1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
|
<pre>Network Working Group M. Bocci, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5586 M. Vigoureux, Ed.
Updates: <a href="./rfc3032">3032</a>, <a href="./rfc4385">4385</a>, <a href="./rfc5085">5085</a> Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Standards Track S. Bryant, Ed.
Cisco Systems
June 2009
<span class="h1">MPLS Generic Associated Channel</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document generalizes the applicability of the pseudowire (PW)
Associated Channel Header (ACH), enabling the realization of a
control channel associated to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and
MPLS Sections in addition to MPLS pseudowires. In order to identify
the presence of this Associated Channel Header in the label stack,
this document also assigns one of the reserved MPLS label values to
the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL), to be used as a label
based exception mechanism.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Generic Associated Channel Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Allocation of Channel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. ACH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. ACH TLV Payload Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. ACH TLV Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. ACH TLV Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Generalized Exception Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. GAL Applicability and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>. GAL Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Relationship with <a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Major Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-18">18</a>
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
There is a need for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
mechanisms that can be used for fault detection, diagnostics,
maintenance, and other functions on a pseudowire (PW) and a Label
Switched Path (LSP). These functions can be used between any two
Label Edge Routers (LERs)/Label Switching Router (LSRs) or
Terminating Provider Edge routers (T-PEs)/Switching Provider Edge
routers (S-PEs) along the path of an LSP or PW, respectively
[<a href="#ref-MPLS-TP" title=""A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks"">MPLS-TP</a>]. Some of these functions can be supported using existing
tools such as Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
[<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>], Bidirectional Forwarding Detection for MPLS LSPs (BFD-
MPLS) [<a href="#ref-BFD-MPLS" title=""BFD For MPLS LSPs"">BFD-MPLS</a>], LSP-Ping [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>], or BFD-VCCV [<a href="#ref-BFD-VCCV" title=""Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)"">BFD-VCCV</a>].
However, a requirement has been indicated to augment this set of
maintenance functions, in particular when MPLS networks are used for
packet transport services and transport network operations [<a href="#ref-OAM-REQ" title=""Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks"">OAM-REQ</a>].
Examples of these functions include performance monitoring, automatic
protection switching, and support for management and signaling
communication channels. These tools MUST be applicable to, and
function in essentially the same manner (from an operational point of
view) on MPLS PWs, MPLS LSPs, and MPLS Sections. They MUST also
operate in-band on the PW or LSP such that they do not depend on
Packet Switched Network (PSN) routing or on user traffic, and MUST
NOT depend on dynamic control plane functions.
VCCV [<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>] can use an Associated Channel Header (ACH) to provide
a PW associated control channel between a PW's endpoints, over which
OAM and other control messages can be exchanged. This document
generalizes the applicability of the ACH to enable the same
associated control channel mechanism to be used for Sections, LSPs,
and PWs. The associated control channel thus generalized is known as
the Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). The ACH, specified in <a href="./rfc4385">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc4385">4385</a> [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>], may be used with additional code points to support
additional MPLS maintenance functions on the G-ACh.
Generalizing the applicability of the ACH to LSPs and Sections also
requires a method to identify that a packet contains an ACH followed
by a non-service payload. Therefore, this document also defines a
label-based exception mechanism that serves to inform an LSR (or LER)
that a packet it receives on an LSP or Section belongs to an
associated control channel. The label used for that purpose is one
of the MPLS reserved labels and is referred to as the GAL (G-ACh
Label). The GAL mechanism is defined to work together with the ACH
for LSPs and MPLS Sections.
<a href="./rfc4379">RFC 4379</a> [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and BFD-MPLS [<a href="#ref-BFD-MPLS" title=""BFD For MPLS LSPs"">BFD-MPLS</a>] define alert mechanisms
that enable an MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when
these are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert mechanisms are
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
based, for example, on Time To Live (TTL) expiration and/or on the
use of an IP destination address in the range of 127.0.0.0/8 or 0:0:
0:0:0:FFFF:127.0.0.0/104 for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively. These
mechanisms are the default mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM
packets when encapsulated in an IP header. However, it may not
always be possible to use these mechanisms in some MPLS applications,
e.g., MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [<a href="#ref-MPLS-TP" title=""A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks"">MPLS-TP</a>], particularly when
IP-based demultiplexing cannot be used. This document defines a
mechanism that is RECOMMENDED for identifying and encapsulating MPLS
OAM and other maintenance messages when IP based mechanisms such as
those used in [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and [<a href="#ref-BFD-MPLS" title=""BFD For MPLS LSPs"">BFD-MPLS</a>] are not available. Yet, this
mechanism MAY be used in addition to IP-based mechanisms.
Note that, in this document, maintenance functions and packets should
be understood in the broad sense. That is, a set of maintenance and
management mechanisms that include OAM, Automatic Protection
Switching (APS), Signaling Communication Channel (SCC), and
Management Communication Channel (MCC) messages.
Also note that the GAL and ACH are applicable to MPLS and PWs in
general. This document specifies general mechanism and uses MPLS-TP
as an example application. The application of the GAL and ACH to
other specific MPLS uses is outside the scope of this document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Objectives</span>
This document defines a mechanism that provides a solution to the
extended maintenance needs of emerging applications for MPLS. It
creates a generic control channel mechanism that may be applied to
MPLS LSPs and Sections, while maintaining compatibility with the PW
associated channel. It also normalizes the use of the ACH for PWs in
a transport context, and defines a label-based exception mechanism to
alert LERs/LSRs of the presence of an ACH after the bottom of the
label stack.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Scope</span>
This document defines the encapsulation header for Section, LSP, and
PW associated control channel messages.
This document does not define how associated control channel
capabilities are signaled or negotiated between LERs/LSRs or between
PEs, nor does it define the operation of various OAM functions.
This document does not deprecate existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Requirements Language and Terminology</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
This document uses the following additional terminology:
ACH: Associated Channel Header
G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel
GAL: G-ACh Label
G-ACh packet: Any packet containing a message belonging to a protocol
that is carried on a PW, LSP, or MPLS Section associated control
channel. Examples include maintenance protocols such as OAM
functions, signaling communications, or management communications.
The terms "Section" and "Concatenated Segment" are defined in
[<a href="#ref-TP-REQ" title=""MPLS-TP Requirements"">TP-REQ</a>] as follows (note that the terms "Section" and "Section Layer
Network" are synonymous):
Section Layer Network: A section layer is a server layer (which may
be MPLS-TP or a different technology) that provides for the transfer
of the section layer client information between adjacent nodes in the
transport path layer or transport service layer. Note that G.805
[<a href="#ref-G805" title=""Generic Functional Architecture of Transport Networks"">G805</a>] defines the section layer as one of the two layer networks in
a transmission media layer network. The other layer network is the
physical media layer network.
Concatenated Segment: A serial-compound link connection as defined in
[<a href="#ref-G805" title=""Generic Functional Architecture of Transport Networks"">G805</a>]. A concatenated segment is a contiguous part of an LSP or
multi-segment PW that comprises a set of segments and their
interconnecting nodes in sequence.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Generic Associated Channel Header</span>
VCCV [<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>] defines three Control Channel (CC) Types that may be
used to exchange OAM messages through a PW. CC Type 1 uses an ACH
and is referred to as "In-band VCCV"; CC Type 2 uses the MPLS Router
Alert Label to indicate VCCV packets and is referred to as "Out-of-
Band VCCV"; CC Type 3 uses the TTL to force the packet to be
processed by the targeted router control plane and is referred to as
"MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1".
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Definition</span>
The use of the ACH, previously limited to PWs, is here generalized to
also apply to LSPs and to Sections. Note that for PWs, the PWE3
control word [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>] MUST be present in the encapsulation of user
packets when the ACH is used to realize the associated control
channel.
The ACH used by CC Type 1 is depicted in figure below:
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|Version| Reserved | Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Associated Channel Header
In the above figure, the first nibble is set to 0001b to indicate a
control channel associated with a PW, LSP, or Section. The Version
field is set to 0, as specified in <a href="./rfc4385">RFC 4385</a> [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>]. Bits 8 to 15
of the ACH are reserved and MUST be set to 0 and ignored on
reception. Bits 16 to 31 are used to encode the possible Channel
Types. This 16-bit field is in network byte order.
Note that VCCV [<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>] also includes mechanisms for negotiating the
Control Channel and Connectivity Verification (i.e., OAM function)
Types between PEs. It is anticipated that similar mechanisms will be
applied to LSPs. Such application will require further
specification. However, such specification is beyond the scope of
this document.
The G-ACh MUST NOT be used to transport user traffic.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Allocation of Channel Types</span>
The Channel Type field indicates the type of message carried on the
associated control channel, e.g., IPv4 or IPv6 if IP demultiplexing
is used for messages sent on the associated control channel, or OAM
or other maintenance function if IP demultiplexing is not used. For
associated control channel packets where IP is not used as the
multiplexer, the Channel Type indicates the specific protocol carried
in the associated control channel.
Values for the Channel Type field currently used for VCCV are
specified elsewhere, e.g., in <a href="./rfc4446">RFC 4446</a> [<a href="./rfc4446" title=""IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"">RFC4446</a>] and <a href="./rfc4385">RFC 4385</a>
[<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>]. Additional Channel Type values and the associated
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
maintenance functionality will be defined in other documents. Each
document, specifying a protocol solution relying on the ACH, MUST
also specify the applicable Channel Type field value.
Note that these values are allocated from the PW Associated Channel
Type registry [<a href="./rfc4446" title=""IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"">RFC4446</a>], but this document modifies the existing
policy to accommodate a level of experimentation. See <a href="#section-10">Section 10</a> for
further details.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. ACH TLVs</span>
In some applications of the generalized associated control channel,
it is necessary to include one or more ACH TLVs to provide additional
context information to the G-ACh packet. One use of these ACH TLVs
might be to identify the source and/or intended destination of the
associated channel message. However, the use of this construct is
not limited to providing addressing information nor is the
applicability restricted to transport network applications.
If the G-ACh message MAY be preceded by one or more ACH TLVs, then
this MUST be explicitly specified in the definition of an ACH Channel
Type. If the ACH Channel Type definition does state that one or more
ACH TLVs MAY precede the G-ACh message, an ACH TLV Header MUST follow
the ACH. If no ACH TLVs are required in a specific associated
channel packet, but the Channel Type nevertheless defines that ACH
TLVs MAY be used, an ACH TLV Header MUST be present but with a length
field set to zero to indicate that no ACH TLV follow this header.
If an ACH Channel Type specification does not explicitly specify that
ACH TLVs MAY be used, then the ACH TLV Header MUST NOT be used.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. ACH TLV Payload Structure</span>
This section defines and describes the structure of an ACH payload
when an ACH TLV Header is present.
The following figure (Figure 2) shows the structure of a G-ACh packet
payload.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH TLV Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ zero or more ACH TLVs ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ G-ACh Message ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: G-ACh Packet Payload
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. ACH TLV Header</span>
The ACH TLV Header defines the length of the set of ACH TLVs that
follow.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: ACH TLV Header
The Length field specifies the length in octets of the complete set
of TLVs including sub-TLVs that follow the ACH TLV Header. A length
of zero indicates that no ACH TLV follow this header. Note that no
padding is required for the set of ACH TLVs.
The Reserved field is for future use and MUST be set to zero on
transmission and ignored on reception.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. ACH TLV Object</span>
ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV Header. The structure of ACH TLVs is
defined and described in this section.
An ACH TLV consists of a 16-bit Type field, followed by a 16-bit
Length field that specifies the number of octets of the Value field,
which follows the Length field. This 32-bit word is followed by zero
or more octets of Value information. The format and semantics of the
Value information are defined by the TLV Type as recorded in the TLV
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
Type registry. See <a href="#section-10">Section 10</a> for further details. Note that the
Value field of ACH TLVs MAY contain sub-TLVs. Note that no padding
is required for individual TLVs or sub-TLVs.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ Value ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: ACH TLV Format
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Generalized Exception Mechanism</span>
Generalizing the associated control channel mechanism to LSPs and
Sections also requires a method to identify that a packet contains an
ACH followed by a non-service payload. This document specifies that
a label is used for that purpose and calls this special label the
G-ACh Label (GAL). One of the reserved label values defined in <a href="./rfc3032">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3032">3032</a> [<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>] is assigned for this purpose. IANA assigned the value
13 to the GAL.
The GAL provides an alert based exception mechanism to:
o differentiate specific packets (i.e., G-ACh packets) from others,
such as user-plane ones.
o indicate that the ACH appears immediately after the bottom of the
label stack.
The GAL MUST only be used where both these purposes apply.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms</span>
<a href="./rfc4379">RFC 4379</a> [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and BFD-MPLS [<a href="#ref-BFD-MPLS" title=""BFD For MPLS LSPs"">BFD-MPLS</a>] define alert mechanisms
that enable an MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when
these are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert mechanisms are
based, for example, on Time To Live (TTL) expiration and/or on the
use of an IP destination address in the range of 127.0.0.0/8 or 0:0:
0:0:0:FFFF:127.0.0.0/104 for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.
These mechanisms are the default mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM
packets when encapsulated in an IP header although the mechanism
defined in this document MAY also be used.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. GAL Applicability and Usage</span>
In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on LSPs,
Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with Sections, and MUST NOT be
used with PWs. It MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack
(i.e., S bit set to 1). However, in other MPLS environments, this
document places no restrictions on where the GAL may appear within
the label stack or its use with PWs. Where the GAL is at the bottom
of the label stack (i.e., S bit set to 1), then it MUST always be
followed by an ACH.
The GAL MUST NOT appear in the label stack when transporting normal
user-plane packets. Furthermore, when present, the GAL MUST NOT
appear more than once in the label stack.
A receiving LSR, LER, or PE MUST NOT forward a G-ACh packet to
another node based on the GAL label.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>. GAL Processing</span>
The Traffic Class (TC) field (formerly known as the EXP field) of the
Label Stack Entry (LSE) containing the GAL follows the definition and
processing rules specified and referenced in [<a href="./rfc5462" title=""Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "">RFC5462</a>].
The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the LSE that contains the GAL follows
the definition and processing rules specified in [<a href="./rfc3443" title=""Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks"">RFC3443</a>].
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1.1" href="#section-4.2.1.1">4.2.1.1</a>. MPLS Label Switched Paths and Segments</span>
The following figure (Figure 5) depicts two LERs (A and D) and two
LSRs (B and C) for a given LSP that is established from A to D and
switched in B and C.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------------| D |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 5: Maintenance over an LSP
In this example, a G-ACh exists on the LSP that extends between LERs
A and D, via LSRs B and C. Only A and D may initiate new G-ACh
packets. A, B, C, and D may process and respond to G-ACh packets.
The following figure (Figure 6) depicts the format of an MPLS-TP
G-ACh packet when used for an LSP.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH TLV Header (if present) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ Zero or more ACH TLVs ~
~ (if present) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ G-ACh Message ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: G-ACh Packet Format for an LSP
Note that it is possible that the LSP may be tunneled in another LSP
(e.g., if an MPLS Tunnel exists between B and C), and as such other
LSEs may be present in the label stack.
To send a G-ACh message on the LSP associated control channel, the
LER (A) generates a G-ACh message, to which it MAY prepend an ACH TLV
Header and appropriate ACH TLVs. It then adds an ACH, onto which it
pushes a GAL LSE. Finally, the LSP Label LSE is pushed onto the
resulting packet.
o The TTL field of the GAL LSE MUST be set to at least 1. The exact
value of the TTL is application specific. See <a href="#section-4.2.1">Section 4.2.1</a> for
definition and processing rules.
o The S bit of the GAL MUST be set according to its position in the
label stack (see <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>).
o The setting of the TC field of the GAL is application specific.
See <a href="#section-4.2.1">Section 4.2.1</a> for definition and processing rules.
LSRs MUST NOT modify the G-ACh message, the ACH or the GAL towards
the targeted destination.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
Note: This is because once a G-ACh packet has been sent on an LSP,
no node has visibility of it unless the LSP label TTL expires or
the GAL is exposed when the LSP label is popped. If this is at
the targeted destination, for example, indicated by an address in
an ACH TLV, then processing can proceed as specified below. If
this is not the targeted destination, but the node has agreed to
process packets on that ACH channel, then the processing applied
to the packet is out of scope of this document.
Upon reception of the labeled packet, the targeted destination, after
having checked both the LSP Label and GAL LSEs fields, SHOULD pass
the whole packet to the appropriate processing entity.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1.2" href="#section-4.2.1.2">4.2.1.2</a>. MPLS Section</span>
The following figure (Figure 7) depicts an example of an MPLS
Section.
+---+ +---+
| A |-------------| Z |
+---+ +---+
Figure 7: Maintenance over an MPLS Section
With regard to the MPLS Section, a G-ACh exists between A and Z.
Only A and Z can insert, extract, or process packets on this G-ACh.
The following figure (Figure 8) depicts the format of a G-ACh packet
when used for an MPLS Section. The GAL MAY provide the exception
mechanism for a control channel in its own right without being
associated with a specific LSP, thus providing maintenance-related
communications across a specific link interconnecting two LSRs. In
this case, the GAL is the only label in the stack.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH TLV Header (if present) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ Zero or more ACH TLVs ~
~ (if present) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ G-ACh message ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: G-ACh Packet Format for an MPLS Section
To send a G-ACh message on a control channel associated to the
Section, the head-end LSR (A) of the Section generates a G-ACh
message, to which it MAY prepend an ACH TLV Header and appropriate
ACH TLVs. Next, the LSR adds an ACH. Finally, it pushes a GAL LSE.
o The TTL field of the GAL MUST be set to at least 1. The exact
value of the TTL is application specific. See <a href="#section-4.2.1">Section 4.2.1</a> for
definition and processing rules.
o The S bit of the GAL MUST be set according to its position in the
label stack. (see <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>).
o The setting of the TC field of the GAL is application specific.
See <a href="#section-4.2.1">Section 4.2.1</a> for definition and processing rules.
Intermediate nodes of the MPLS Section MUST NOT modify the G-ACh
message, the ACH and the GAL towards the tail-end LSR (Z). Upon
reception of the G-ACh packet, the tail-end LSR (Z), after having
checked the GAL LSE fields, SHOULD pass the whole packet to the
appropriate processing entity.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Relationship with <a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a></span>
<a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a> [<a href="./rfc3429" title=""Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions"">RFC3429</a>] describes the assignment of one of the reserved
label values, defined in <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a> [<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>], to the "OAM Alert Label"
that is used by user-plane MPLS OAM functions for the identification
of MPLS OAM packets. The value of 14 is used for that purpose.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
Both this document and <a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a> [<a href="./rfc3429" title=""Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions"">RFC3429</a>] therefore describe the
assignment of reserved label values for similar purposes. The
rationale for the assignment of a new reserved label can be
summarized as follows:
o Unlike the mechanisms described and referenced in <a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a>
[<a href="./rfc3429" title=""Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions"">RFC3429</a>], G-ACh messages will not reside immediately after the
GAL but instead behind the ACH, which itself resides after the
bottom of the label stack.
o The set of maintenance functions potentially operated in the
context of the G-ACh is wider than the set of OAM functions
referenced in <a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a> [<a href="./rfc3429" title=""Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions"">RFC3429</a>].
o It has been reported that there are existing implementations and
running deployments using the "OAM Alert Label" as described in
<a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a> [<a href="./rfc3429" title=""Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions"">RFC3429</a>]. It is therefore not possible to modify the
"OAM Alert Label" allocation, purpose, or usage. Nevertheless, it
is RECOMMENDED that no further OAM extensions based on "OAM Alert
Label" (Label 14) usage be specified or developed.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Compatibility</span>
Procedures for handling a packet received with an invalid incoming
label are specified in <a href="./rfc3031">RFC 3031</a> [<a href="./rfc3031" title=""Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture"">RFC3031</a>].
An LER, LSR, or PE MUST discard received associated channel packets
on which all of the MPLS or PW labels have been popped if any one of
the following conditions is true:
o It is not capable of processing packets on the Channel Type
indicated by the ACH of the received packet.
o It has not, through means outside the scope of this document,
indicated to the sending LSR, LER, or PE that it will process
associated channel packets on the Channel Type indicated by the
ACH of the received packet.
o The packet is received on an Experimental Channel Type that is
locally disabled.
o If the ACH was indicated by the presence of a GAL, and the first
nibble of the ACH of the received packet is not 0001b.
o The ACH version is not recognized.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
In addition, the LER, LSR, or PE MAY increment an error counter and
MAY also issue a system and/or Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP) notification.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Congestion Considerations</span>
The congestion considerations detailed in <a href="./rfc5085">RFC 5085</a> [<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>] apply.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Major Contributing Authors</span>
The editors would like to thank George Swallow, David Ward, and Rahul
Aggarwal who made a major contribution to the development of this
document.
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com
David Ward
Cisco Systems
Email: dward@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
Email: rahul@juniper.net
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Sami Boutros,
Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, Lieven Levrau, and Siva Sivabalan.
The authors would also like to thank Malcolm Betts, ITU-T Study Group
15, and all members of the teams (the Joint Working Team, the MPLS
Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Team in
ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of the MPLS
Transport Profile.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The security considerations for the associated control channel are
described in <a href="./rfc4385">RFC 4385</a> [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>]. Further security considerations
MUST be described in the relevant associated channel type
specification.
<a href="./rfc5085">RFC 5085</a> [<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>] provides data plane related security
considerations. These also apply to a G-ACh, whether the alert
mechanism uses a GAL or only an ACH.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA allocated label value 13 to the GAL from the pool of reserved
labels in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
Label Values" registry.
Channel Types for the Associated Channel Header are allocated from
the IANA "PW Associated Channel Type" registry [<a href="./rfc4446" title=""IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"">RFC4446</a>]. The PW
Associated Channel Type registry is currently allocated based on the
IETF consensus process (termed "IETF Review" in [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>]). This
allocation process was chosen based on the consensus reached in the
PWE3 working group that pseudowire associated channel mechanisms
should be reviewed by the IETF and only those that are consistent
with the PWE3 architecture and requirements should be allocated a
code point.
However, a requirement has emerged (see [<a href="#ref-OAM-REQ" title=""Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks"">OAM-REQ</a>]) to allow for
optimizations or extensions to OAM and other control protocols
running in an associated channel to be experimented without resorting
to the IETF standards process, by supporting experimental code
points. This would prevent code points used for such functions from
being used from the range allocated through the IETF standards and
thus protects an installed base of equipment from potential
inadvertent overloading of code points. In order to support this
requirement, IANA has changed the code point allocation scheme for
the PW Associated Channel Type be changed as follows:
0 - 32751 : IETF Review
32760 - 32767 : Experimental
Code points in the experimental range MUST be used according to the
guidelines of <a href="./rfc3692">RFC 3692</a> [<a href="./rfc3692" title=""Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful"">RFC3692</a>]. Functions using experimental G-ACh
code points MUST be disabled by default. The Channel Type value used
for a given experimental OAM function MUST be configurable, and care
MUST be taken to ensure that different OAM functions that are not
inter-operable are configured to use different Channel Type values.
The PW Associated Channel Type registry has been updated to include a
column indicating whether the ACH is followed by a ACH TLV header
(Yes/No). There are two ACH Channel Type code-points currently
assigned and in both cases no ACH TLV header is used. Thus, the new
format of the PW Channel Type registry is:
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
Registry:
Value Description TLV Follows Reference
----- ---------------------------- ----------- ---------
0x21 ACH carries an IPv4 packet No [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>]
0x57 ACH carries an IPv6 packet No [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>]
Figure 9: PW Channel Type Registry
IANA created a new registry called the Associated Channel Header TLV
Registry. The allocation policy for this registry is IETF review.
This registry MUST record the following information. There are no
initial entries.
Name Type Length Description Reference
(octets)
Figure 10: ACH TLV Registry
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3031">RFC3031</a>] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", <a href="./rfc3031">RFC 3031</a>, January 2001.
[<a id="ref-RFC3032">RFC3032</a>] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, January 2001.
[<a id="ref-RFC3443">RFC3443</a>] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
<a href="./rfc3443">RFC 3443</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3692">RFC3692</a>] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp82">BCP 82</a>, <a href="./rfc3692">RFC 3692</a>, January 2004.
[<a id="ref-RFC4385">RFC4385</a>] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word
for Use over an MPLS PSN", <a href="./rfc4385">RFC 4385</a>, February 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4446">RFC4446</a>] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp116">BCP 116</a>, <a href="./rfc4446">RFC 4446</a>, April 2006.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5085">RFC5085</a>] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", <a href="./rfc5085">RFC 5085</a>, December 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
May 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5462">RFC5462</a>] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed
to "Traffic Class" Field", <a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a>, February 2009.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-BFD-MPLS">BFD-MPLS</a>] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"BFD For MPLS LSPs", Work in Progress, June 2008.
[<a id="ref-BFD-VCCV">BFD-VCCV</a>] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", Work in Progress,
May 2009.
[<a id="ref-G805">G805</a>] International Telecommunication Union, "Generic
Functional Architecture of Transport Networks", ITU-
T G.805, March 2000.
[<a id="ref-MPLS-TP">MPLS-TP</a>] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and L. Levrau, "A Framework for
MPLS in Transport Networks", Work in Progress,
November 2008.
[<a id="ref-OAM-REQ">OAM-REQ</a>] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
"Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", Work
in Progress, March 2009.
[<a id="ref-RFC3429">RFC3429</a>] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", <a href="./rfc3429">RFC 3429</a>,
November 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC4379">RFC4379</a>] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", <a href="./rfc4379">RFC 4379</a>,
February 2006.
[<a id="ref-TP-REQ">TP-REQ</a>] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M.,
Ed., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements",
Work in Progress, May 2009.
<span class="grey">Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5586">RFC 5586</a> G-ACh and GAL June 2009</span>
Authors' Addresses
Matthew Bocci (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ
UK
EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
Martin Vigoureux (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Villejust
Nozay, 91620
France
EMail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Stewart Bryant (editor)
Cisco Systems
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com
Bocci, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
</pre>
|
