Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://mirror.msu.net/pub/rfc-editor/rfc-ed-all/rfc5950.txt Дата изменения: Tue Sep 14 22:37:30 2010 Дата индексирования: Mon Oct 1 22:59:49 2012 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: m 13

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Mansfield, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5950 E. Gray, Ed.
Category: Informational Ericsson
ISSN: 2070-1721 K. Lam, Ed.
Alcatel-Lucent
September 2010


Network Management Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks

Abstract

This document provides the network management framework for the
Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).

This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to
describe the management architecture that could be used for an MPLS-
TP management network.

The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on multi-tiered
distributed management systems. This document provides a description
of the network and element management architectures that could be
applied and also describes heuristics associated with fault,
configuration, and performance aspects of the management system.

This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

Status of This Memo

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5950.





Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 1]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2010 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Network Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Element Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Standard Management Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Management- and Control-Specific Terminology . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Management Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Alarm Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. LSP Ownership Handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17














Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 2]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


1. Introduction

This document provides the network management framework for the
Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
Requirements for network management in an MPLS-TP network are
documented in "Network Management Requirements for MPLS-based
Transport Networks" [3], and this document explains how network
elements and networks that support MPLS-TP can be managed using
solutions that satisfy those requirements. The relationship between
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), management, and
other framework documents is described in the MPLS-TP framework [4]
document.

This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

1.1. Terminology

This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to
describe the management architecture that could be used for an
MPLS-TP management network. The terminology listed below are taken
from/based on the definitions found in ITU-T G.7710 [6], ITU-T G.7712
[7], and ITU-T M.3013 [13].

o Communication Channel (CCh): A logical channel between network
elements (NEs) that can be used in (for example) management plane
applications or control plane applications. For MPLS-TP, the
physical channel supporting the CCh is the MPLS-TP Management
Communication Channel (MCC).

o Data Communication Network (DCN): A network that supports Layer 1
(physical), Layer 2 (data-link), and Layer 3 (network)
functionality for distributed management communications related to
the management plane, for distributed signaling communications
related to the control plane, and other operations communications
(e.g., order-wire/voice communications, software downloads, etc.).
See ITU-T G.7712 [7].

o Equipment Management Function (EMF): The management functions
within an NE. See ITU-T G.7710 [6].

o Local Craft Terminal (LCT): An out-of-band device that connects to
an NE for management purposes. See ITU-T G.7710 [6].





Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 3]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


o Label Switched Path (LSP): An MPLS-TP LSP is an LSP that uses a
subset of the capabilities of an MPLS LSP in order to meet the
requirements of an MPLS transport network as described in the
MPLS-TP framework [4].

o Management Application Function (MAF): An application process that
participates in system management. See ITU-T G.7710 [6].

o Management Communication Channel (MCC): A CCh dedicated for
management plane communications. See ITU-T G.7712 [7].

o Message Communication Function (MCF): The communications process
that performs functions such as information interchange and relay.
See ITU-T M.3013 [13].

o Management Communication Network (MCN): A DCN supporting
management plane communication is referred to as a Management
Communication Network (MCN). See ITU-T G.7712 [7].

o MPLS-TP NE: A network element (NE) that supports MPLS-TP
functions. Another term that is used for a network element is
node. In terms of this document, the term node is equivalent to
NE.

o MPLS-TP network: A network in which MPLS-TP NEs are deployed.

o Network Element Function (NEF): The set of functions necessary to
manage a network element. See ITU-T M.3010 [11].

o Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM): For the MPLS-TP
effort the term OAM means the set of tools that consist of
"operation" activities that are undertaken to keep the network up
and running, "administration" activities that keep track of
resources in the network and how they are used, and "maintenance"
activities that facilitate repairs and upgrades. For a complete
expansion of the acronym, see "The OAM Acronym Soup" [15].

o Operations System (OS): A system that performs the functions that
support processing of information related to operations,
administration, maintenance, and provisioning (OAM&P) (see "The
OAM Acronym Soup" [15]) for the networks, including surveillance
and testing functions to support customer access maintenance. See
ITU-T M.3010 [11].

o Signaling Communication Network (SCN): A DCN supporting control
plane communication is referred to as a Signaling Communication
Network (SCN). See ITU-T G.7712 [7].




Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 4]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


o Signaling Communication Channel (SCC): A CCh dedicated for control
plane communications. The SCC may be used for GMPLS/ASON
signaling and/or other control plane messages (e.g., routing
messages). See ITU-T G.7712 [7].

2. Management Architecture

The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on a multi-
tiered distributed management systems, for example as described in
ITU-T M.3010 [11] and ITU-T M.3060/Y.2401 [12]. Each tier provides a
predefined level of network management capabilities. The lowest tier
of this organization model includes the MPLS-TP network element that
provides the transport service and the Operations System (OS) at the
Element Management Level. The Management Application Function (MAF)
within the NEs and OSs provides the management support. The MAF at
each entity can include agents only, managers only, or both agents
and managers. The MAF that includes managers is capable of managing
an agent included in other MAF.

The management communication to peer NEs and/or OSs is provided via
the Message Communication Function (MCF) within each entity (e.g., NE
and OS). The user can access the management of the MPLS-TP transport
network via a Local Craft Terminal (LCT) attached to the NE or via a
Work Station (WS) attached to the OS.

2.1. Network Management Architecture

A transport Management Network (MN) may consist of several transport-
technology-specific Management Networks. Management network
partitioning (Figure 1) below (based on ITU-T G.7710 [6]) shows the
management network partitioning. Notation used in G.7710 for a
transport-technology-specific MN is x.MN, where x is the transport-
specific technology. An MPLS-TP-specific MN is abbreviated as MT.MN.
Where there is no ambiguity, we will use "MN" for an MPLS-TP-specific
MN. In the figure below, O.MSN is equivalent to an OTN management
Subnetwork.















Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 5]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


______________________________ _________________________________
|.-------.-------.----.-------.||.--------.--------.----.--------.|
|: : : : :||: : : : :|
|:O.MSN-1:O.MSN-2: .. :O.MSN-n:||:MT.MSN-1:MT.MSN-2: .. :MT.MSN-n:|
|: : : : :||: : : : :|
'-============================-''-===============================-'
_______________________________
|.-------.-------.-----.-------.|
|: : : : :|
|:x.MSN-1:x.MSN-2: ... :x.MSN-n:|
|: : : : :|
'-=============================-'

Management Network Partitioning

Figure 1

The management of the MPLS-TP network is separable from the
management of the other technology-specific networks, and it operates
independently of any particular client- or server-layer management
plane.

An MPLS-TP Management Network (MT.MN) could be partitioned into
MPLS-TP Management SubNetworks ("MT.MSN" or "MPLS-TP MSN", or just
"MSN" where usage is unambiguous) for consideration of scalability
(e.g., geographic or load balancing) or administration (e.g.,
operation or ownership).

The MPLS-TP MSN could be connected to other parts of the MN through
one or more LCTs and/or OSs. The Message Communication Function
(MCF) of an MPLS-TP NE initiates/terminates, routes, or otherwise
processes management messages over CChs or via an external interface.

Multiple addressable MPLS-TP NEs could be present at a single
physical location (i.e., site or office). The inter-site
communications link between the MPLS-TP NEs will normally be provided
by the CChs. Within a particular site, the NEs could communicate via
an intra-site CCh or via a LAN.

2.2. Element Management Architecture

The Equipment Management Function (EMF) of an MPLS-TP NE provides the
means through which a management system manages the NE.

The EMF interacts with the NE's transport functions by exchanging
Management Information (MI) across the Management Point (MP)
Reference Points. The EMF may contain a number of functions that




Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 6]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


provide a data reduction mechanism on the information received across
the MP Reference Points.

The EMF includes functions such as Date and Time, FCAPS (Fault,
Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security) management, and
Control Plane functions. The EMF provides event message processing,
data storage, and logging. The management Agent, a component of the
EMF, converts internal management information (MI signals) into
Management Application messages and vice versa. The Agent responds
to Management Application messages from the Message Communication
Function (MCF) by performing the appropriate operations on (for
example) the Managed Objects in a Management Information Base (MIB),
as necessary. The MCF contains communications functions related to
the world outside of the NE (i.e., Date and Time source, Management
Plane, Control Plane, Local Craft Terminal, and Local Alarms).

The Date and Time functions keep track of the NE's date/time, which
is used by the FCAPS management functions to e.g., time stamp event
reports.

Below are diagrams that illustrate the components of the Equipment
Management Function (EMF) of a Network Element (NE). The high-level
decomposition of the Network Element Function (NEF) picture
(Figure 2) provides the breakdown of the NEF, then the EMF picture
(Figure 3) provides the details of Equipment Management Function, and
finally the Message Communication Function (MCF) picture (Figure 4)
details the MCF.
























Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 7]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


____________________________________________________
| Network Element Function (NEF) |
| _________________________________________ |
|| | |
|| Transport Plane Atomic Functions | |
||_________________________________________| |
| | |
| | Management |
| | Information |
| ___________________|_________________ |
| | (from date/time)<-----------+ |
| | Equipment | | |
| | Management (to/from management)<--------+ | |
| | Function | | | |
| | (EMF) (to/from control)<-----+ | | |
| | | | | | |
| | (to local alarm)---+ | | | |
| |_____________________________________| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| +--------------------------------------+ | | | |
| | +---------------------------------------+ | | |
| | | +----------------------------------------+ | |
| | | | +-----------------------------------------+ |external
| | | | | Date & Time _________________ |time
| | | | | Interface | Message | |source
| | | | +-------------- Communication <-----------------------
| | | | | Function (MCF) | |
| | | | Management | | |management
| | | +----------------> | |plane
| | | Plane Interface <---------------------->
| | | | | |local
| | | | | |craft
| | | Control Plane | | |terminal
| | +------------------> <---------------------->
| | Interface | | |control
| | | | |plane
| | Local Alarm | <---------------------->
| +--------------------> | |
| Interface | | |to local
| | | |alarms
| |_________________--------------------->
|____________________________________________________|

High-Level Decomposition of NEF

Figure 2





Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 8]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


______________________________________________________
| _______________________________________ |
| Equipment | Management Application ||
| Management | Function (MAF) ||
| Function | _________________ ||
| (EMF) || | __________________||
| ___________||_______________ | | ||
| | | | | Date & Time ||
| | Date & Time Functions | | | Interface ||<-- 1
| |____________________________| | |__________________||
| ___________||_______________ | __________________||
| | | | | ||
| | Fault Management | | | Management ||
| |____________________________| | | Plane Interface ||<-> 2
| ___________||_______________ | |__________________||
| | | | ||
| | Configuration Management | | __________________||
| |____________________________| | | ||
| ___________||_______________ | | Control ||
| | | | | Plane Interface ||<-> 3
| | Account Management | | |__________________||
| |____________________________| | ||
| ___________||_______________ | ||
| | | | ||
| | Performance Management | | ||
| |____________________________| | ||
| ___________||_______________ | ||
| | | | ||
| | Security Management | | ||
| |____________________________| | ||
| ___________||_______________ | ||
| | | | ||
| | Control Plane Function | | ||
| |____________________________| | ||
| || | __________________||
| || | | ||
| || | | Local Alarm ||
| +----->| Agent | | Interface ||--> 4
| v ||_________________| |__________________||
| .-===-. |_______________________________________||
| | MIB | |
| `-._.-' |
|______________________________________________________|

Equipment Management Function

Figure 3




Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 9]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


_________________
| |
| Message |
| Communication |
| Function (MCF) |
| _______________ |
Date & Time || || external
1 <--------------|| Date & Time ||<--------------
Information || Communication || time source
||_______________||
| |
| _______________ |
Management || || management
Plane || Management || plane
2 <------------->|| Plane ||<------------->
Information || Communication || (e.g. - EMS,
||_______________|| peer NE)
| |
| _______________ | control
Control Plane || || plane
3 <------------->|| Control Plane ||<------------->
Information || Communication || (e.g. - EMS,
||_______________|| peer NE)
| : |
| : | local craft
| : | terminal
| : |<------------->
| _______________ |
Local Alarm || || to local
4 -------------->|| Local Alarm ||-------------->
Information || Communication || alarms...
||_______________||
|_________________|

Message Communication Function

Figure 4

2.3. Standard Management Interfaces

The "Network Management Requirements for MPLS-based Transport
Networks" document [3] places no restriction on which management
interface is to be used for managing an MPLS-TP network. It is
possible to provision and manage an end-to-end connection across a
network where some segments are created/managed/deleted, for example
by NETCONF or SNMP and other segments by CORBA interfaces. Use of
any network management interface for one management-related purpose
does not preclude use of another network management interface for



Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 10]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


other management-related purposes, or the same purpose at another
time. The protocol(s) to be supported are at the discretion of the
operator.

2.4. Management- and Control-Specific Terminology

Data Communication Network (DCN) is the common term for the network
used to transport Management and Signaling information between:
management systems and network elements, management systems to other
management systems, and networks elements to other network elements.
The Management Communications Network (MCN) is the part of the DCN
that supports the transport of Management information for the
Management Plane. The Signaling Communications Network (SCN) is the
part of the DCN that supports transport of signaling information for
the Control Plane. As shown in , the communication channel
terminology picture (Figure 5) each technology has its own
terminology that is used for the channels that support the transfer
of management and control plane information. For MPLS-TP, the
management plane uses the Management Communication Channel (MCC), and
the control plane uses the Signaling Communication Channel (SCC).

2.5. Management Channel

The Communication Channel (CCh) provides a logical channel between
NEs for transferring Management and/or Signaling information. Note
that some technologies provide separate communication channels for
Management (MCC) and Signaling (SCC).

MPLS-TP NEs communicate via the DCN. The DCN connects NEs with
management systems, NEs with NEs, and management systems with
management systems.




















Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 11]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


Common Terminology ____
__________ __________ | |
| | | | /->| NE | \ ____
|Management| |Operations| / |____| \ | |
|Station | <---> |System | |(CCh) | NE |
|__________| |__________| \ _|__ / |____|
\->| | /
| NE |
|____|
Network Elements use a Communication
Channel (CCh) for Transport of Information

Management Terminology ____
__________ __________ | |
| | | | /->| NE | \ ____
|Management| |Operations| / |____| \ | |
|Station | <---> |System | |(MCC) | NE |
|__________| |__________| \ _|__ / |____|
\->| | /
| NE |
|____|
Network Elements use a Management
Communication Channel (MCC) for Transport
of Management Information

Control Terminology ____
__________ __________ | |
| | | | /->| NE | \ ____
|Management| |Operations| / |____| \ | |
|Station | <---> |System | |(SCC) | NE |
|__________| |__________| \ _|__ / |____|
\->| | /
| NE |
|____|
Network Elements use a Control/Signaling
Communication Channel (SCC) for Transport
of Signaling Information

Communication Channel Terminology

Figure 5










Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 12]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


3. Fault Management

A fault is the inability of a function to perform a required action.
This does not include an inability due to preventive maintenance,
lack of external resources, or planned actions. Fault management
provides the mechanisms to detect, verify, isolate, notify, and
recover from the fault.

3.1. Supervision

ITU-T G.7710 [6] lists five basic categories of supervision that
provide the functionality necessary to detect, verify, and notify a
fault. The categories are: Transmission Supervision, Quality of
Service Supervision, Processing Supervision, Hardware Supervision,
and Environment Supervision. Each of the categories provides a set
of recommendations to ensure that the fault management process is
fulfilled.

3.2. Validation

ITU-T G.7710 [6] describes a fault cause as a limited interruption of
the required function. It is not reasonable for every fault cause to
be reported to maintenance personnel. The validation process is used
to turn fault causes (events) into failures (alarms).

3.3. Alarm Handling

Within an element management system, it is important to consider
mechanisms to support severity assignment, alarm reporting control,
and logging.

4. Configuration Management

Configuration management provides the mechanisms to:

o provision the MPLS-TP services

o set up security for the MPLS-TP services and MPLS-TP network
elements

o provide the destination for fault notifications and performance
parameters

o configure and control OAM

Also associated with configuration management are hardware and
software provisioning and inventory reporting.




Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 13]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


4.1. LSP Ownership Handover

MPLS-TP networks can be managed not only by Network Management
Systems (i.e., Management Plane (MP)), but also by Control Plane (CP)
protocols. The utilization of the control plane is not a mandatory
requirement (see MPLS-TP Requirements [2]), but it is often used by
network operators in order to make network configuration and Label
Switched Path (LSP) recovery both faster and simpler.

In networks where both CP and MP are provided, an LSP could be
created by either (CP or MP). The entity creating an LSP owns the
data plane resources comprising that LSP. Only the owner of an LSP
is typically able to modify/delete it. This results in a need for
interaction between the MP and CP to allow either to manage all the
resources of a network.

Network operators might prefer to have full control of the network
resources during the set-up phase and then allow the network to be
automatically maintained by the Control Plane. This can be achieved
by creating LSPs via the Management Plane and subsequently
transferring LSP ownership to the Control Plane. This is referred to
as "ownership handover" RFC 5493 [10]. MP to CP ownership handover
is then considered a requirement where a Control Plane is in use that
supports it. The converse (CP to MP ownership handover) is a feature
that is recommended -- but not required -- for (G)MPLS networks
because it has only minor applications (for example, moving LSPs from
one path to another as a maintenance operation).

The LSP handover procedure has already been standardized for GMPLS
networks, where the signaling protocol used is RSVP-TE (RFC 3209
[1]). The utilization of RSVP-TE enhancements are defined in [5].

MP and CP interworking also includes the exchange of information that
is either requested by the MP, or a notification by the CP as a
consequence of a request from the MP or an automatic action (for
example, a failure occurs or an operation is performed). The CP is
asked to notify the MP in a reliable manner about the status of the
operations it performs and to provide a mechanism to monitor the
status of Control Plane objects (e.g., TE Link status, available
resources), and to log operations related to Control Plane LSP.
Logging is one of the most critical aspects because the MP always
needs to have an accurate history and status of each LSP and all Data
Plane resources involved in it.








Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 14]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


5. Performance Management

Performance statistics could overwhelm a Management Network, so it is
important to provide flexible instrumentation that enables control
over the amount of performance data to be collected. Mechanisms for
limiting the quantity of information collected are well known and
deployed in IETF standards (see RFC 2819 (RMON) [8] and RFC 4502
(RMON2) [9]). The details of the performance data collected
(including loss and delay measurement data) are found in the "Network
Management Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks" document
[3].

A distinction is made between performance data that is collected on-
demand and data that is collected proactively. The definitions of
on-demand and proactive measurement are provided for OAM in the
"Network Management Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks"
document [3].

On-demand measurement provides the operator with the ability to do
performance measurement for maintenance purpose, such as diagnosis or
to provide detailed verification of proactive measurement. It is
used typically on specific LSP service instances for a limited time,
thus limiting its impact on network performance under normal
operations. Therefore, on-demand measurement does not result in
scaling issues.

Proactive measurement is used continuously over time after being
configured with periodicity and storage information. Data collected
from proactive measurement are usually used for verifying the
performance of the service. Proactive performance monitoring has the
potential to overwhelm both the process of collecting performance
data at a network element (for some arbitrary number of service
instances traversing the NE), and the process of reporting this
information to the OS. As a consequence of these considerations,
operators would typically limit the services to which proactive
performance measurement would be applied to a very selective subset
of the services being provided and would limit the reporting of this
information to statistical summaries (as opposed to raw or detailed
performance statistics).

6. Acknowledgements

The authors/editors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful review,
comments and explanations provided by Diego Caviglia, Bernd Zeuner
and Dan Romascanu.






Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 15]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


7. Security Considerations

The ability for the authorized network operator to access EMF
interfaces (Section 2.3) when needed is critical to proper operation.
Therefore, the EMF interfaces need to be protected from denial-of-
service conditions or attack. The EMF interfaces that use or access
private information should be protected from eavesdropping, mis-
configuration, and/or mal-configuration by unauthorized network
elements, systems, or users.

Performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization
involves extracting a significant amount of information about network
construction that the network operator considers private.

Section 4.3 of the "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks"
document [14] provides a description of the attacks on the Operation
and Management Plane and also discusses the background necessary to
understand security practices in Internet Service Provider
environments. The security practices described are applicable to
MPLS-TP environments.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[1] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and
G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001.

[2] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and
S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654,
September 2009.

[3] Lam, K., Mansfield, S., and E. Gray, "Network Management
Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC 5951,
September 2010.

[4] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A
Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.

[5] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and S.
Bardalai, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for LSP Handover from
the Management Plane to the Control Plane in a GMPLS-Enabled
Transport Network", RFC 5852, April 2010.

[6] International Telecommunication Union, "Common equipment
management function requirements", ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/
Y.1701, July 2007.



Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 16]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


[7] International Telecommunication Union, "Architecture and
specification of data communication network",
ITU-T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, June 2008.

8.2. Informative References

[8] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.

[9] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006.

[10] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan,
"Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections
and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493, April 2009.

[11] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for a
telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3010, April 2005.

[12] International Telecommunication Union, "Principles for the
Management of Next Generation Networks", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3060/Y.2401, March 2006.

[13] International Telecommunication Union, "Considerations for a
telecommunication management network", ITU-T Recommendation
M.3013, February 2000.

[14] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
RFC 5920, July 2010.

[15] Andersson, L., Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu, D., and S.
Mansfield, ""The OAM Acronym Soup"", Work in progress,
June 2010.
















Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 17]

RFC 5950 NM Framework for MPLS-based Transport September 2010


Authors' Addresses

Scott Mansfield (editor)
Ericsson
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US

Phone: +1 724 931 9316
Email: scott.mansfield@ericsson.com


Eric Gray (editor)
Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
US

Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com


Hing-Kam Lam (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
600-700 Mountain Ave
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
US

Phone: +1 908 582 0672
Email: Kam.Lam@alcatel-lucent.com





















Mansfield, et al. Informational [Page 18]