. Lock Reporting ............................... 24
            4.5.4.5. Alarm Reporting .............................. 24
            4.5.4.6. Remote Defect Indication ..................... 24
            4.5.4.7. Client Failure Indication .................... 25
            4.5.4.8. Performance Monitoring ....................... 25
               4.5.4.8.1. Packet Loss Measurement (LM) ............ 25
               4.5.4.8.2. Packet Delay Measurement (DM) ........... 25
      4.6. Pseudowire OAM ......................................... 26
         4.6.1. Pseudowire OAM using Virtual Circuit Connectivity
         Verification (VCCV) ...................................... 26
         4.6.2. Pseudowire OAM using G-ACh ........................ 27
         4.6.3. Attachment Circuit - Pseudowire Mapping ........... 27
      4.7. OWAMP and TWAMP......................................... 27
         4.7.1. Overview .......................................... 27
         4.7.2. Control and Test Protocols ........................ 28
         4.7.3. OWAMP ............................................. 29
         4.7.4. TWAMP ............................................. 29
      4.8. TRILL .................................................. 30
   5. Summary ..................................................... 30
      5.1. Summary of OAM Tools ................................... 31
      5.2. Summary of OAM Functions ............................... 33
      5.3. Guidance to Network Equipment Vendors .................. 34
   6. Security Considerations ..................................... 34
   7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 34
   8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 35
   9. References .................................................. 35
      9.1. Informative References ................................. 35
   Appendix A. List of OAM Documents .............................. 40

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

      A.1. List of IETF OAM Documents ............................. 40
      A.2. List of Selected Non-IETF OAM Documents ................ 45

1. Introduction

   OAM is a general term that refers to a toolset for detecting,
   isolating and reporting failures and for monitoring the network
   performance.

   There are several different interpretations to the "OAM" acronym.
   This document refers to Operations, Administration and Maintenance,
   as recommended in Section 3 of [OAM-Def].

   This document summarizes some of the OAM tools defined in the IETF in
   the context of IP unicast, MPLS, MPLS for the transport profile
   (MPLS-TP), pseudowires, and TRILL.

   This document focuses on tools for detecting and isolating failures
   and for performance monitoring. Hence, this document focuses on the
   tools used for monitoring and measuring the data plane; control and
   management aspects of OAM are outside the scope of this document.
   Network repair functions such as Fast Reroute (FRR) and protection
   switching, which are often triggered by OAM protocols, are also out
   of the scope of this document.

1.1. Background

   OAM was originally used in traditional communication technologies
   such as E1 and T1, evolving into PDH and then later in SONET/SDH. ATM
   was probably the first technology to include inherent OAM support
   from day one, while in other technologies OAM was typically defined
   in an ad hoc manner after the technology was already defined and
   deployed. Packet-based networks were traditionally considered
   unreliable and best-effort, but as packet-based networks evolved,
   they have become the common transport for both data and telephony,
   replacing traditional transport protocols. Consequently, packet-based
   networks were expected to provide a similar "carrier grade"
   experience, and specifically to support OAM.

   As typical networks have a multi-layer architecture, the set of OAM
   protocols similarly take a multi-layer structure; each layer has its
   own OAM protocols. Moreover, OAM can be used at different levels of
   hierarchy in the network to form a multi-layer OAM solution, as shown
   in the example in Figure 1.

   Figure 1 illustrates a network in which IP traffic between two
   customer edges is transported over an MPLS provider network. MPLS OAM

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   is used at the provider-level for monitoring the connection between
   the two provider edges, while IP OAM is used at the customer-level
   for monitoring the end-to-end connection between the two customer
   edges.

           |<-------------- Customer-level OAM -------------->|
                 IP OAM (Ping, Traceroute, OWAMP, TWAMP)

                        |<- Provider-level OAM ->|
                            MPLS OAM (LSP Ping)

     +-----+       +----+                        +----+       +-----+
     |     |       |    |========================|    |       |     |
     |     |-------|    |          MPLS          |    |-------|     |
     |     |  IP   |    |                        |    |  IP   |     |
     +-----+       +----+                        +----+       +-----+
     Customer     Provider                      Provider      Customer
       Edge         Edge                          Edge          Edge

                     Figure 1 Example: Multi-layer OAM

1.2. Target Audience

   The target audience of this document includes:

   o Standard development organizations - both IETF working groups and
      non-IETF organizations can benefit from this document when
      designing new OAM protocols, or when looking to reuse existing OAM
      tools for new technologies.

   o Network equipment vendors and network operators - can use this
      document as an index to some of the common IETF OAM tools.

   It should be noted that this document is not necessarily suitable for
   beginners without any background in OAM.

1.3. OAM-related Work in the IETF

   This memo provides an overview of the different sets of OAM tools
   defined by the IETF. The set of OAM tools described in this memo are
   applicable to IP unicast, MPLS, pseudowires, MPLS for the transport
   profile (MPLS-TP), and TRILL. While OAM tools that are applicable to
   other technologies exist, they are beyond the scope of this memo.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   This document focuses on IETF documents that have been published as
   RFCs, while other ongoing OAM-related work is outside the scope.

   The IETF has defined OAM protocols and tools in several different
   contexts. We roughly categorize these efforts into a few sets of OAM-
   related RFCs, listed in Table 1. Each set defines a logically-coupled
   set of RFCs, although the sets are in some cases intertwined by
   common tools and protocols.

   The discussion in this document is ordered according to these sets.

                     +--------------+------------+
                     | Toolset      | Transport  |
                     |              | Technology |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |IP Ping       | IPv4/IPv6  |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |IP Traceroute | IPv4/IPv6  |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |BFD           | generic    |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |MPLS OAM      | MPLS       |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |MPLS-TP OAM   | MPLS-TP    |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |Pseudowire OAM| Pseudowires|
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |OWAMP and     | IPv4/IPv6  |
                     |TWAMP         |            |
                     +--------------+------------+
                     |TRILL OAM     | TRILL      |
                     +--------------+------------+
             Table 1 OAM Toolset Packages in the IETF Documents

   This document focuses on OAM tools that have been developed in the
   IETF. A short summary of some of the significant OAM standards that
   have been developed in other standard organizations is presented in
   Appendix A.2.

1.4. Focusing on the Data Plane

   OAM tools may, and quite often do, work in conjunction with a control
   plane and/or management plane.  OAM provides instrumentation tools
   for measuring and monitoring the data plane. OAM tools often use

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   control plane functions, e.g., to initialize OAM sessions and to
   exchange various parameters. The OAM tools communicate with the
   management plane to raise alarms, and often OAM tools may be
   activated by the management (as well as by the control plane), e.g.
   to locate and localize problems.

   The considerations of the control plane maintenance tools and the
   functionality of the management plane are out of scope for this
   document, which concentrates on presenting the data plane tools that
   are used for OAM. Network repair functions such as Fast Reroute (FRR)
   and protection switching, which are often triggered by OAM protocols,
   are also out of the scope of this document.

   Since OAM protocols are used for monitoring the data plane, it is
   imperative for OAM tools to be capable of testing the actual data
   plane in as much accuracy as possible. Thus, it is important to
   enforce fate-sharing between OAM traffic that monitors the data plane
   and the data plane traffic it monitors.

2. Terminology

2.1. Abbreviations

   ACH    Associated Channel Header

   AIS    Alarm Indication Signal

   ATM    Asynchronous Transfer Mode

   BFD    Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   CC     Continuity Check

   CV     Connectivity Verification

   DM     Delay Measurement

   ECMP   Equal Cost Multiple Paths

   FEC    Forwarding Equivalence Class

   FRR    Fast Reroute

   G-ACh   Generic Associated Channel

   GAL    Generic Associated Label

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   ICMP   Internet Control Message Protocol

   L2TP   Layer Two Tunneling Protocol

   LCCE   L2TP Control Connection Endpoint

   LDP    Label Distribution Protocol

   LER    Label Edge Router

   LM     Loss Measurement

   LSP    Label Switched Path

   LSR    Label Switched Router

   ME     Maintenance Entity

   MEG    Maintenance Entity Group

   MEP    MEG End Point

   MIP    MEG Intermediate Point

   MP     Maintenance Point

   MPLS   Multiprotocol Label Switching

   MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile

   MTU    Maximum Transmission Unit

   OAM    Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   OWAMP   One-way Active Measurement Protocol

   PDH    Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy

   PE     Provider Edge

   PW     Pseudowire

   PWE3   Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge

   RBridge Routing Bridge

   RDI    Remote Defect Indication

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   SDH    Synchronous Digital Hierarchy

   SONET   Synchronous Optical Networking

   TRILL   Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links

   TTL    Time To Live

   TWAMP   Two-way Active Measurement Protocol

   VCCV   Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification

2.2. Terminology used in OAM Standards

2.2.1. General Terms

   A wide variety of terms is used in various OAM standards. This
   section presents a comparison of the terms used in various OAM
   standards, without fully quoting the definition of each term.

   An interesting overview of the term OAM and its derivatives is
   presented in [OAM-Def]. A thesaurus of terminology for MPLS-TP terms
   is presented in [TP-Term], and provides a good summary of some of the
   OAM related terminology.

2.2.2. Operations, Administration and Maintenance

   The following definition of OAM is quoted from [OAM-Def]:

   The components of the "OAM" acronym (and provisioning) are defined as
   follows:

   o Operations - Operation activities are undertaken to keep the
      network (and the services that the network provides) up and
      running.  It includes monitoring the network and finding problems.
      Ideally these problems should be found before users are affected.

   o Administration - Administration activities involve keeping track
      of resources in the network and how they are used.  It includes
      all the bookkeeping that is necessary to track networking
      resources and the network under control.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   o Maintenance - Maintenance activities are focused on facilitating
      repairs and upgrades -- for example, when equipment must be
      replaced, when a router needs a patch for an operating system
      image, or when a new switch is added to a network.  Maintenance
      also involves corrective and preventive measures to make the
      managed network run more effectively, e.g., adjusting device
      configuration and parameters.

2.2.3. Functions, Tools and Protocols

OAM Function

   An OAM function is an instrumentation measurement type or diagnostic.

   OAM functions are the atomic building blocks of OAM, where each
   function defines an OAM capability.

   Typical examples of OAM functions are presented in Section 3.

OAM Protocol

   A protocol used for implementing one or more OAM functions.

   The OWAMP-Test [OWAMP] is an example of an OAM protocol.

OAM Tool

   An OAM tool is a specific means of applying one or more OAM
   functions.

   In some cases an OAM protocol *is* an OAM tool, e.g., OWAMP-Test. In
   other cases an OAM tool uses a set of protocols that are not strictly
   OAM-related; for example, Traceroute (Section 4.2.) can be
   implemented using UDP and ICMP messages, without using an OAM
   protocol per se.

2.2.4. Data Plane, Control Plane and Management Plane

Data Plane

   The data plane is the set of functions used to transfer data in the
   stratum or layer under consideration [ITU-Terms].

   The Data Plane is also known as the Forwarding Plane or the User
   Plane.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

Control Plane

   The control plane is the set of protocols and mechanisms that enable
   routers to efficiently learn how to forward packets towards their
   final destination (based on [Comp]).

Management Plane

   The term Management Plane, as described in [Mng], is used to describe
   the exchange of management messages through management protocols
   (often transported by IP and by IP transport protocols) between
   management applications and the managed entities such as network
   nodes.

Data Plane vs. Control Plane vs. Management Plane

   The distinction between the planes is at times a bit vague. For
   example, the definition of "Control Plane" above may imply that OAM
   tools such as ping, BFD and others are in fact in the control plane.

   This document focuses on tools used for monitoring the data plane.
   While these tools could arguably be considered to be in the control
   plane, these tools monitor the data plane, and hence it is imperative
   to have fate-sharing between OAM traffic that monitors the data plane
   and the data plane traffic it monitors.

   Another potentially vague distinction is between the management plane
   and control plane. The management plane should be seen as separate
   from, but possibly overlapping with, the control plane (based on
   [Mng]).

2.2.5. The Players

   An OAM tool is used between two (or more) "players". Various terms
   are used in IETF documents to refer to the players that take part in
   OAM. Table 2 summarizes the terms used in each of the toolsets
   discussed in this document.

          +--------------------------+--------------------------+
          | Toolset                  | Terms                    |
          +--------------------------+--------------------------+
          | Ping / Traceroute        |-Host                     |
          | ([ICMPv4], [ICMPv6],     |-Node                     |
          |  [TCPIP-Tools])          |-Interface                |
          |                          |-Gateway                  |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

          + ------------------------ + ------------------------ +
          | BFD [BFD]                | System                   |
          + ------------------------ + ------------------------ +
          | MPLS OAM [MPLS-OAM-FW]   | LSR                      |
          + ------------------------ + ------------------------ +
          | MPLS-TP OAM [TP-OAM-FW]  |-End Point - MEP          |
          |                          |-Intermediate Point - MIP |
          + ------------------------ + ------------------------ +
          | Pseudowire OAM [VCCV]    |-PE                       |
          |                          |-LCCE                     |
          + ------------------------ + ------------------------ +
          | OWAMP and TWAMP          |-Host                     |
          | ([OWAMP], [TWAMP])       |-End system               |
          + ------------------------ + ------------------------ +
          | TRILL OAM [TRILL-OAM]    |-RBridge                  |
          +--------------------------+--------------------------+
                   Table 2 Maintenance Point Terminology

2.2.6. Proactive and On-demand Activation

   The different OAM tools may be used in one of two basic types of
   activation:

Proactive

   Proactive activation - indicates that the tool is activated on a
   continual basis, where messages are sent periodically, and errors are
   detected when a certain number of expected messages are not received.

On-demand

   On-demand activation - indicates that the tool is activated
   "manually" to detect a specific anomaly.

2.2.7. Connectivity Verification and Continuity Checks

   Two distinct classes of failure management functions are used in OAM
   protocols, connectivity verification and continuity checks. The
   distinction between these terms is defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], and is
   used similarly in this document.

Continuity Check

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   Continuity checks are used to verify that a destination is reachable,
   and are typically sent proactively, though they can be invoked on-
   demand as well.

Connectivity Verification

   A connectivity verification function allows Alice to check whether
   she is connected to Bob or not. It is noted that while the CV
   function is performed in the data plane, the "expected path" is
   predetermined either in the control plane or in the management plane.
   A connectivity verification (CV) protocol typically uses a CV
   message, followed by a CV reply that is sent back to the originator.
   A CV function can be applied proactively or on-demand.

   Connectivity Verification tools often perform path verification as
   well, allowing Alice to verify that messages from Bob are received
   through the correct path, thereby verifying not only that the two MPs
   are connected, but also that they are connected through the expected
   path, allowing detection of unexpected topology changes.

   Connectivity verification and continuity checks are considered
   complementary mechanisms, and are often used in conjunction with each
   other.

2.2.8. Connection Oriented vs. Connectionless Communication

Connection Oriented

   In Connection Oriented technologies an end-to-end connection is
   established (by a control protocol or provisioned by a management
   system) prior to the transmission of data.

   Typically a connection identifier is used to identify the connection.
   In connection oriented technologies it is often the case (although
   not always) that all packets belonging to a specific connection use
   the same route through the network.

Connectionless

   In Connectionless technologies data is typically sent between end
   points without prior arrangement. Packets are routed independently
   based on their destination address, and hence different packets may
   be routed in a different way across the network.

Discussion

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   The OAM tools described in this document include tools that support
   connection oriented technologies, as well as tools for connectionless
   technologies.

   In connection oriented technologies OAM is used to monitor a
   *specific* connection; OAM packets are forwarded through the same
   route as the data traffic and receive the same treatment. In
   connectionless technologies, OAM is used between a source and
   destination pair without defining a specific connection. Moreover, in
   some cases the route of OAM packets may differ from the one of the
   data traffic. For example, the connectionless IP Ping (Section 4.1.)
   tests the reachability from a source to a given destination, while
   the connection oriented LSP Ping (Section 4.4.) is used for
   monitoring a specific LSP (connection), and provides the capability
   to monitor all the available paths used by an LSP.

   It should be noted that in some cases connectionless protocols are
   monitored by connection oriented OAM protocols. For example, while IP
   is a connectionless protocol, it can monitored by BFD (Section 4.3.
   ), which is connection oriented.

2.2.9. Point-to-point vs. Point-to-multipoint Services

Point-to-point (P2P)

   A P2P service delivers data from a single source to a single
   destination.

Point-to-multipoint (P2MP)

   A P2MP service delivers data from a single source to a one or more
   destinations (based on [Signal]).

   An MP2MP service is a service that delivers data from more than one
   source to one or more receivers (based on [Signal]).

   Note: the two definitions for P2MP and MP2MP are quoted from
   [Signal]. Although [Signal] describes a specific case of P2MP and
   MP2MP which is MPLS-specific, these two definitions also apply to
   non-MPLS cases.

Discussion

   The OAM tools described in this document include tools for P2P
   services, as well as tools for P2MP services.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   The distinction between P2P services and P2MP services affects the
   corresponding OAM tools. A P2P service is typically simpler to
   monitor, as it consists of a single pair of end points. P2MP services
   present several challenges. For example, in a P2MP service, the OAM
   mechanism not only verifies that each of the destinations is
   reachable from the source, but also verifies that the P2MP
   distribution tree is intact and loop-free.

2.2.10. Failures

   The terms Failure, Fault, and Defect are used interchangeably in the
   standards, referring to a malfunction that can be detected by a
   connectivity or a continuity check. In some standards, such as
   802.1ag [IEEE802.1Q] , there is no distinction between these terms,
   while in other standards each of these terms refers to a different
   type of malfunction.

   The terminology used in IETF MPLS-TP OAM is based on the ITU-T
   terminology, which distinguishes between these three terms in
   [ITU-T-G.806];

Fault

   The term Fault refers to an inability to perform a required action,
   e.g., an unsuccessful attempt to deliver a packet.

Defect

   The term Defect refers to an interruption in the normal operation,
   such as a consecutive period of time where no packets are delivered
   successfully.

Failure

   The term Failure refers to the termination of the required function.
   While a Defect typically refers to a limited period of time, a
   failure refers to a long period of time.

3. OAM Functions

   This subsection provides a brief summary of the common OAM functions
   used in OAM-related standards. These functions are used as building
   blocks in the OAM standards described in this document.

   o Connectivity Verification (CV), Path Verification and Continuity
      Checks (CC):
      As defined in Section 2.2.7.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   o Path Discovery / Fault Localization:
      This function can be used to trace the route to a destination,
      i.e., to identify the nodes along the route to the destination.
      When more than one route is available to a specific destination,
      this function traces one of the available routes. When a failure
      occurs, this function also allows to detect the location of the
      failure.
      Note that the term route tracing (or Traceroute) that is used in
      the context of IP and MPLS, is sometimes referred to as path
      tracing in the context of other protocols, such as TRILL.

   o Performance Monitoring:
      Typically refers to:

        o Loss Measurement (LM) - monitors the packet loss rate.

        o Delay Measurement (DM) - monitors the delay and delay
          variation.

4. OAM Tools in the IETF - a Detailed Description

   This section presents a detailed description of the sets of OAM-
   related tools in each of the toolsets in Table 1.

4.1. IP Ping

   Ping is a common network diagnosis application for IP networks that
   uses ICMP. According to [NetTerms], 'Ping' is an abbreviation for
   Packet internet groper, although the term has been so commonly used
   that it stands on its own.  As defined in [NetTerms], it is a program
   used to test reachability of destinations by sending them an ICMP
   echo request and waiting for a reply.

   The ICMP Echo request/reply exchange in Ping is used as a continuity
   check function for the Internet Protocol. The originator transmits an
   ICMP Echo request packet, and the receiver replies with an Echo
   reply. ICMP ping is defined in two variants, [ICMPv4] is used for
   IPv4, and [ICMPv6] is used for IPv6.

   Ping implementations typically use ICMP messages. UDP Ping is a
   variant that uses UDP messages instead of ICMP echo messages.

   Ping is a single-ended continuity check, i.e., it allows the
   *initiator* of the Echo request to test the reachability. If it is
   desirable for both ends to test the reachability, both ends have to
   invoke Ping independently.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   Note that since ICMP filtering is deployed in some routers and
   firewalls, the usefulness of Ping is sometimes limited in the wider
   internet. This limitation is equally relevant to Traceroute.

4.2. IP Traceroute

   Traceroute ([TCPIP-Tools], [NetTools]) is an application that allows
   users to discover a path between an IP source and an IP destination.

   The most common way to implement Traceroute [TCPIP-Tools] is
   described as follows. Traceroute sends a sequence of UDP packets to
   UDP port 33434 at the destination. By default, Traceroute begins by
   sending three packets (the number of packets is configurable in most
   Traceroute implementations), each with an IP Time-To-Live (or Hop
   Limit in IPv6) value of one to the destination. These packets expire
   as soon as they reach the first router in the path. Consequently,
   that router sends three ICMP Time Exceeded Messages back to the
   Traceroute application. Traceroute now sends another three UDP
   packets, each with the TTL value of 2. These messages cause the
   second router to return ICMP messages. This process continues, with
   ever increasing values for the TTL field, until the packets actually
   reach the destination. Because no application listens to port 33434
   at the destination, the destination returns ICMP Destination
   Unreachable Messages indicating an unreachable port. This event
   indicates to the Traceroute application that it is finished.  The
   Traceroute program displays the round-trip delay associated with each
   of the attempts.

   While Traceroute is a tool that finds *a* path from A to B, it should
   be noted that traffic from A to B is often forwarded through Equal
   Cost Multiple Paths (ECMP). Paris Traceroute [PARIS] is an extension
   to Traceroute that attempts to discovers all the available paths from
   A to B by scanning different values of header fields (such as UDP
   ports) in the probe packets.

   It is noted that Traceroute is an application, and not a protocol. As
   such, it has various different implementations. One of the most
   common ones uses UDP probe packets, as described above. Other
   implementations exist that use other types of probe messages, such as
   ICMP or TCP.

   Note that IP routing may be asymmetric. While Traceroute discovers a
   path between a source and destination, it does not reveal the reverse
   path.

   A few ICMP extensions ([ICMP-MP], [ICMP-Int]) have been defined in
   the context of Traceroute. These documents define several extensions,

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   including extensions to the ICMP Destination Unreachable message,
   that can be used by Traceroute applications.

4.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)

4.3.1. Overview

   While multiple OAM tools have been defined for various protocols in
   the protocol stack, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [BFD], defined
   by the IETF BFD working group, is a generic OAM tool that can be
   deployed over various encapsulating protocols, and in various medium
   types. The IETF has defined variants of the protocol for IP ([BFD-
   IP], [BFD-Multi]), for MPLS LSPs [BFD-LSP], and for pseudowires [BFD-
   VCCV]. The usage of BFD in MPLS-TP is defined in [TP-CC-CV].

   BFD includes two main OAM functions, using two types of BFD packets:
   BFD Control packets, and BFD Echo packets.

4.3.2. Terminology

   BFD operates between *systems*. The BFD protocol is run between two
   or more systems after establishing a *session*.

4.3.3. BFD Control

   BFD supports a bidirectional continuity check, using BFD control
   packets, that are exchanged within a BFD session. BFD sessions
   operate in one of two modes:

   o Asynchronous mode (i.e. proactive): in this mode BFD control
      packets are sent periodically. When the receiver detects that no
      BFD control packets have been received during a predetermined
      period of time, a failure is detected.

   o Demand mode: in this mode, BFD control packets are sent on-demand.
      Upon need, a system initiates a series of BFD control packets to
      check the continuity of the session. BFD control packets are sent
      independently in each direction.

   Each of the end-points (referred to as systems) of the monitored path
   maintains its own session identification, called a Discriminator,
   both of which are included in the BFD Control Packets that are
   exchanged between the end-points.  At the time of session
   establishment, the Discriminators are exchanged between the two-end
   points.  In addition, the transmission (and reception) rate is
   negotiated between the two end-points, based on information included

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   in the control packets.  These transmission rates may be renegotiated
   during the session.

   During normal operation of the session, i.e. no failures are
   detected, the BFD session is in the Up state.  If no BFD Control
   packets are received during a period of time called the Detection
   Time, the session is declared to be Down. The detection time is a
   function of the pre-configured or negotiated transmission time, and a
   parameter called Detect Mult. Detect Mult determines the number of
   missing BFD Control packets that cause the session to be declared as
   Down. This parameter is included in the BFD Control packet.

4.3.4. BFD Echo

   A BFD echo packet is sent to a peer system, and is looped back to the
   originator. The echo function can be used proactively, or on-demand.

   The BFD echo function has been defined in BFD for IPv4 and IPv6
   ([BFD-IP]), but is not used in BFD for MPLS LSPs, PWs, or in BFD for
   MPLS-TP.

4.4. MPLS OAM

   The IETF MPLS working group has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs. The
   requirements and framework of this effort are defined in
   [MPLS-OAM-FW] and [MPLS-OAM], respectively. The corresponding OAM
   tool defined, in this context, is LSP Ping [LSP-Ping]. OAM for P2MP
   services is defined in [MPLS-P2MP].

   LSP Ping is modeled after the Ping/Traceroute paradigm and thus it
   may be used in one of two modes:

   o "Ping" mode: In this mode LSP Ping is used for end-to-end
      connectivity verification between two LERs.

   o "Traceroute" mode: This mode is used for hop-by-hop fault
      isolation.

   LSP Ping extends the basic ICMP Ping operation (of data-plane
   connectivity verification) with functionality to verify data-plane
   vs. control-plane consistency for a Forwarding Equivalence Class
   (FEC) and also Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) problems.

TOM: This is misleading. LSP Ping does not extend any part of ICMP operation; its a completely new operation that is native to MPLS.  It is important not to conflate these two things, as there are proprietary versions of ICMP ping extended for MPLS that DO NOT work in all cases. This is why LSP Ping was invented (and trace).

   The Traceroute functionality may be used to isolate and localize the
   MPLS faults, using the Time-to-live (TTL) indicator to incrementally
   identify the sub-path of the LSP that is successfully traversed
   before the faulty link or node.

TOM: There is more to the LSP Traceroute than just using TTL. Please review the RFC for details.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   The challenge in MPLS networks is that the traffic of a given LSP may
   be load balanced across Equal Cost Multiple paths (ECMP). LSP Ping
   monitors all the available paths of an LSP by monitoring its
   different Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FEC). Conversely, MPLS-TP
   does not use ECMP, and thus does not require OAM over multiple paths.

TOM: Why "conversely"?  You imply that MPLS-TP is "better" somehow with that statement; its different.  

   Another challenge is that an MPLS LSP does not necessarily have a
   return path, and thus responding to an LSP Ping message is not

TOM: Strictily speaking, an LSP does not have a return path. There is a return route at the other end that is used to return the response message. This can be a different MPLS LSP, IP or whatever.

   necessarily as trivial as in IP Ping, where the responder just swaps
   the source and destination IP addresses. Note that this challenge is
   not applicable to MPLS-TP, where a return path is always available.

   It should be noted that LSP Ping supports unique identification of
   the LSP within an addressing domain. The identification is checked
   using the full FEC identification. LSP Ping is easily extensible to
   include additional information needed to support new functionality,
   by use of Type-Length-Value (TLV) constructs. The usage of TLVs is
   typically not easy to perform in hardware, and is thus typically
   handled by the control plane.

   LSP Ping supports both asynchronous, as well as, on-demand
   activation.

4.5. MPLS-TP OAM

4.5.1. Overview

   The MPLS working group has defined the OAM toolset that fulfills the
   requirements for MPLS-TP OAM. The full set of requirements for MPLS-
   TP OAM are defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], and include both general
   requirements for the behavior of the OAM tools and a set of
   operations that should be supported by the OAM toolset.  The set of
   mechanisms required are further elaborated in [TP-OAM-FW], which
   describes the general architecture of the OAM system as well as
   giving overviews of the functionality of the OAM toolset.

   Some of the basic requirements for the OAM toolset for MPLS-TP are:

   o MPLS-TP OAM must be able to support both an IP based and non-IP
      based environment. If the network is IP based, i.e. IP routing and
      forwarding are available, then the MPLS-TP OAM toolset should rely
      on the IP routing and forwarding capabilities. On the other hand,
      in environments where IP functionality is not available, the OAM
      tools must still be able to operate without dependence on IP
      forwarding and routing.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   o OAM packets and the user traffic are required to be congruent
      (i.e. OAM packets are transmitted in-band) and there is a need to
      differentiate OAM packets from data plane ones. Inherent in this
      requirement is the principle that MPLS-TP OAM be independent of
      any existing control-plane, although it should not preclude use of
      the control-plane functionality.
      OAM packets are identified by the Generic Associated Label (GAL),
      which is a reserved MPLS label value (13).

4.5.2. Terminology

Maintenance Entity (ME)

   The MPLS-TP OAM tools are designed to monitor and manage a
   Maintenance Entity (ME).  An ME, as defined in [TP-OAM-FW], defines a
   relationship between two points of a transport path to which
   maintenance and monitoring operations apply.

   The term Maintenance Entity (ME) is used in ITU-T Recommendations
   (e.g. [ITU-T-Y1731]), as well as in the MPLS-TP terminology
   ([TP-OAM-FW]).

Maintenance Entity Group (MEG)

   The collection of one or more MEs that belongs to the same transport
   path and that are maintained and monitored as a group are known as a
   Maintenance Entity Group (based on [TP-OAM-FW]).

Maintenance Point (MP)

   A Maintenance Point (MP) is a functional entity that is defined at a
   node in the network, and can initiate and/or react to OAM messages.
   This document focuses on the data-plane functionality of MPs, while
   MPs interact with the control plane and with the management plane as
   well.

   The term MP is used in IEEE 802.1ag, and was similarly adopted in
   MPLS-TP ([TP-OAM-FW]).

Maintenance End Point (MEP)

   A Maintenance End Point (MEP) is one of the end points of an ME, and
   can initiate OAM messages and respond to them (based on [TP-OAM-FW]).

Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP)

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   In between MEPs, there are zero or more intermediate points, called
   Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points  (based on [TP-OAM-FW]).

   A Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP) is an intermediate point that
   does not generally initiate OAM frames (one exception to this is the
   use of AIS notifications), but is able to respond to OAM frames that
   are destined to it. A MIP in MPLS-TP identifies OAM packets destined
   to it by the value of the TTL field in the OAM packet. The term
   Maintenance Point is a general term for MEPs and MIPs.

Up and Down MEPs

   The IEEE 802.1ag [IEEE802.1Q] defines a distinction between Up MEPs
   and Down MEPs. A MEP is a bridge interface that is monitored by an
   OAM protocol either in the direction facing the network, or in the
   direction facing the bridge. A Down MEP is a MEP that receives OAM
   packets from, and transmits them to the direction of the network. An
   Up MEP receives OAM packets from, and transmits them to the direction
   of the bridging entity. MPLS-TP ([TP-OAM-FW]) uses a similar
   distinction on the placement of the MEP - either at the ingress,
   egress, or forwarding function of the node (Down / Up MEPs).  This
   placement is important for localization of a failure.

   The distinction between Up and Down MEPs was defined in [TP-OAM-FW],
   but has not been used in other MPLS-TP RFCs, as of the writing of
   this document.

4.5.3. Generic Associated Channel

   In order to address the requirement for in-band transmission of MPLS-
   TP OAM traffic, MPLS-TP uses a Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh),
   defined in [G-ACh] for LSP-based OAM traffic. This mechanism is based
   on the same concepts as the PWE3 ACH and VCCV mechanisms.  However,
   to address the needs of LSPs as differentiated from PW, the following
   concepts were defined for [G-ACh]:

   o An Associated Channel Header (ACH), that uses a format similar to
      the PW Control Word, is a 4-byte header that is prepended to OAM
      packets.

   o A Generic Associated Label (GAL). The GAL is a reserved MPLS label
      value (13) that indicates that the packet is an ACH packet and the
      payload follows immediately after the label stack.

   It should be noted that while the G-ACh was defined as part of the
   MPLS-TP definition effort, the G-ACh is a generic tool that can be
   used in MPLS in general, and not only in MPLS-TP.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

4.5.4. MPLS-TP OAM Toolset

   To address the functionality that is required of the OAM toolset, the
   MPLS WG conducted an analysis of the existing IETF and ITU-T OAM
   tools and their ability to fulfill the required functionality.  The
   conclusions of this analysis are documented in [OAM-Analys]. The MPLS
   working group currently plans to use a mixture of OAM tools that are
   based on various existing standards, and adapt them to the
   requirements of [MPLS-TP-OAM]. Some of the main building blocks of
   this solution are based on:

   o Bidirectional Forwarding Detection ([BFD], [BFD-LSP]) for
      proactive continuity check and connectivity verification.

   o LSP Ping as defined in [LSP-Ping] for on-demand connectivity
      verification.

   o New protocol packets, using G-ACH, to address different
      functionality.

   o Performance measurement protocols that are based on the
      functionality that is described in [ITU-T-Y1731].

   The following sub-sections describe the OAM tools defined for MPLS-TP
   as described in [TP-OAM-FW].

4.5.4.1. Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

   Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification are presented in
   Section 2.2.7. of this document.  As presented there, these tools may
   be used either proactively or on-demand.  When using these tools
   proactively, they are generally used in tandem.

   For MPLS-TP there are two distinct tools, the proactive tool is
   defined in [TP-CC-CV] while the on-demand tool is defined in
   [OnDemand-CV]. In on-demand mode, this function should support
   monitoring between the MEPs and, in addition, between a MEP and MIP.
   [TP-OAM-FW] highlights,  when performing Connectivity Verification,
   the need for the CC-V messages to include unique identification of
   the MEG that is being monitored and the MEP that originated the
   message.

   The proactive tool [TP-CC-CV] is based on extensions to BFD (see
   Section 4.3.) with the additional limitation that the transmission
   and receiving rates are based on configuration by the operator.  The
   on-demand tool [OnDemand-CV] is an adaptation of LSP Ping (see
   Section 4.4.) for the required behavior of MPLS-TP.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

4.5.4.2. Route Tracing

   [MPLS-TP-OAM] defines that there is a need for functionality that
   would allow a path end-point to identify the intermediate and end-
   points of the path. This function would be used in on-demand mode.
   Normally, this path will be used for bidirectional PW, LSP, and
   sections, however, unidirectional paths may be supported only if a
   return path exists.  The tool for this is based on the LSP Ping (see
   Section 4.4.) functionality and is described in [OnDemand-CV].

4.5.4.3. Lock Instruct

   The Lock Instruct function [Lock-Loop] is used to notify a transport
   path end-point of an administrative need to disable the transport
   path.  This functionality will generally be used in conjunction with
   some intrusive OAM function, e.g. Performance measurement, Diagnostic
   testing, to minimize the side-effect on user data traffic.

4.5.4.4. Lock Reporting

   Lock Reporting is a function used by an end-point of a path to report
   to its far-end end-point that a lock condition has been affected on
   the path.

4.5.4.5. Alarm Reporting

   Alarm Reporting [TP-Fault] provides the means to suppress alarms
   following detection of defect conditions at the server sub-layer.
   Alarm reporting is used by an intermediate point of a path, that
   becomes aware of a fault on the path, to report to the end-points of
   the path. [TP-OAM-FW] states that this may occur as a result of a
   defect condition discovered at a server sub-layer. This generates an
   Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) that continues until the fault is
   cleared. The consequent action of this function is detailed in
   [TP-OAM-FW].

4.5.4.6. Remote Defect Indication

   Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is used proactively by a path end-
   point to report to its peer end-point that a defect is detected on a
   bidirectional connection between them. [MPLS-TP-OAM] points out that
   this function may be applied to a unidirectional LSP only if there a
   return path exists.  [TP-OAM-FW] points out that this function is
   associated with the proactive CC-V function.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

4.5.4.7. Client Failure Indication

   Client Failure Indication (CFI) is defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM] to allow
   the propagation information from one edge of the network to the
   other. The information concerns a defect to a client, in the case
   that the client does not support alarm notification.

4.5.4.8. Performance Monitoring

   The definition of MPLS performance monitoring was motivated by the
   MPLS-TP requirements [MPLS-TP-OAM], but was defined generically for
   MPLS in [MPLS-LM-DM]. An additional document [TP-LM-DM] defines a
   performance monitoring profile for MPLS-TP.

4.5.4.8.1. Packet Loss Measurement (LM)

   Packet Loss Measurement is a function used to verify the quality of
   the service. Packet loss, as defined in [IPPM-1LM] and [MPLS-TP-OAM],
   indicates the ratio of the number of user packets lost to the total
   number of user packets sent during a defined time interval.

   There are two possible ways of determining this measurement:

   o Using OAM packets, it is possible to compute the statistics based
      on a series of OAM packets. This, however, has the disadvantage of
      being artificial, and may not be representative since part of the
      packet loss may be dependent upon packet sizes and upon the
      implementation of the MEPs that take part in the protocol.

   o Sending delimiting messages for the start and end of a measurement
      period during which the source and sink of the path count the
      packets transmitted and received. After the end delimiter, the
      ratio would be calculated by the path OAM entity.

4.5.4.8.2. Packet Delay Measurement (DM)

   Packet Delay Measurement is a function that is used to measure one-
   way or two-way delay of a packet transmission between a pair of the
   end-points of a path (PW, LSP, or Section). Where:

   o One-way packet delay, as defined in [IPPM-1DM], is the time
      elapsed from the start of transmission of the first bit of the
      packet by a source node until the reception of the last bit of
      that packet by the destination node. Note that one-way delay
      measurement requires the clocks of the two end-points to be
      synchronized.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   o Two-way packet delay, as defined in [IPPM-2DM], is the time
      elapsed from the start of transmission of the first bit of the
      packet by a source node until the reception of the last bit of the
      loop-backed packet by the same source node, when the loopback is
      performed at the packet's destination node. Note that due to
      possible path asymmetry, the one-way packet delay from one end-
      point to another is not necessarily equal to half of the two-way
      packet delay.
      As opposed to one-way delay measurement, two-way delay measurement
      does not require the two end-points to be synchronized.

   For each of these two metrics, the DM function allows the MEP to
   measure the delay, as well as the delay variation. Delay measurement
   is performed by exchanging timestamped OAM packets between the
   participating MEPs.

4.6. Pseudowire OAM

4.6.1. Pseudowire OAM using Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
   (VCCV)

   VCCV, as defined in [VCCV], provides a means for end-to-end fault
   detection and diagnostics tools to be extended for PWs (regardless of

TOM: Why "to be extended"?  They've already been extended.

   the underlying tunneling technology). The VCCV switching function
   provides a control channel associated with each PW. [VCCV] defines
   three Control Channel (CC) types, i.e., three possible methods for
   transmitting and identifying OAM messages:

   o CC Type 1: In-band VCCV, as described in [VCCV], is also referred
      to as "PWE3 Control Word with 0001b as first nibble".  It uses the
      PW Associated Channel Header [PW-ACH].

   o CC Type 2: Out-of-band VCCV [VCCV], is also referred to as "MPLS
      Router Alert Label". In this case the control channel is created
      by using the MPLS router alert label [MPLS-ENCAPS] immediately
      above the PW label.

   o CC Type 3: TTL expiry VCCV [VCCV], is also referred to as "MPLS PW
      Label with TTL == 1", i.e., the control channel is identified when
      the value of the TTL field in the PW label is set to 1.

   VCCV currently supports the following OAM tools: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping,
   and BFD. ICMP and LSP Ping are IP encapsulated before being sent over
   the PW ACH. BFD for VCCV [BFD-VCCV] supports two modes of
   encapsulation - either IP/UDP encapsulated (with IP/UDP header) or
   PW-ACH encapsulated (with no IP/UDP header) and provides support to
   signal the AC status. The use of the VCCV control channel provides

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   the context, based on the MPLS-PW label, required to bind and
   bootstrap the BFD session to a particular pseudo wire (FEC),
   eliminating the need to exchange Discriminator values.

   VCCV consists of two components: (1) signaled component to
   communicate VCCV capabilities as part of VC label, and (2) switching
   component to cause the PW payload to be treated as a control packet.

   VCCV is not directly dependent upon the presence of a control plane.
   The VCCV capability negotiation may be performed as part of the PW

TOM: There is not really a capability "negotiation" per se; its a capability advertisement with strict and explicit rules for what each end should do when it receives capability advertisements. 

   signaling when LDP is used. In case of manual configuration of the
   PW, it is the responsibility of the operator to set consistent
   options at both ends. The manual option was created specifically to
   handle MPLS-TP use cases where no control plane was a requirement.
   However, new use cases such as pure mobile backhaul find this
   functionality useful too.

   The PWE3 working group has conducted an implementation survey of VCCV
   [VCCV-SURVEY], which analyzes which VCCV mechanisms are used in
   practice.

4.6.2. Pseudowire OAM using G-ACh

   As mentioned above, VCCV enables OAM for PWs by using a control
   channel for OAM packets. When PWs are used in MPLS-TP networks,
   rather than the control channels defined in VCCV, the G-ACh can be
   used as an alternative control channel. The usage of the G-ACh for
   PWs is defined in [PW-G-ACh].

4.6.3. Attachment Circuit - Pseudowire Mapping

   The PWE3 working group has defined a mapping and notification of
   defect states between a pseudowire (PW) and the Attachment Circuits
   (ACs) of the end-to-end emulated service. This mapping is of key
   importance to the end-to-end functionality. Specifically, the mapping
   is provided by [PW-MAP], by [L2TP-EC] for L2TPv3 pseudowires, and
   Section 5.3 of [ATM-L2] for ATM.

4.7. OWAMP and TWAMP

4.7.1. Overview

   The IPPM working group in the IETF defines common criteria and
   metrics for measuring performance of IP traffic ([IPPM-FW]). Some of
   the key RFCs published by this working group have defined metrics for
   measuring connectivity [IPPM-Con], delay ([IPPM-1DM], [IPPM-2DM]),
   and packet loss [IPPM-1LM]. It should be noted that the work of the

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   IETF in the context of performance metrics is not limited to IP
   networks; [PM-CONS] presents general guidelines for considering new
   performance metrics.

   The IPPM working group has defined not only metrics for performance
   measurement, but also protocols that define how the measurement is
   carried out. The One-way Active Measurement Protocol [OWAMP] and the
   Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [TWAMP] define a method and
   protocol for measuring performance metrics in IP networks.

   OWAMP [OWAMP] enables measurement of one-way characteristics of IP
   networks, such as one-way packet loss and one-way delay.  For its
   proper operation OWAMP requires accurate time of day setting at its
   end points.

   TWAMP [TWAMP] is a similar protocol that enables measurement of both
   one-way and two-way (round trip) characteristics.

   OWAMP and TWAMP are both comprised of two separate protocols:

   o OWAMP-Control/TWAMP-Control: used to initiate, start, and stop
      test sessions and to fetch their results. Continuity Check and
      Connectivity Verification are tested and confirmed by establishing
      the OWAMP/TWAMP Control Protocol TCP connection.

   o OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test: used to exchange test packets between two
      measurement nodes. Enables the loss and delay measurement
      functions, as well as detection of other anomalies, such as packet
      duplication and packet reordering.

   It should be noted that while [OWAMP] and [TWAMP] define tools for
   performance measurement, they do not define the accuracy of these
   tools. The accuracy depends on scale, implementation and network
   configurations.

   Alternative protocols for performance monitoring are defined, for
   example, in MPLS-TP OAM ([MPLS-LM-DM], [TP-LM-DM]), and in Ethernet
   OAM [ITU-T-Y1731].

4.7.2. Control and Test Protocols

   OWAMP and TWAMP control protocols run over TCP, while the test
   protocols run over UDP.  The purpose of the control protocols is to
   initiate, start, and stop test sessions, and for OWAMP to fetch
   results.  The test protocols introduce test packets (which contain
   sequence numbers and timestamps) along the IP path under test
   according to a schedule, and record statistics of packet arrival.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   Multiple sessions may be simultaneously defined, each with a session
   identifier, and defining the number of packets to be sent, the amount
   of padding to be added (and thus the packet size), the start time,
   and the send schedule (which can be either a constant time between
   test packets or exponentially distributed pseudo-random). Statistics
   recorded conform to the relevant IPPM RFCs.

   OWAMP and TWAMP test traffic is designed with security in mind. Test
   packets are hard to detect because they are simply UDP streams
   between negotiated port numbers, with potentially nothing static in
   the packets.  OWAMP and TWAMP also include optional authentication
   and encryption for both control and test packets.

4.7.3. OWAMP

   OWAMP defines the following logical roles: Session-Sender, Session-
   Receiver, Server, Control-Client, and Fetch-Client.  The Session-
   Sender originates test traffic that is received by the Session-
   Receiver.  The Server configures and manages the session, as well as
   returning the results.  The Control-Client initiates requests for
   test sessions, triggers their start, and may trigger their
   termination.  The Fetch-Client requests the results of a completed
   session.  Multiple roles may be combined in a single host - for
   example, one host may play the roles of Control-Client, Fetch-Client,
   and Session-Sender, and a second playing the roles of Server and
   Session-Receiver.

   In a typical OWAMP session the Control-Client establishes a TCP
   connection to port 861 of the Server, which responds with a server
   greeting message indicating supported security/integrity modes. The
   Control-Client responds with the chosen communications mode and the
   Server accepts the modes.  The Control-Client then requests and fully
   describes a test session to which the Server responds with its
   acceptance and supporting information.  More than one test session
   may be requested with additional messages.  The Control-Client then
   starts a test session and the Server acknowledges.  The Session-
   Sender then sends test packets with pseudorandom padding to the
   Session-Receiver until the session is complete or until the Control-
   client stops the session.  Once finished, the Fetch-Client sends a
   fetch request to the server, which responds with an acknowledgement
   and immediately thereafter the result data.

4.7.4. TWAMP

   TWAMP defines the following logical roles: session-sender, session-
   reflector, server, and control-client.  These are similar to the

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   OWAMP roles, except that the Session-Reflector does not collect any
   packet information, and there is no need for a Fetch-Client.

   In a typical TWAMP session the Control-Client establishes a TCP
   connection to port 862 of the Server, and mode is negotiated as in
   OWAMP.  The Control-Client then requests sessions and starts them.
   The Session-Sender sends test packets with pseudorandom padding to
   the Session-Reflector which returns them with insertion of
   timestamps.

4.8. TRILL

   The requirements of OAM in TRILL are defined in [TRILL-OAM]. The
   challenge in TRILL OAM, much like in MPLS networks, is that traffic
   between RBridges RB1 and RB2 may be forwarded through more than one
   path. Thus, an OAM protocol between RBridges RB1 and RB2 must be able
   to monitor all the available paths between the two RBridge.

   During the writing of this document the detailed definition of the
   TRILL OAM tools are still work in progress. This subsection presents
   the main requirements of TRILL OAM.

   The main requirements defined in [TRILL-OAM] are:

   o Continuity Checking (CC) - the TRILL OAM protocol must support a
      function for CC between any two RBridges RB1 and RB2.

   o Connectivity Verification (CV) - connectivity between two RBridges
      RB1 and RB2 can be verified on a per-flow basis.

   o Path Tracing - allows an RBridge to trace all the available paths
      to a peer RBridge.

   o Performance monitoring - allows an RBridge to monitor the packet
      loss and packet delay to a peer RBridge.

5. Summary

   This section summarizes the OAM tools and functions presented in this
   document. This summary is an index to some of the main OAM tools
   defined in the IETF. This compact index that can be useful to all
   readers from network operators to standard development organizations.
   The summary includes a short subsection that presents some guidance
   to network equipment vendors.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

5.1. Summary of OAM Tools

   This subsection provides a short summary of each of the OAM toolsets
   described in this document.

   A detailed list of the RFCs related to each toolset is given in
   Appendix A.1.

   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   | Toolset   | Description                              | Transport  |
   |           |                                          | Technology |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |IP Ping    | Ping ([IntHost], [NetTerms]) is a simple | IPv4/IPv6  |
   |           | application for testing reachability that|            |
   |           | uses ICMP Echo messages ([ICMPv4],       |            |
   |           | [ICMPv6]).                               |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |IP         | Traceroute ([TCPIP-Tools], [NetTools]) is| IPv4/IPv6  |
   |Traceroute | an application that allows users to trace|            |
   |           | the path between an IP source and an IP  |            |
   |           | destination, i.e., to identify the nodes |            |
   |           | along the path. If more than one path    |            |
   |           | exists between the source and destination|            |
   |           | Traceroute traces *a* path. The most     |            |
   |           | common implementation of Traceroute      |            |
   |           | uses UDP probe messages, although there  |            |
   |           | are other implementations that use       |            |
   |           | different probes, such as ICMP or TCP.   |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |BFD        | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) | generic    |
   |           | is defined in [BFD] as a framework for a |            |
   |           | lightweight generic OAM tool.  The       |            |
   |           | intention is to define a base tool       |            |
   |           | that can be used with various            |            |
   |           | encapsulation types, network             |            |
   |           | environments, and in various medium      |            |
   |           | types.                                   |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |MPLS OAM   | MPLS LSP Ping, as defined in [MPLS-OAM], | MPLS       |
   |           | [MPLS-OAM-FW] and [LSP-Ping], is an OAM  |            |
   |           | tool for point-to-point and              |            |
   |           | point-to-multipoint MLPS LSPs.           |            |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |           | It includes two main functions: Ping and |            |
   |           | Traceroute.                              |            |
   |           | It is noted that while this category     |            |
   |           | focuses on LSP Ping, other OAM tools     |            |
   |           | can be used in MPLS networks, e.g., BFD. |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |MPLS-TP OAM| MPLS-TP OAM is defined in a set of RFCs. | MPLS-TP    |
   |           | The OAM requirements for MPLS Transport  |            |
   |           | Profile (MPLS-TP) are defined in         |            |
   |           | [MPLS-TP-OAM]. Each of the tools in the  |            |
   |           | OAM toolset is defined in its own RFC, as|            |
   |           | specified in Section A.1.                |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |Pseudowire | The PWE3 OAM architecture defines control| Pseudowire |
   |OAM        | channels that support the use of existing|            |
   |           | IETF OAM tools to be used for a pseudo-  |            |
   |           | wire (PW).  The control channels that are|            |
   |           | defined in [VCCV] and [PW-G-ACh] may be  |            |
   |           | used in conjunction with ICMP Ping, LSP  |            |
   |           | Ping, and BFD to perform CC and CV       |            |
   |           | functionality.  In addition the channels |            |
   |           | support use of any of the MPLS-TP based  |            |
   |           | OAM tools for completing their respective|            |
   |           | OAM functionality for a PW.              |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |OWAMP and  | The One Way Active Measurement Protocol  | IPv4/IPv6  |
   |TWAMP      | (OWAMP) and the Two Way Active Measure-  |            |
   |           | ment Protocols (TWAMP) are two protocols |            |
   |           | defined in the IP Performance Metrics    |            |
   |           | (IPPM) working group in the IETF. These  |            |
   |           | protocols allow various performance      |            |
   |           | metrics to be measured, such as packet   |            |
   |           | loss, delay and delay variation,         |            |
   |           | duplication and reordering.              |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
   |TRILL OAM  | The requirements of OAM in TRILL are     | TRILL      |
   |           | defined in [TRILL-OAM]. These            |            |
   |           | requirements include continuity checking,|            |
   |           | connectivity verification, path tracing  |            |
   |           | and performance monitoring. During the   |            |
   |           | writing of this document the detailed    |            |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |           | definition of the TRILL OAM tools        |            |
   |           | is work in progress.                     |            |
   +-----------+------------------------------------------+------------+
                 Table 3 Summary of OAM-related IETF Tools

5.2. Summary of OAM Functions

   Table 4 summarizes the OAM functions that are supported in each of
   the toolsets that were analyzed in this section. The columns of this
   tables are the typical OAM functions described in Section 1.3.

       +-----------+-------+--------+--------+-------+----------+
       |           |Continu|Connecti|Path    |Perform|Other     |
       |           |ity    |vity    |Discover|ance   |Function  |
       |           |Check  |Verifica|y       |Monitor|s         |
       | Toolset   |       |tion    |        |ing    |          |
       +-----------+-------+--------+--------+-------+----------+
       |IP Ping    |Echo   |        |        |       |          |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |IP         |       |        |Tracerou|       |          |
       |Traceroute |       |        |te      |       |          |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |BFD        |BFD    |BFD     |        |       |RDI usi-  |
       |           |Control|Control |        |       |ng BFD    |
       |           |/ Echo |        |        |       |Control   |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |MPLS OAM   |       |"Ping"  |"Tracero|       |          |
       |(LSP Ping) |       |mode    |ute"    |       |          |
       |           |       |        |mode    |       |          |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |MPLS-TP    |CC     |CV/pro- |Route   |-LM    |-Diagnos- |
       |OAM        |       |active  |Tracing |-DM    | tic Test |
       |           |       |or on-  |        |       |-Lock     |
       |           |       |demand  |        |       |-Alarm    |
       |           |       |        |        |       |Reporting |
       |           |       |        |        |       |-Client   |
       |           |       |        |        |       |Failure   |
       |           |       |        |        |       |Indication|
       |           |       |        |        |       |-RDI      |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |Pseudowire |BFD    |-BFD    |LSP-Ping|       |          |
       |OAM        |       |-ICMP   |        |       |          |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

       |           |       | Ping   |        |       |          |
       |           |       |-LSP-   |        |       |          |
       |           |       | Ping   |        |       |          |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |OWAMP and  | - control      |        |-Delay |          |
       |TWAMP      |   protocol     |        | measur|          |
       |           |                |        | ement |          |
       |           |                |        |-Packet|          |
       |           |                |        | loss  |          |
       |           |                |        | measur|          |
       |           |                |        | ement |          |
       + --------- + ----- + ------ + ------ + ----- + -------- +
       |TRILL OAM  |CC     |CV      |Path    |-Delay |          |
       |           |       |        |tracing | measur|          |
       |           |       |        |        | ement |          |
       |           |       |        |        |-Packet|          |
       |           |       |        |        | loss  |          |
       |           |       |        |        | measur|          |
       |           |       |        |        | ement |          |
       +-----------+-------+--------+--------+-------+----------+
         Table 4 Summary of the OAM Functionality in IETF OAM Tools

5.3. Guidance to Network Equipment Vendors

   As mentioned in Section 1.4. , it is imperative for OAM tools to be
   capable of testing the actual data plane in as much accuracy as
   possible. While this guideline may appear obvious, it is worthwhile
   to emphasize the key importance of enforcing fate-sharing between OAM
   traffic that monitors the data plane and the data plane traffic it
   monitors.

6. Security Considerations

   This memo presents an overview of existing OAM tools, and proposes
   no new OAM tools. Therefore, this document introduces no security
   considerations. However, the OAM tools reviewed in this document can
   and do present security issues. The reader is encouraged to review
   the Security Considerations section of each document referenced by
   this memo.

7. IANA Considerations

   There are no new IANA considerations implied by this document.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

8. Acknowledgments

   The authors gratefully acknowledge Sasha Vainshtein, Carlos
   Pignataro, David Harrington, Dan Romascanu, Ron Bonica and other
   members of the OPSAWG mailing list for their helpful comments.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

9. References

9.1. Informative References

   [ATM-L2]      Singh, S., Townsley, M., and C. Pignataro,
                 "Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over Layer 2
                 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 4454, May
                 2006.

   [BFD]         Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                 (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

   [BFD-Gen]     Katz, D., Ward, D., "Generic Application of
                 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
                 June 2010.

   [BFD-IP]      Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                 (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
                 2010.

   [BFD-LSP]     Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow,
                 G., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS
                 Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.

   [BFD-Multi]   Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                 (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.

   [BFD-VCCV]    Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Bidirectional Forwarding
                 Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
                 Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June
                 2010.

   [Comp]        Bonaventure, O., "Computer Networking: Principles,
                 Protocols and Practice", 2008.

   [Dup]         Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric",
                 RFC 5560, May 2009.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   [G-ACh]       Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., Bryant, S., "MPLS Generic
                 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [ICMP-Ext]    Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., Pignataro, C., "ICMP
                 Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC
                 4950, August 2007.

   [ICMP-Int]    Atlas, A., Bonica, R., Pignataro, C., Shen, N., Rivers,
                 JR., "Extending ICMP for Interface and Next-Hop
                 Identification", RFC 5837, April 2010.

   [ICMP-MP]     Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., Pignataro, C.,
                 "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC
                 4884, April 2007.

   [ICMPv4]      Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
                 RFC 792, September 1981.

   [ICMPv6]      Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
                 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
                 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [IEEE802.1Q]  IEEE 802.1Q, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan
                 area networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and
                 Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", October 2012.

   [IEEE802.3ah] IEEE 802.3, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
                 Local and metropolitan area networks - Carrier sense
                 multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD)
                 access method and physical layer specifications",
                 clause 57, December 2008.

   [IntHost]     Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
                 Communication Layers", RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [IPPM-1DM]    Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
                 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.

   [IPPM-1LM]    Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
                 Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September
                 1999.

   [IPPM-2DM]    Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A Round-trip
                 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.

   [IPPM-Con]    Mahdavi, J., Paxson, V., "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
                 Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   [IPPM-FW]     Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and Mathis, M.,
                 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
                 1998.

   [ITU-G8113.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.8113.1/Y.1372.1, "Operations,
                 Administration and Maintenance mechanism for MPLS-TP
                 in Packet Transport Network (PTN)", November 2012.

   [ITU-G8113.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.8113.2/Y.1372.2, "Operations,
                 administration and maintenance mechanisms for MPLS-TP
                 networks using the tools defined for MPLS", November
                 2012.

   [ITU-T-CT]    Betts, M., "Allocation of a Generic Associated Channel
                 Type for ITU-T MPLS Transport Profile Operation,
                 Maintenance, and Administration (MPLS-TP OAM)", RFC
                 6671, November 2012.

   [ITU-T-G.806] ITU-T Recommendation G.806, "Characteristics of
                 transport equipment - Description methodology and
                 generic functionality", January 2009.

   [ITU-T-Y1711] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1711, "Operation & Maintenance
                 mechanism for MPLS networks", February 2004.

   [ITU-T-Y1731] ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, "OAM Functions and
                 Mechanisms for Ethernet-based Networks", July 2011.

   [ITU-Terms]   ITU-R/ITU-T Terms and Definitions, online, 2013.

   [L2TP-EC]     McGill, N. and C. Pignataro, "Layer 2 Tunneling
                 Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) Extended Circuit Status
                 Values", RFC 5641, August 2009.

   [Lock-Loop]   Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux,
                 M., Dai, X., "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and
                 Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.

   [LSP-Ping]    Kompella, K., Swallow, G., "Detecting Multi-Protocol
                 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
                 February 2006.

   [Mng]         Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in
                 Path Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts",
                 RFC 6123, February 2011.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   [MPLS-ENCAPS] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
                 Farinacci, D., Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
                 Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [MPLS-LM-DM]  Frost, D., Bryant, S., "Packet Loss and Delay
                 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September
                 2011.

   [MPLS-OAM]    Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D.,
                 Matsushima, S., "Operations and Management (OAM)
                 Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS)
                 Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006.

   [MPLS-OAM-FW] Allan, D., Nadeau, T., "A Framework for Multi-Protocol
                 Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management
                 (OAM)", RFC 4378, February 2006.

   [MPLS-P2MP]   Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., King, D., Nadeau, T.,
                 "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for
                 Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks", RFC 4687,
                 September 2006.

   [MPLS-TP-OAM] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., "Requirements for
                 OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.

   [NetTerms]    Jacobsen, O., Lynch, D., "A Glossary of Networking
                 Terms", RFC 1208, March 1991.

   [NetTools]    Enger, R., Reynolds, J., "FYI on a Network Management
                 Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging
                 TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices", RFC
                 1470, June 1993.

   [OAM-Analys]  Sprecher, N., Fang, L., "An Overview of the OAM Tool
                 Set for  MPLS based Transport Networks", RFC 6669,
                 July 2012.

   [OAM-Def]     Andersson, L., Van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
                 D., Mansfield, S., "Guidelines for the use of the OAM
                 acronym in the IETF ", RFC 6291, June 2011.

   [OAM-Label]   Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
                 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
                 Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429,
                 November 2002.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   [OnDemand-CV] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., Aggarwal, R. "MPLS
                 On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route
                 Tracing", RFC 6426, November 2011.

   [OWAMP]       Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and
                 Zekauskas, M., "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
                 (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.

   [PARIS]       Brice Augustin, Timur Friedman and Renata Teixeira,
                 "Measuring Load-balanced Paths in the Internet", IMC,
                 2007.

   [PM-CONS]     Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering
                 New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC
                 6390, October 2011.

   [PW-ACH]      Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., McPherson, D.,
                 "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word
                 for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [PW-G-ACh]    Li, H., Martini, L., He, J., Huang, F., "Using the
                 Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the
                 MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 6423, November
                 2011.

   [PW-MAP]      Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Martini, L., Morrow, M.,
                 Nadeau, T., and Y(J). Stein, "Pseudowire (PW)
                 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
                 Message Mapping", RFC 6310, July 2011.

   [Reorder]     Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
                 S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC
                 4737, November 2006.

   [Signal]      Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
                 Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched
                 Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.

   [TCPIP-Tools] Kessler, G., Shepard, S., "A Primer On Internet and
                 TCP/IP Tools and Utilities", RFC 2151, June 1997.

   [TP-CC-CV]    Allan, D., Swallow, G., Drake, J., "Proactive
                 Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
                 Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile", RFC
                 6428, November 2011.

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   [TP-Fault]    Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S.,
                 "MPLS Fault Management Operations, Administration, and
                 Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 6427, November 2011.

   [TP-LM-DM]    Frost, D., Bryant, S., "A Packet Loss and Delay
                 Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport
                 Networks", RFC 6375, September 2011.

   [TP-OAM-FW]   Busi, I., Allan, D., "Operations, Administration and
                 Maintenance Framework for MPLS-based Transport
                 Networks ", RFC 6371, September 2011.

   [TP-Term]     Van Helvoort, H., Andersson, L., Sprecher, N., "A
                 Thesaurus for the Terminology used in MPLS Transport
                 Profile (MPLS-TP) Internet-Drafts and RFCs in the
                 Context of the ITU-T's Transport Network
                 Recommendations", RFC 7087, December 2013.

   [TRILL-OAM]   Senevirathne, T., Bond, D., Aldrin, S., Li, Y., Watve,
                 R., "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and
                 Maintenance (OAM) in Transparent Interconnection of
                 Lots of Links (TRILL)", RFC 6905, March 2013.

   [TWAMP]       Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
                 Babiarz, J., "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
                 (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.

   [VCCV]        Nadeau, T., Pignataro, C., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
                 Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel
                 for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.

   [VCCV-SURVEY] Del Regno, N., Malis, A., "The Pseudowire (PW) and
                 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
                 Implementation Survey Results", RFC 7079, November
                 2013.

Appendix A.                 List of OAM Documents

A.1. List of IETF OAM Documents

   Table 5 summarizes the OAM related RFCs published by the IETF.

   It is important to note that the table lists various RFCs that are
   different by nature. For example, some of these documents define OAM
   tools or OAM protocols (or both), while others define protocols that

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   are not strictly OAM-related, but are used by OAM tools. The table
   also includes RFCs that define the requirements or the framework of
   OAM in a specific context (e.g., MPLS-TP).

   The RFCs in the table are categorized in a few sets as defined in
   Section 1.3.

   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   | Toolset   | Title                                | RFC      |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |IP Ping    | Requirements for Internet Hosts --   | RFC 1122 |
   |           | Communication Layers [IntHost]       |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A Glossary of Networking Terms       | RFC 1208 |
   |           | [NetTerms]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Internet Control Message Protocol    | RFC 792  |
   |           | [ICMPv4]                             |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Internet Control Message Protocol    | RFC 4443 |
   |           | (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol   |          |
   |           | Version 6 (IPv6) Specification       |          |
   |           | [ICMPv6]                             |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |IP         | A Primer On Internet and TCP/IP      | RFC 2151 |
   |Traceroute | Tools and Utilities [TCPIP-Tools]    |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | FYI on a Network Management Tool     | RFC 1470 |
   |           | Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and    |          |
   |           | Debugging TCP/IP Internets and       |          |
   |           | Interconnected Devices [NetTools]    |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Internet Control Message Protocol    | RFC 792  |
   |           | [ICMPv4]                             |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Internet Control Message Protocol    | RFC 4443 |
   |           | (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol   |          |
   |           | Version 6 (IPv6) Specification       |          |
   |           | [ICMPv6]                             |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part  | RFC 4884 |
   |           | Messages [ICMP-MP]                   |          |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Extending ICMP for Interface and     | RFC 5837 |
   |           | Next-Hop Identification [ICMP-Int]   |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |BFD        | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5880 |
   |           | [BFD]                                |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5881 |
   |           | (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop) |          |
   |           | [BFD-IP]                             |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Generic Application of Bidirectional | RFC 5882 |
   |           | Forwarding Detection [BFD-Gen]       |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5883 |
   |           | (BFD) for Multihop Paths [BFD-Multi] |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5884 |
   |           | for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) |          |
   |           | [BFD-LSP]                            |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5885 |
   |           | for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit   |          |
   |           | Connectivity Verification (VCCV)     |          |
   |           | [BFD-VCCV]                           |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |MPLS OAM   | Operations and Management (OAM)      | RFC 4377 |
   |           | Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label|          |
   |           | Switched (MPLS) Networks [MPLS-OAM]  |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A Framework for Multi-Protocol       | RFC 4378 |
   |           | Label Switching (MPLS) Operations    |          |
   |           | and Management (OAM) [MPLS-OAM-FW]   |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Detecting Multi-Protocol Label       | RFC 4379 |
   |           | Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures  |          |
   |           | [LSP-Ping]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Operations and Management (OAM)      | RFC 4687 |
   |           | Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint |          |
   |           | MPLS Networks [MPLS-P2MP]            |          |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | ICMP Extensions for Multiprotocol    | RFC 4950 |
   |           | Label Switching [ICMP-Ext]           |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |MPLS-TP    | Requirements for OAM in MPLS-TP      | RFC 5860 |
   |OAM        | [MPLS-TP-OAM]                        |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | MPLS Generic Associated Channel      | RFC 5586 |
   |           | [G-ACh]                              |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | MPLS-TP OAM Framework                | RFC 6371 |
   |           | [TP-OAM-FW]                          |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Proactive Connectivity Verification, | RFC 6428 |
   |           | Continuity Check, and Remote Defect  |          |
   |           | Indication for the MPLS Transport    |          |
   |           | Profile [TP-CC-CV]                   |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | MPLS On-Demand Connectivity          | RFC 6426 |
   |           | Verification and Route Tracing       |          |
   |           | [OnDemand-CV]                        |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | MPLS Fault Management Operations,    | RFC 6427 |
   |           | Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)|          |
   |           | [TP-Fault]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct | RFC 6435 |
   |           | and Loopback Functions [Lock-Loop]   |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for| RFC 6374 |
   |           | MPLS Networks [MPLS-LM-DM]           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement  | RFC 6375 |
   |           | Profile for MPLS-Based Transport     |          |
   |           | Networks [TP-LM-DM]                  |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |Pseudowire | Pseudowire Virtual Circuit           | RFC 5085 |
   |OAM        | Connectivity Verification (VCCV):    |          |
   |           | A Control Channel for Pseudowires    |          |
   |           | [VCCV]                               |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |           | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   | RFC 5885 |
   |           | for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit   |          |
   |           | Connectivity Verification (VCCV)     |          |
   |           | [BFD-VCCV]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Using the Generic Associated Channel | RFC 6423 |
   |           | Label for Pseudowire in the MPLS     |          |
   |           | Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)          |          |
   |           | [PW-G-ACh]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Pseudowire (PW) Operations,          | RFC 6310 |
   |           | Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)|          |
   |           | Message Mapping [PW-MAP]             |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
   |OWAMP and  | A One-way Active Measurement Protocol| RFC 4656 |
   |TWAMP      | [OWAMP]                              |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol| RFC 5357 |
   |           | [TWAMP]                              |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Framework for IP Performance Metrics | RFC 2330 |
   |           | [IPPM-FW]                            |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | IPPM Metrics for Measuring           | RFC 2678 |
   |           | Connectivity [IPPM-Con]              |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM      | RFC 2679 |
   |           | [IPPM-1DM]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM| RFC 2680 |
   |           | [IPPM-1LM]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM   | RFC 2681 |
   |           | [IPPM-2DM]                           |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | Packet Reordering Metrics            | RFC 4737 |
   |           | [Reorder]                            |          |
   |           +--------------------------------------+----------+
   |           | A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric  | RFC 5560 |
   |           | [Dup]                                |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |TRILL OAM  | Requirements for Operations,         | RFC 6905 |
   |           | Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)|          |
   |           | in Transparent Interconnection of    |          |
   |           | Lots of Links (TRILL)                |          |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+----------+
                 Table 5 Summary of IETF OAM Related RFCs

A.2. List of Selected Non-IETF OAM Documents

   In addition to the OAM tools defined by the IETF, the IEEE and ITU-T
   have also defined various OAM tools that focus on Ethernet, and
   various other transport network environments. These various tools,
   defined by the three standard organizations, are often tightly
   coupled, and have had a mutual effect on each other. The ITU-T and
   IETF have both defined OAM tools for MPLS LSPs, [ITU-T-Y1711] and
   [LSP-Ping]. The following OAM standards by the IEEE and ITU-T are to
   some extent linked to IETF OAM tools listed above and are mentioned
   here only as reference material:

   o OAM tools for Layer 2 have been defined by the ITU-T in
      [ITU-T-Y1731], and by the IEEE in 802.1ag [IEEE802.1Q] . The IEEE
      802.3 standard defines OAM for one-hop Ethernet links
      [IEEE802.3ah].

   o The ITU-T has defined OAM for MPLS LSPs in [ITU-T-Y1711], and
      MPLS-TP OAM in [ITU-G8113.1] and [ITU-G8113.2].

   It should be noted that these non-IETF documents deal in many cases
   with OAM functions below the IP layer (Layer 2, Layer 2.5) and in
   some cases operators use a multi-layered OAM approach, which is a
   function of the way their networks are designed.

   Table 6 summarizes some of the main OAM standards published by non-
   IETF standard organizations. This document focuses on IETF OAM
   standards, but these non-IETF standards are referenced in this
   document where relevant.

   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Title                                |Standard/Draft |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ITU-T      | Operation & Maintenance mechanism    | ITU-T Y.1711  |
   |MPLS OAM   | for MPLS networks [ITU-T-Y1711]      |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label'  | RFC 3429      |
   |           | for Multiprotocol Label Switching    |               |

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |           | Architecture (MPLS) Operation and    |               |
   |           | Maintenance (OAM) Functions          |               |
   |           | [OAM-Label]                          |               |
   |           |                                      |               |
   |           |  Note: although this is an IETF      |               |
   |           |  document, it is listed as one of the|               |
   |           |  non-IETF OAM standards, since it    |               |
   |           |  was defined as a complementary part |               |
   |           |  of ITU-T Y.1711.                    |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ITU-T      | Operations, administration and       |ITU-T G.8113.2 |
   |MPLS-TP OAM| Maintenance mechanisms for MPLS-TP   |               |
   |           | networks using the tools defined for |               |
   |           | MPLS [ITU-G8113.2]                   |               |
   |           |                                      |               |
   |           |  Note: this document describes the   |               |
   |           |  OAM toolset defined by the IETF for |               |
   |           |  MPLS-TP, whereas ITU-T G.8113.1     |               |
   |           |  describes the OAM toolset defined   |               |
   |           |  by the ITU-T.                       |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Operations, Administration and       |ITU-T G.8113.1 |
   |           | Maintenance mechanism for MPLS-TP in |               |
   |           | Packet Transport Network (PTN)       |               |
   |           +--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |           | Allocation of a Generic Associated   | RFC 6671      |
   |           | Channel Type for ITU-T MPLS Transport|               |
   |           | Profile Operation, Maintenance, and  |               |
   |           | Administration (MPLS-TP OAM)         |               |
   |           | [ITU-T-CT]                           |               |
   |           |                                      |               |
   |           |  Note: although this is an IETF      |               |
   |           |  document, it is listed as one of the|               |
   |           |  non-IETF OAM standards, since it    |               |
   |           |  was defined as a complementary part |               |
   |           |  of ITU-T G.8113.1.                  |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |ITU-T      | OAM Functions and Mechanisms for     | ITU-T Y.1731  |
   |Ethernet   | Ethernet-based Networks              |               |
   |OAM        | [ITU-T-Y1731]                        |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   |IEEE       | Connectivity Fault Management        | IEEE 802.1ag  |
   |CFM        | [IEEE802.1Q]                         |               |
   |           |                                      |               |
   |           |  Note: CFM was originally published  |               |
   |           |  as IEEE 802.1ag, but is now         |               |
   |           |  incorporated in the 802.1Q standard.|               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |IEEE       | Management of Data Driven and Data   | IEEE 802.1ag  |
   |DDCFM      | Dependent Connectivity Faults        |               |
   |           | [IEEE802.1Q]                         |               |
   |           |                                      |               |
   |           |  Note: DDCFM was originally published|               |
   |           |  as IEEE 802.1Qaw, but is now        |               |
   |           |  incorporated in the 802.1Q standard.|               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   |IEEE       | Media Access Control Parameters,     | IEEE 802.3ah  |
   |802.3      | Physical Layers, and Management      |               |
   |link level | Parameters for Subscriber Access     |               |
   |OAM        | Networks [IEEE802.3ah]               |               |
   |           |                                      |               |
   |           |  Note: link level OAM was originally |               |
   |           |  defined in IEEE 802.3ah, and is now |               |
   |           |  incorporated in the 802.3 standard. |               |
   +-----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
         Table 6 Non-IETF OAM Standards Mentioned in this Document

Authors' Addresses

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   6 Hamada St.
   Yokneam, 20692
   Israel

   Email: [email-masked]

   Nurit Sprecher
   NSN
   3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft          Overview of OAM Tools             January 2014

   Hod Hasharon,   45241
   Israel

   Email: [email-masked]

   Elisa Bellagamba
   Ericsson
   6 Farogatan St.
   Stockholm,   164 40
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 761440785
   Email: [email-masked]

   Yaacov Weingarten
   34 Hagefen St.
   Karnei Shomron,   4485500
   Israel

   Email: [email-masked]

Mizrahi, et al.         Expires July 9, 2014                 [Page 48]

On Jul 8, 2013:5:43 PM, at 5:43 PM, Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> We have updated draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview following the comments we received in IETF last call.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-09
>  
> This document went into IETF last call in January, and we received comments from (in chronological order): Benoit Claise, Al Morton, Sam Aldrin, Tom Nadeau, Carlos Pignataro, Elwyn Davies, Sasha Vainshtein, Dan Romascanu, Thomas Narten, Joel Jaeggli.
> We carefully considered each and every comment, and significantly edited the document to address these comments.
> After we revised the document some of our reviewers kindly agreed to reiterate on the document in 1x1 sessions, allowing us to verify that we addressed the major comments.
> A brief summary of the changes in the document:
> - We practically rewrote the introduction; we added a subsection about the target audience, and add general background about OAM including some historical background.
> - The structure of the document went through a significant revision as well; for example, we moved the list of OAM documents to an appendix, and moved the terminology section closer to the beginning.
> - We revised the terminology section: we added quite a few terms that were used without definition, and we fixed some inaccurate existing definitions. We also did some major editing throughout the document to verify that the terminology is used consistently.
> - We added content that was missing in previous version of the draft, e.g., TRILL OAM.
>  
> We encourage the reviewers to go over the updated document and let us know if there are any further comments.
> Any further comments from the WG are welcome.
>  
> Thanks,
> Tal.

---

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:06:00 +0200

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reviewing the draft and sending us your comments.

Based on your comments we have updated the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-13

We made an effort to address all the comments you sent.
Please see our inline replies to your comments, marked by [TM].

Please let us know if you have further comments.

Thanks,
Tal.

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:30 PM
To: Tal Mizrahi
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Alexander Vainshtein; Elwyn Davies; MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); Thomas Narten; Sam Aldrin; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); joel jaeggli; Benoit Claise
Subject: Re: Updated draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview

     --Tom

1) Psedowire OAM message mapping and ethernet OAM are missing.
[TM] Point well taken. Notice the document includes the section "4.6.3. Attachment Circuit - Pseudowire Mapping". Following your comment we added text about Ethernet mapping and RFC 7023.

2) There is no discussion about OAM for L2VPN or L3VPN explicitly here. It is important to explain this applicability.
[TM] Point well taken. We have added brief descriptions about L2VPN and L3VPN, since the focus of this document is OAM *tools*, and no new tools are defined in the context of L2VPN and L3VPN. We have added a new subsection, 4.4.3., that discusses L2VPN and L3VPN in the context of MPLS. We have also added text to section 4.6.3 about L2VPNs in the context of pseudowires.

3) BFD for MPLS is not explained. It is a very viable replacement for CV instead of LSP Ping.
[TM] Point well taken. We have added a new subsection "4.4.2. BFD for MPLS".

--Tom

                                                         January 9, 2014

                              An Overview of

Abstract

Status of this Memo

Copyright Notice

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

1.2. Target Audience

2. Terminology

2.1. Abbreviations

   CC     Continuity Check

   DM     Delay Measurement

   FRR    Fast Reroute

   LER    Label Edge Router

   LM     Loss Measurement

   LSP    Label Switched Path

   ME     Maintenance Entity

   MEP    MEG End Point

   MP     Maintenance Point

   PE     Provider Edge

   PW     Pseudowire

   RBridge Routing Bridge

   TTL    Time To Live

2.2.1. General Terms

OAM Function

OAM Protocol

OAM Tool

Data Plane

Control Plane

Management Plane

2.2.5. The Players

Proactive

On-demand

Continuity Check

Connection Oriented

Connectionless

Discussion

Point-to-point (P2P)

Discussion

2.2.10. Failures

Fault

Defect

Failure

3. OAM Functions

4.1. IP Ping

4.2. IP Traceroute

4.3.1. Overview

4.3.2. Terminology

4.3.3. BFD Control

4.3.4. BFD Echo

4.4. MPLS OAM

TOM: This is misleading. LSP Ping does not extend any part of ICMP operation; its a completely new operation that is native to MPLS.  It is important not to conflate these two things, as there are proprietary versions of ICMP ping extended for MPLS that DO NOT work in all cases. This is why LSP Ping was invented (and trace).
[TM] Point well taken. Rephrased.

TOM: There is more to the LSP Traceroute than just using TTL. Please review the RFC for details.
[TM] Our challenge in this overview document is to try to capture some of the most significant content of each of the RFCs we mention. Indeed, an overview document cannot (and should not) include all the details about all the topics it covers. This is just an example where, as you mention, there is more to the protocol than is currently described, and we believe that it is quite reasonable that we do not cover the entire RFC. However, if you believe there is a significant point that is currently missing in the text, it would be great if you could explain what you are referring to.

TOM: Why "conversely"?  You imply that MPLS-TP is "better" somehow with that statement; its different.
[TM] We by no means implied that MPLS-TP is better. In fact, we believe that all MPLS variants are created equal. :)
The sentence was rephrased.

TOM: Strictily speaking, an LSP does not have a return path. There is a return route at the other end that is used to return the response message. This can be a different MPLS LSP, IP or whatever.
[TM] Point well taken. Rephrased.

4.5. MPLS-TP OAM

4.5.1. Overview

4.5.2. Terminology

Maintenance Entity (ME)

Maintenance Point (MP)

Up and Down MEPs

4.5.4.2. Route Tracing

4.5.4.3. Lock Instruct

4.5.4.4. Lock Reporting

4.5.4.5. Alarm Reporting

4.6. Pseudowire OAM

TOM: Why "to be extended"?  They've already been extended.
[TM] In this context "to be extended" was not intended to refer to the future.
Rephrased.

TOM: There is not really a capability "negotiation" per se; its a capability advertisement with strict and explicit rules for what each end should do when it receives capability advertisements.
[TM] Point well taken. Rephrased.

4.7. OWAMP and TWAMP

4.7.1. Overview

4.7.3. OWAMP

4.7.4. TWAMP

4.8. TRILL

5. Summary

       |           |       | Ping   |        |       |          |
       |           |       |-LSP-   |        |       |          |
       |           |       | Ping   |        |       |          |

7. IANA Considerations

8. Acknowledgments

9. References

Authors' Addresses

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   6 Hamada St.
   Yokneam, 20692
   Israel

   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Nurit Sprecher
   NSN

   Hod Hasharon,   45241
   Israel

   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Elisa Bellagamba
   Ericsson
   6 Farogatan St.
   Stockholm,   164 40
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 761440785
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Yaacov Weingarten
   34 Hagefen St.
   Karnei Shomron,   4485500
   Israel

   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

On Jul 8, 2013:5:43 PM, at 5:43 PM, Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks,
Tal.