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)

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)

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

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)

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

Encapsulation Option 1 One ACH codepoint identifies Y.1731 OAM PDU and OpCode identifies the specific PDU 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Y.1731 Channel Type (0xXX) | | MEL | Version | OpCode | Flags | TLV Offset | | | + + | OAM function specific fields | | (Y.1731 based) | : ... :

Encapsulation Option 2 The ACH codepoint identifies the specific PDU 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Channel Type | | MEL | Version | OpCode | Flags | TLV Offset | | | + + | OAM function specific fields | | (Y.1731 based) | : ... :

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)

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

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

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”

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

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