Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
MPLS-TP OAM OAM for an MPLS Transport Profile. Loa Andersson , Acreo AB IAB, MPLS WG co-chair. MPLS-TP Starting points. PHP is part of the MPLS architecture It is a powerful It solves more problems than it creates Removing it creates more problems than it solves - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 1 www.acreo.se
MPLS-TP OAMOAM for an MPLS Transport Profile
Loa Andersson, Acreo ABIAB, MPLS WG co-chair
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 2 www.acreo.se
MPLS-TP Starting points
PHP is part of the MPLS architecture– It is a powerful
– It solves more problems than it creates
– Removing it creates more problems than it solves
– We should try ti see how we can use the PHP, rather than to remove it
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 3 www.acreo.se
MPLS-TP OAM Forwarding
TL TL’TL
PHPTL TL TL’
TLPHP
TL TL TL TL TL’ PHPTL TL TL TL TL TL TL
MEP A B MIP-1 C MIP-2 D MEP
TT TT-1 TT-2 TT-3
TL’
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 4 www.acreo.se
Legend for the previous slide
The “cylinder” indicates links between LSRs.At an ingress LSR one or more labels are pushed onto a packetAt intermediate LSRs labels are swappedAt pen ultimate LSRs Labels are poppedAt egress LSRs actions are taken on the top labelThe LSRs are in the gaps between the links.LSRs that don’t have a MEP or MEP are called A, B, C and D, if they have the are called MEP or MIPThe thinner cylinder represents the OAM channel
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 5 www.acreo.se
Naming of tunnels
The outermost (top of label stack) tunnel is called Transport Tunnel (TT)
Transport Tunnels that is carried in other Transport Tunnels is called TT-n
In the figures we have TT, TT-1, TT-2 and TT-3
On every level below the TT it is possible to multiple TTs, e.g. TT-1, TT-1’, TT-1’’ etc.
There is only a single tunnel for OAM between a pair of MEP and MEP/MIP.
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 6 www.acreo.se
Forwarding
When a LSR sends a packet across the transport LSP it pushes the entire Label stack needed.When a packet reaches the pen-ultimate hop of the current of a transport LSP level, the top label is popped and the packet forwarded with the next label on topAt the egress LSR the packet is forwarded based on the label on the top of the stack
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 7 www.acreo.se
MPLS-TP OAM MEP to MEP
TL TL’TL
PHPTL TL TL’
TLPHP
TL TL TL TL TL’ PHP
MEP A B MIP-1 C MIP-2 D MIP-3
TT TT-1 TT-2 TT-3
TL TL TL TL TL TL TL’TL
MEP
LFU LFU LFU FLU LFU LFU LFULFU
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 8 www.acreo.se
Communication MEP to MEP
When an MEP sends an OAM packet the LSR pushes a label stack where the transport label that is comes to the top of the stack at the PHP before the MIP that the OAM packet is addressed to is replaced by the LFUWhen a packet with the LFU at the top of the stack is received the LSR locates the ACH after the label with the BoS bit setApart from information indicating what OAM procedures that is required the ACH needs to carry information on what LSP this is requested for, this may require an aggreate LSPid
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 9 www.acreo.se
MPLS-TP OAM MEP to MIP-1
TL TL’ PHPLFU LFU LFU
MEP A B MIP-1 C MIP-2 D MEP
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 10 www.acreo.se
MPLS-TP OAM MEP to MIP-2
TL TL’TL
PHPTL TL TL’ PHP
LFU LFU LFU FLU LFU
MEP A B MIP-1 C MIP-2 D MEP
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 11 www.acreo.se
MEP to MIP communication
The only difference between MEP to MIP communication and MEP to MEP communication is that the label stack only needs to be populated to take the the packet to the LSR with the MIP, the rest of the label stack may be omitted.If the redundant part of the label stack is present the LFU will not have the BoS set The MPLS architecture has been operating with uni-directional LSPs. This works for bi-directional LSPs as well. It is not clear if the response OAM channel needs to be bundled with the LSP in the reverse direction or if direct communication between originating MEP and the responder is allowed. Both schemes works with this architeture.
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 12 www.acreo.se
Questions
Is MIP to MIP communication needed?
Is MIP to MEP communication needed for other purposes than responses on communications that were initiated by the MEP?
If one set up LSPs from a NMS or manually this is fiarly straightforward.
If one is using a control plane it might require extensions to the signaling protocol, especially the concept of an aggregate LSPid needs to be investigated.
