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

2. Current contributors
Christian Addeo (Alcatel-Lucent), Simon Delord (Uecomm), John Hoffmans (KPN), Ruiquan Jing (China Telecom), Julien Meuric (France Telecom), Philippe Niger (France Telecom), Manuel Paul (Deutsche Telekom), Josef Roese (Deutsche Telekom), Vincenzo Sestito (Alcatel-Lucent), Nurit Sprecher (Nokia Siemens Networks), Yaakov Stein (RAD), Yuji Tochio (Fujitsu), Munefumi Tsurusawa (KDDI R&D Labs), Maarten Vissers (Huawei), Yaacov Weingarten (Nokia Siemens Networks)

3. Scope ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731 specifies:
OAM PDUs and procedures (state machines) that meet the transport networks requirements for OAM
Encapsulation mechanisms to carry these OAM PDUs within Ethernet frames to provide Ethernet OAM capabilities in Ethernet networks
Proposal is to capitalize on the technology-independent OAM PDUs and procedures of Y.1731 within MPLS-TP to monitor MPLS-TP LSP, PW (any PW type) and Sections
This is NOT Ethernet centric/focused

4. Advantages of the approach
Reuse existing mechanisms
Availability of MPLS-TP OAM functions in the near terms, since these OAM functions are already supported and deployed
Reduce the complexity and increase the reuse of code for implementation in packet transport devices that may support both VPLS and MPLS-TP capabilities
Operational benefit of reusing the same OAM protocols in LSP, PW and VPLS (i.e. the operator has to test and maintain a single protocol set rather than two)

5. Relationship IEEE 802.1ag Other MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms
IEEE 802.1ag and ITU-T Y.1731 have been developed in cooperation by IEEE and ITU
IEEE 802.1ag applicable to enterprise networks
ITU-T Y.1731 applicable to transport networks
Other MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms
No deprecation of existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms
No preclusion to define other MPLS-TP OAM tools

6. Encapsulation Option 1
One ACH codepoint identifies Y.1731 OAM PDU and OpCode identifies the specific PDU
| | | | Y.1731 Channel Type (0xXX) |
| MEL | Version | OpCode | Flags | TLV Offset |
| |
| OAM function specific fields |
| (Y.1731 based) |
: :

7. Encapsulation Option 2 The ACH codepoint identifies the specific PDU
| | | | Channel Type |
| MEL | Version | OpCode | Flags | TLV Offset |
| |
| OAM function specific fields |
| (Y.1731 based) |
: :

8. OAM Mechanisms and Requirements
CCM
Proactive CC & CV
Proactive remote defect indication
Proactive loss measurement
LBM/LBR
On-demand CC & CV
Bidirectional diagnostic test (in-service and out-of-service)

9. OAM Mechanisms and Requirements
TST
Unidirectional diagnostic test (in-service and out-of-service)
AIS
Alarm suppression in case of server failures
LCK
Alarm suppression in case of server administratively locked

10. OAM Mechanisms and Requirements
LMM/LMR
On-demand (and pro-active) packet loss measurement
DMM/DMR
On-demand (and pro-active) 2-ways delay measurement
1DM
On-demand (and pro-active) 1-way delay measurement

11. What is NOT proposed VSM/VSR and EXM/EXR MCC LTM/LTR
Experimental code-points defined in draft-ietf-gach-gal must be used instead
MCC
The solution in draft-beller-mpls-tp-gach-dcn should be used instead
LTM/LTR
Not applicable to MPLS-TP because it addresses an Ethernet specific function to test the MAC “filtering rule”

12. Open Issues Applicability to IP/MPLS
Is ACH TLV sufficient?
Do we need an IP-based encapsulation?
Encoding of Target MEP/MIP ID in LBM
Use of ACH TLV?
Use of LBM TLV (within LBM PDU)?
Clarify relationship with other MPLS-TP OAM solution drafts

13. Next Steps Complete the OAM mechanisms description
Close the open issue
Address comments from the WG(s)