MPLS Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     E. Bellagamba
Internet-Draft
Intended status:
Request for Comments: 7759
Category: Standards Track                                      G. Mirsky
Expires: May 26, 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Ericsson
                                                            L. Andersson
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           P. Skoldstrom
                                                                Acreo AB
                                                                 D. Ward
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                J. Drake
                                                                 Juniper
                                                       November 23, 2015
                                                           February 2016

                 Configuration of Proactive Operations,
     Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based MPLS-Based
        Transport Networks using LSP Using Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
              draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-16

Abstract

   This specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP
   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions functions for a
   given Label Switched Path (LSP) using a set of TLVs that are carried
   by the LSP-Ping LSP Ping protocol.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list  It represents the consensus of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 26, 2016.
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7759.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 2016 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 ....................................................3
      1.1. Conventions used Used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   4 This Document ..........................4
           1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4 .........................................4
           1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5 ...............................5
   2. Theory of Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5 ............................................5
      2.1. MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview . . . . . . . .   5 ..................5
           2.1.1. Configuration of BFD Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . .   5 .......................5
           2.1.2. Configuration of Performance Monitoring . . . . . . .   6 .............6
           2.1.3. Configuration of Fault Management Signals . . . . . .   6 ...........6
      2.2. MPLS OAM Functions TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7 .....................................7
           2.2.1. BFD Configuration Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 ...........................9
           2.2.2. BFD Local Discriminator Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11 ....................11
           2.2.3. BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . .  11 ...........11
           2.2.4. BFD Authentication Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12 .........................13
           2.2.5. Traffic Class Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13 ..............................14
           2.2.6. Performance Measurement Monitoring Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . .  14 .....................14
           2.2.7. PM Loss Measurement Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16 ........................17
           2.2.8. PM Delay Measurement Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17 .......................18
           2.2.9. Fault Management Signal Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . .  18 ....................20
           2.2.10. Source MEP-ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20 .............................21
   3. Summary of MPLS OAM Configuration Errors  . . . . . . . . . .  20 .......................22
   4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22 ............................................23
      4.1. TLV and Sub-TLV Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22 ................................23
      4.2. MPLS OAM Function Flags Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . .  23 ........................24
      4.3. OAM Configuration Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23 ..................................25
   5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24 ........................................26
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.1. .....................................................26
      6.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.2. ......................................26
      6.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26 ....................................27
   Acknowledgements  .................................................28
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27 ................................................29

1.  Introduction

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes a profile of MPLS that
   enables operational models typical in transport networks, networks while
   providing additional Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
   (OAM), survivability survivability, and other maintenance functions not currently
   supported by MPLS.  [RFC5860] defines the requirements for the OAM
   functionality of MPLS-TP.

   This document describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP OAM
   Functions
   functions for a given Label Switched Path (LSP) using TLVs carried in
   LSP Ping [RFC4379].  In particular particular, it specifies the mechanisms
   necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points
   for monitoring and performing measurements on an LSP, as well as
   defining information elements and procedures to configure proactive
   MPLS-TP OAM functions running between LERs. Label Edge Routers (LERs).
   Initialization and control of on-demand MPLS-TP OAM functions are
   expected to be carried out by directly accessing network nodes via a
   management interface;
   hence hence, configuration and control of on-demand
   OAM functions are out-
   of-scope out of scope for this document.

   The Transport Profile of MPLS must, by definition [RFC5654], be
   capable of operating without a control plane.  Therefore  Therefore, there are
   several a
   few options for configuring MPLS-TP OAM, OAM: without a control plane
   by either
   using an NMS or a Network Management System (NMS), implementing LSP Ping, Ping
   instead or with a control plane using implementing extensions to signaling
   protocols RSVP Traffic engineering Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC3209] and/
   or and/or
   Targeted LDP [RFC5036].

   Proactive MPLS-TP OAM is performed by a set of protocols, Bi-
   directional protocols:
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC6428] for Continuity
   Check/Connectivity Verification, the delay measurement protocol Delay Measurement (DM) protocol
   [RFC6374], [RFC6375] for delay and delay variation (jitter)
   measurements, and the loss measurement Loss Measurement (LM) protocol [RFC6374],
   [RFC6375] for packet loss and throughput measurements.  Additionally,
   there is are a number of Fault Management Signals that can be configured
   [RFC6427].

   BFD is a protocol that provides low-overhead, fast detection of
   failures in the path between two forwarding engines, including the
   interfaces, data link(s), and, and to the extent possible, the forwarding
   engines themselves.  BFD can be used to detect the continuity and
   mis-connection defects of MPLS-TP point-to-point and might also be
   extended to support point-to-multipoint label switched paths (LSPs). LSPs.

   The delay and loss measurements protocols [RFC6374] and [RFC6375] use
   a simple query/response model for performing both uni- unidirectional and bi-
   directional
   bidirectional measurements that allow the originating node to measure
   packet loss and delay in forward forward, or forward and reverse directions.
   By timestamping and/or writing current packet counters to the
   measurement packets (four times, Transmit and Receive in both
   directions), current delays and packet losses can be calculated.  By
   performing successive delay measurements, the delay and/or inter-
   packet delay variation (jitter) can be calculated.  Current
   throughput can be calculated from the packet loss measurements by
   dividing the number of packets sent/received with the time it took to
   perform the measurement, given by the timestamp in the LM header.
   Combined with a packet generator generator, the throughput measurement can be
   used to measure the maximum capacity of a particular LSP.  It should
   be noted that this document does not specify how to configure on-
   demand throughput estimates based on saturating the connection as
   defined in [RFC6371].  Rather, [RFC6371]; rather, it only specifies how to enable the
   estimation of the current throughput based on loss measurements.

1.1.  Conventions used Used in this document This Document

1.1.1.  Terminology

   BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   DM - Delay Measurement

   FMS - Fault Management Signal

   G-ACh - Generic Associated Channel

   LSP - Label Switched Path

   LM - Loss Measurement

   MEP - Maintenance Entity Group End Point

   MPLS - Multi-Protocol Label Switching

   MPLS-TP - MPLS Transport Profile

   NMS - Network management Management System

   PM - Performance Measurement Monitoring

   RSVP-TE - RSVP Traffic Engineering

   TC - Traffic Class

1.1.2.  Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Theory of Operations

2.1.  MPLS OAM Configuration Operation Overview

   The MPLS-TP OAM tool set is described in the [RFC6669].

   LSP Ping, or alternatively RSVP-TE [RFC7487], can be used to simply easily
   enable the different OAM functions, functions by setting the corresponding flags
   in the MPLS OAM Functions TLV (refer to Section 2.2).  For a more
   detailed configuration, one may include sub-TLVs for the different
   OAM functions in order to specify various parameters in detail.

   Typically

   Typically, intermediate nodes simply forward OAM configuration TLVs
   to the end-node end node without any processing or modification.  At least one
   exception to this is if the FMS sub-TLV (refer to Section 2.2.9 ) is
   present.  This sub-TLV MUST be examined even by intermediate nodes
   that support this extension.  The sub-TLV MAY be present if a flag is
   set in the MPLS OAM Functions TLV.

2.1.1.  Configuration of BFD Sessions

   For this specification, BFD MUST run in either one of the two modes:

      -

   o  Asynchronous mode, where both sides are in active mode

      -

   o  Unidirectional mode

   In the simplest scenario, LSP Ping [RFC5884], or alternatively RSVP-
   TE [RFC7487], is used only to bootstrap a BFD session for an LSP,
   without any timer negotiation.

   Timer negotiation can be performed either in subsequent BFD control
   messages (in this case the operation is similar to bootstrapping
   based on LSP Ping based
   bootstrapping described in [RFC5884]) [RFC5884]), or directly in the LSP-Ping LSP
   Ping configuration messages.

   When BFD Control packets are transported in the ACH Associated Channel
   Header (ACH) encapsulation, they are not protected by any end-to-end checksum,
   checksum; only lower-layers
   are providing lower layers provide error detection/correction.  A
   single bit error, e.g. e.g., a flipped bit in the BFD State field field, could
   cause the receiving end to wrongly conclude that the link is down and
   in turn trigger protection switching.  To prevent this from
   happening, the BFD Configuration sub-TLV (refer to Section 2.2.1) has
   an Integrity flag that that, when set set, enables BFD Authentication using
   Keyed SHA1 with an empty key (all 0s) [RFC5880].  This would make
   every BFD Control packet carry an a SHA1 hash of itself that can be used
   to detect errors.

   If BFD Authentication using a pre-shared key/password is desired
   (i.e.
   (i.e., authentication and not only error detection), the BFD
   Authentication sub-TLV (refer to Section 2.2.4) MUST be included in
   the BFD Configuration sub-TLV.  The BFD Authentication sub-TLV is
   used to specify which authentication method that should be used and
   which pre-shared key/ password key/password that should be used for this particular
   session.  How the key exchange is performed is out of scope of this
   document.

2.1.2.  Configuration of Performance Monitoring

   It is possible to configure Performance Monitoring functionalities
   such as Loss, Delay, Delay/Interpacket Delay variation (jitter), and
   Throughput
   throughput as described in [RFC6374].

   When configuring Performance Monitoring functionalities, it is
   possible to choose either the default configuration, by only setting
   the respective flags in the MPLS OAM functions TLV, or a customized
   configuration.  To customize the configuration, one would set the
   respective flags in the MPLS OAM functions TLV and include the
   respective Loss and/or Delay sub-TLVs.

   By setting the PM Loss flag in the MPLS OAM Functions TLV and
   including the PM Loss sub-TLV (refer to Section 2.2.7) 2.2.7), one can
   configure the measurement interval and loss threshold values for
   triggering protection.

   Delay measurements are configured by setting the PM Delay flag in the
   MPLS OAM Functions TLV and by including the PM Delay sub-TLV (refer
   to Section 2.2.8) 2.2.8), one can configure the measurement interval and the
   delay threshold values for triggering protection.

2.1.3.  Configuration of Fault Management Signals

   To configure Fault Management Signals (FMS) (FMSs) and their refresh time,
   the FMS flag Flag in the MPLS OAM Functions TLV MUST be set and the FMS
   sub-TLV MUST be included.  When configuring an FMS, an implementation
   can enable the default configuration by setting the FMS flag Flag in the
   OAM Function Flags sub-TLV.  In order to modify the default
   configuration, the MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV MUST be included.

   If an intermediate point is meant to originate fault management
   signal FMS messages, this
   means that such an intermediate point is associated with a Server MEP
   through a co-located MPLS-TP client/
   server client/server adaptation function, and
   the Fault Management subscription flag in the MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV
   has been set as an indication of the request to create the
   association at each intermediate node of the client LSP.  The
   corresponding Server MEP needs to be configured by its own LSP-ping LSP Ping
   session or, alternatively, via a Network Management
   system System (NMS) or
   RSVP-TE.

2.2.  MPLS OAM Functions TLV

   The MPLS OAM Functions TLV presented in Figure 1 is carried as a TLV
   of the MPLS Echo Request/Reply messages [RFC4379].

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MPLS OAM Func. Type (TBA1) (27)     |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    MPLS OAM Function Flags                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 1: MPLS OAM Functions TLV format Format

   The MPLS OAM Functions TLV contains the MPLS OAM Function Flags
   field.  The MPLS OAM Function Flags indicates indicate which OAM functions
   should be activated as well as OAM function specific function-specific sub-TLVs with
   configuration parameters for the particular function.

   Type: indicates Indicates the MPLS OAM Functions TLV Section 4. (Section 4).

   Length: the The length of the MPLS OAM Function Flags field including the
   total length of the sub-TLVs in octets.

   MPLS OAM Function Flags: a A bitmap numbered from left to right as
   shown in the Figure 2.  These flags are managed by IANA (refer to
   Section 4.2).  Flags defined in this document are presented in
   Table 2.  Undefined flags MUST be set to zero and unknown flags MUST
   be ignored.  The flags indicate what OAM is being configured and
   direct the presence of optional sub-TLVs as set out 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |C|V|F|L|D|T|             Unassigned
   |C|V|F|L|D|T|Unassigned MUST be zero (MBZ)                    |R|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 2: MPLS OAM Function Flags format Format

   Sub-TLVs corresponding to the different flags are as follows.  No
   meaning should be attached to the order of sub-TLVs.

      -

   o  If a flag in the MPLS OAM Function Flags is set and the
      corresponding sub-TLVs listed below is are absent, then this MPLS OAM
      function MUST be initialized according to its default settings.
      Default settings of MPLS OAM functions are outside the scope of
      this document.

      -

   o  If any sub-TLV is present without the corresponding flag being
      set, the sub-TLV SHOULD be ignored.

      -

   o  BFD Configuration sub-TLV, which MUST be included if either the
      CC, the CV CV, or both MPLS OAM Function flags are being set in the
      MPLS OAM Functions TLV .

      - TLV.

   o  Performance Monitoring sub-TLV MUST be used to carry PM Loss
      sub-TLV sub-
      TLV and/or PM Delay sub-TLV.  If neither one of these sub-TLVs is present
      present, then Performance Monitoring sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be
      included.  Empty, i.e. i.e., no enclosed sub-TLVs, Performance
      Monitoring sub-TLV SHOULD be ignored.

      -

   o  PM Loss sub-TLV MAY be included if the PM/Loss OAM Function flag
      is set.  If the "PM Loss sub-TLV" is not included, default
      configuration values are used.  Such sub-TLV MAY also be included
      in case the Throughput function flag is set and there is the need
      to specify a measurement interval different from the default ones.
      In fact, the throughput measurement makes use of the same tool as
      the loss measurement, hence measurement; hence, the same TLV is used.

      -

   o  PM Delay sub-TLV MAY be included if the PM/Delay OAM Function flag
      is set.  If the "PM Delay sub-TLV" is not included, default
      configuration values are used.

      -

   o  FMS sub-TLV, which that MAY be included if the FMS OAM Function flag is
      set.  If the "FMS sub-TLV" is not included, default configuration
      values are used.

   If all flags in the MPLS OAM Function Flags field have the same value
   of zero, that MUST be interpreted as meaning that the MPLS OAM
   Functions TLV is not present in the MPLS Echo Request.  If more than
   one MPLS OAM Functions TLV is present in the MPLS Echo request
   packet, then the first TLV SHOULD be processed and the rest be ignored.
   Any parsing error within nested sub-TLVs that is not specified in
   Section 3 SHOULD be treated as described in [RFC4379].

2.2.1.  BFD Configuration Sub-TLV

   The BFD Configuration sub-TLV, depicted in Figure 3, is defined for
   BFD OAM specific OAM-specific configuration parameters.  The "BFD Configuration
   sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "OAM Functions TLV".

   This TLV accommodates generic BFD OAM information and carries 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | BFD Conf. sub-Type Sub-type    (100)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Vers.|N|S|I|G|U|B|         Reserved (set to all 0s)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 3: BFD Configuration sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the BFD Configuration sub-TLV
   (value 100).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets.

   Version: identifies Identifies the BFD protocol version.  If a node does not
   support a specific BFD version version, an error must be generated: "OAM
   Problem/Unsupported OAM BFD Version".

   BFD Negotiation (N): If set set, timer negotiation/re-negotiation negotiation/renegotiation via BFD
   Control Messages is enabled, when cleared enabled.  When cleared, it is disabled and timer
   configuration is achieved using the BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters
   sub-TLV as described in Section 2.2.3.

   Symmetric session (S): If set set, the BFD session MUST use symmetric
   timing values.  If cleared cleared, the BFD session MAY use any timing values
   either negotiated or explicitly configured.

   Integrity (I): If set set, BFD Authentication MUST be enabled.  If the
   BFD Configuration sub-TLV does not include a BFD Authentication sub-TLV sub-
   TLV, the authentication MUST use Keyed SHA1 with an empty pre-shared
   key (all 0s).  If the egress LSR does not support BFD Authentication Authentication,
   an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/BFD Authentication
   unsupported".  If the Integrity flag is clear, then Authentication
   MUST NOT be used.

   Encapsulation Capability (G): if If set, it shows the capability of
   encapsulating BFD messages into the G-ACh channel.  If both the G bit
   and U bit are set, configuration gives precedence to the G bit.

   Encapsulation Capability (U): if If set, it shows the capability of
   encapsulating BFD messages into IP/UDP packets.  If both the G bit
   and U bit are set, configuration gives precedence to the G bit.

   If the egress LSR does not support any of the ingress LSR
   Encapsulation Capabilities Capabilities, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/
   Unsupported BFD Encapsulation format".

   Bidirectional (B): if If set, it configures BFD in the Bidirectional
   mode.  If it is not set set, it configures BFD in the unidirectional
   mode.  In the second case, the source node does not expect any
   Discriminator values back from the destination node.

   Reserved: Reserved for future specification and specification; set to 0 on transmission
   and ignored when received.

   The BFD Configuration sub-TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs in
   the MPLS Echo Request message:

      -

   o  BFD Local Discriminator sub-TLV, if the B flag is set in the MPLS
      Echo Request;

      -

   o  BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV sub-TLV, if the N flag is
      cleared.

   The BFD Configuration sub-TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs in
   the MPLS Echo Reply message:

      -

   o  BFD Local Discriminator sub-TLV;

      -

   o  BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV if:

         - the

      *  The N and S flags are cleared, or if:

         - the

      *  The N flag is cleared and the S flag is set, and the BFD
         Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV received by the egress
         contains unsupported values.  In this case case, an updated BFD
         Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV, containing values
         supported by the egress node [RFC7419], is returned to the
         ingress.

2.2.2.  BFD Local Discriminator Sub-TLV

   The BFD Local Discriminator sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV of the
   "BFD Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted in Figure 4.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Locl. Discr. sub-Type Sub-type (101)  |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Local Discriminator                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 4: BFD Local Discriminator sub-TLV format

   Type: indicates Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: Indicates a new type, sub-type, the "Local "BFD Local Discriminator sub-TLV" sub-
   TLV" (value 101).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets . (4) (4).

   Local Discriminator: A nonzero discriminator value that is unique in
   the context of the transmitting system that generates it.  It is used
   to demultiplex multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of
   systems.

2.2.3.  BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters Sub-TLV

   The BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV
   of the BFD Configuration sub-TLV and is depicted in Figure 5.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Nego. Timer sub-type Sub-type (102)    |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Required Echo TX Interval                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 5: BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format
   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the BFD Negotiation Timer
   Parameters sub-TLV (value 102).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets (12).
   Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval: in case of If the S (symmetric) flag
   is set in the BFD Configuration sub-TLV, defined in Section 2.2.1, it
   expresses the desired time interval (in microseconds) at which the
   ingress LER intends to both transmit and receive BFD periodic control
   packets.  If the receiving edge LSR cannot support such a value, it
   SHOULD reply with an interval greater than the one proposed.

   In case of

   If the S (symmetric) flag is cleared in the BFD Configuration sub-
   TLV, this field expresses the desired time interval (in microseconds)
   at which a an edge LSR intends to transmit BFD periodic control packets
   in its transmitting direction.

   Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX interval: in case of If the S (symmetric) flag
   is set in the BFD Configuration sub-TLV, Figure 3, this field MUST be
   equal to Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX interval and has no
   additional meaning respect to the one described for "Acceptable Min.
   Asynchronous TX interval".

   In case of

   If the S (symmetric) flag is cleared in the BFD Configuration sub-
   TLV, it expresses the minimum time interval (in microseconds) at
   which edge LSRs can receive BFD periodic control packets.  In case  If this
   value is greater than the value of Acceptable Min. Asynchronous TX
   interval received from the other edge LSR, such an edge LSR MUST
   adopt the interval expressed in this Acceptable Min. Asynchronous RX
   interval.

   Required Echo TX Interval: the The minimum interval (in microseconds)
   between received BFD Echo packets that this system is capable of
   supporting, less any jitter applied by the sender as described in
   [RFC5880] sect. 6.8.9.
   Section 6.8.9 of [RFC5880].  This value is also an indication for the
   receiving system of the minimum interval between transmitted BFD Echo
   packets.  If this value is zero, the transmitting system does not
   support the receipt of BFD Echo packets.  If the receiving system
   cannot support this value value, the "Unsupported BFD TX Echo rate
   interval" error MUST be generated.  By default default, the value is set to
   0.

2.2.4.  BFD Authentication Sub-TLV

   The "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD
   Configuration sub-TLV" and is depicted in Figure 6.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    BFD Auth. sub-type Sub-type (103)   |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Auth Type   |  Auth Key ID  |         Reserved (0s)         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 6: BFD Authentication sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new type, sub-type, the BFD Authentication sub-TLV
   (value 103).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets (4).

   Auth Type: indicates Indicates which type of authentication to use.  The same
   values as are defined in section Section 4.1 of [RFC5880] are used.  Simple
   Password SHOULD NOT be used if other authentication types are
   available.

   Auth Key ID: indicates Indicates which authentication key or password
   (depending on Auth Type) should be used.  How the key exchange is
   performed is out of scope of this document.  If the egress LSR does
   not support this Auth Key ID ID, an "OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD
   Authentication Key ID" error MUST be generated.

   Reserved: Reserved for future specification and specification; set to 0 on transmission
   and ignored when received.

   An implementation MAY change the mode of authentication if an
   operator re-evaluates the security situation in and around the
   administrative domain.  If the BFD Authentication sub-TLV is used for
   a BFD session in Up state, then the Sender of the MPLS LSP Echo
   Request SHOULD ensure that old and new modes of authentication, i.e. i.e.,
   a combination of Auth.Type and Auth.  Key ID, are used to send and
   receive BFD control packets, until the Sender can confirm that its
   peer has switched to the new authentication.

2.2.5.  Traffic Class Sub-TLV

   The Traffic Class sub-TLV is carried as a sub-TLV of the "BFD
   Configuration sub-TLV" and "Fault Management Signal sub-TLV"
   Section 2.2.9 Sub-TLV"
   (Section 2.2.9) and is depicted in Figure 7.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Traffic Class sub-Type Sub-type (104)  |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  TC |                 Reserved (set to all 0s)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 7: Traffic Class sub-TLV format

   Type: indicates Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: Indicates a new type, sub-type, the "Traffic Class sub-TLV"
   (value 104).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets . (4) (4).

   TC: Identifies the Traffic Class (TC) [RFC5462] for periodic
   continuity monitoring messages or packets with fault management
   information.

   If the TC sub-TLV is present, then the sender of any periodic
   continuity monitoring messages or packets with fault management
   information on the LSP, with a FEC Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
   that corresponds to the FEC for which fault detection is being
   performed, MUST use the value contained in the TC field of the sub-TLV sub-
   TLV as the value of the TC field in the top label stack entry of the
   MPLS label stack.  If the TC sub-
   TLV sub-TLV is absent from either "BFD
   Configuration sub-TLV" or "Fault Management Signal sub-TLV", then
   selection of the TC value is a local decision.

2.2.6.  Performance Measurement Monitoring Sub-TLV

   If the MPLS OAM Functions TLV has any of the L (Loss), D (Delay) (Delay), and
   T (Throughput) flag flags set, the Performance Measurement Monitoring sub-TLV MUST be
   present.  Failure to include the correct sub-TLVs MUST result in an
   "OAM Problem/ Problem/PM Configuration Error" error being generated.

   The Performance Measurement Monitoring sub-TLV provides the configuration
   information mentioned in Section 7 of [RFC6374].  It includes support
   for the configuration of quality thresholds and, as described in
   [RFC6374], "the
   [RFC6374]:

      ...the crossing of which will trigger warnings or alarms, and
      result in reporting and exception notification will be integrated
      into the system-wide network management and reporting framework." framework.

   In case the values need to be different than the default ones, the
   Performance Measurement Monitoring sub-TLV MAY include the following sub-TLVs:

      -

   o  PM Loss sub-TLV sub-TLV, if the L flag is set in the MPLS OAM Functions
      TLV;
      -

   o  PM Delay sub-TLV sub-TLV, if the D flag is set in the MPLS OAM Functions
      TLV.

   The Performance Measurement Monitoring sub-TLV depicted in Figure 8 is carried as
   a sub-TLV of the MPLS OAM Functions TLV.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Perf
   |Perf. Monitoring Type (200)    | Sub-type (200)|          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     PM Configuration Flags                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 8: Performance Measurement sub-TLV format Monitoring Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the Performance Management Monitoring sub-
   TLV"
   TLV (value 200).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets, including
   PM Configuration Flags and optional 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |D|L|J|Y|K|C|            Reserved (set to all 0s)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 9: Performance Measurement sub-TLV format PM Configuration Flags, Flags Format
   The PM Configuration Flags format is presented in Figure 9, for 9.  For the
   specific function description description, please refer to [RFC6374]:

      -

   D:    Delay inferred/direct (0=INFERRED, 1=DIRECT).  If the egress
         LSR does not support the specified mode mode, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported Problem/
         Unsupported Delay Mode" error MUST be generated.

      -

   L:    Loss inferred/direct (0=INFERRED, 1=DIRECT).  If the egress LSR
         does not support the specified mode mode, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported Problem/
         Unsupported Loss Mode" error MUST be generated.

      -

   J:    Delay variation/jitter (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress
         LSR does not support Delay variation measurements and the J
         flag is set, an "OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported" error
         MUST be generated.

      -

   Y:    Dyadic (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress LSR does not
         support Dyadic mode and the Y flag is set, an "OAM Problem/Dyadic Problem/
         Dyadic mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.

      -

   K:    Loopback (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress LSR does not
         support Loopback mode and the K flag is set, an "OAM Problem/
         Loopback mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.

      -

   C:    Combined (1=ACTIVE, 0=NOT ACTIVE).  If the egress LSR does not
         support Combined mode and the C flag is set, an "OAM Problem/
         Combined mode unsupported" error MUST be generated.

   Reserved:  Reserved for future specification and specification; set to 0 on
         transmission and ignored when received.

2.2.7.  PM Loss Measurement Sub-TLV

   The PM Loss Measurement sub-TLV depicted in Figure 10 is carried as a
   sub-TLV of the Performance Measurement Monitoring sub-TLV.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  PM Loss sub-type Sub-type (201)       |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | OTF |T|B|              Reserved (set to all 0s)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Measurement Interval                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Test Interval                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Loss Threshold                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 10: PM Loss Measurement sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the PM Loss Measurement sub-TLV
   (value 201).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets (16).

   OTF: Origin Timestamp Format of the Origin Timestamp field described
   in [RFC6374].  By default default, it is set to IEEE 1588 version 1.  If the
   egress LSR cannot support this value value, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported
   Timestamp Format" error MUST be generated.

   Configuration Flags, please refer to [RFC6374] for further details:

      -

   T:    Traffic-class-specific measurement indicator.  Set to 1 when
         the measurement operation is scoped to packets of a particular
         traffic class (DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point value), and 0
         otherwise.  When set to 1, the
      DS Differentiated Services (DS)
         field of the message indicates the measured traffic class.  By
      default
         default, it is set to 1.

      -

   B:    Octet (byte) count.  When set to 1, indicates that the Counter
         1-4 fields represent octet counts.  When set to 0, indicates
         that the Counter 1-4 fields represent packet counts.  By
      default
         default, it is set to 0.

   Reserved: Reserved for future specification and specification; set to 0 on transmission
   and ignored when received.

   Measurement Interval: the The time interval (in milliseconds) at which
   Loss Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions.  If
   the edge LSR receiving the Path message cannot support such a value,
   it SHOULD reply with a higher interval.  By default default, it is set to
   (100) as per [RFC6375].

   Test Interval: test Test messages interval in milliseconds as described in
   [RFC6374].  By default default, it is set to (10) as per [RFC6375].

   Loss Threshold: the The threshold value of measured lost packets per
   measurement over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered.

2.2.8.  PM Delay Measurement Sub-TLV

   The "PM Delay Measurement sub-TLV" depicted in Figure 11 is carried
   as a sub-TLV of the Performance Monitoring sub-TLV.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  PM Delay Type Sub-type (202)      |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | OTF |T|B|             Reserved (set to all 0s)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Measurement Interval                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Test Interval                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Delay Threshold                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 11: PM Delay Measurement sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the "PM Delay Measurement sub-
   TLV" (value 202).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets (16).

   OTF: Origin Timestamp Format of the Origin Timestamp field described
   in [RFC6374].  By default default, it is set to IEEE 1588 version 1.  If the
   egress LSR cannot support this value, an "OAM Problem/Unsupported
   Timestamp Format" error MUST be generated.

   Configuration Flags, please refer to [RFC6374] for further details:

      -

   T:    Traffic-class-specific measurement indicator.  Set to 1 when
         the measurement operation is scoped to packets of a particular
         traffic class (DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point value), and 0
         otherwise.  When set to 1, the DS field of the message
         indicates the measured traffic class.  By
      default default, it is set to
         1.

      -

   B:    Octet (byte) count.  When set to 1, indicates that the Counter
         1-4 fields represent octet counts.  When set to 0, indicates
         that the Counter 1-4 fields represent packet counts.  By
      default
         default, it is set to 0.

   Reserved: Reserved for future specification and specification; set to 0 on transmission
   and ignored when received.

   Measurement Interval: the The time interval (in milliseconds) at which
   Delay Measurement query messages MUST be sent on both directions.  If
   the edge LSR receiving the Path message cannot support such a value,
   it can reply with a higher interval.  By default default, it is set to (1000)
   as per [RFC6375].

   Test Interval: test Test messages interval (in milliseconds) as described
   in [RFC6374].  By default default, it is set to (10) as per [RFC6375].

   Delay Threshold: the The threshold value of measured two-way delay (in
   milliseconds) over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered.

2.2.9.  Fault Management Signal Sub-TLV

   The FMS sub-TLV depicted in Figure 12 is carried as a sub-TLV of the
   MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV.  When both working and protection
   paths are configured, both LSPs SHOULD be configured with identical
   settings of the E flag, T flag, and the refresh timer.  An
   implementation MAY configure the working and protection LSPs with
   different settings of these fields in case of 1:N protection.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       FMS sub-type Sub-type (300)      |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |E|S|T|            Reserved           |      Refresh Timer      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 12: Fault Management Signal sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the FMS sub-TLV (value 300).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets.

   FMS Signal Flags are used to enable the FMS signals Flags at end point MEPs and the
   Server MEPs of the links over which the LSP is forwarded.  In this document
   document, only the S flag pertains to Server MEPs.

   The following flags are defined:

      -

   E:    Enable Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) and Lock Report (LKR)
         signaling as described in [RFC6427].  Default value is 1
         (enabled).  If the egress MEP does not support FMS signal Flag
         generation, an "OAM Problem/Fault management signaling
         unsupported" error MUST be generated.

      -

   S:    Indicate to a server Server MEP that it should transmit AIS and LKR
         signals on the client LSP.  Default value is 0 (disabled).  If
         a Server MEP which that is capable of generating FMS messages is is, for
         some
      reason reason, unable to do so for the LSP being signaled, an
         "OAM Problem/Unable to create fault management association"
         error MUST be generated.

      -

   T:    Set timer value, enabled the configuration of a specific timer
         value.  Default value is 0 (disabled).

      - Remaining bits: Reserved

   Reserved: Bits 4-16 that follow the FMS Flags are reserved for future specification and
   allocation.  These bits MUST be set to 0. 0 on transmit and ignored on
   receipt if not allocated.

   Refresh Timer: indicates Indicates the refresh timer of fault indication
   messages, in seconds.  The value MUST be between 1 to 20 seconds as
   specified for the Refresh Timer field in [RFC6427].  If the edge LSR
   receiving the Path message cannot support the value value, it SHOULD reply
   with a higher timer value.

   FMS sub-TLV MAY include Traffic Class sub-TLV Section 2.2.5. (Section 2.2.5).  If
   the TC sub-TLV is present, the value of the TC field MUST be used as
   the value of the TC field of an MPLS label stack entry for FMS
   messages.  If the TC sub-TLV is absent, then selection of the TC
   value is a local decision.

2.2.10.  Source MEP-ID Sub-TLV

   The Source MEP-ID sub-TLV depicted in Figure 13 is carried as a sub-
   TLV of the MPLS OAM Functions TLV.

   Note that support of ITU IDs is out-of-scope. out of scope.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Source MEP-ID sub-type Sub-type (400)  |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Source Node ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Tunnel ID           |           LSP ID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 13: Source MEP-ID sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format

   Sub-type: indicates Indicates a new sub-type, the Source MEP-ID sub-TLV (value
   400).

   Length: indicates Indicates the length of the Value field in octets (8).

   Source Node ID: 32-bit node identifier as defined in [RFC6370].

   Tunnel ID: a A 16-bit unsigned integer unique to the node as defined in
   [RFC6370].

   LSP ID: a A 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID as
   defined in [RFC6370].

3.  Summary of MPLS OAM Configuration Errors

   This is the summary of Return Codes [RFC4379] defined in this
   document:

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified BFD version, an
      error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version".

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified BFD Encapsulation
      format, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/
      Unsupported Problem/Unsupported BFD
      Encapsulation format".

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support BFD Authentication, and it is
      requested, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/BFD
      Authentication unsupported".

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified BFD Authentication
      Type, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/
      Unsupported Problem/Unsupported BFD
      Authentication Type".

      -

   o  If an egress LSR is not able to use the specified Authentication
      Key ID, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD
      Authentication Key ID".

      -

   o  If PM flags in MPLS OAM Functions TLV don't have corresponding PM
      sub-TLVs present, an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/PM
      Configuration Error".

   o  If an egress LSR does not support the specified Timestamp Format,
      an error MUST be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp
      Format".

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support specified Delay mode, an "OAM
      Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode" error MUST be generated.

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support specified Loss mode, an "OAM
      Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode" error MUST be generated.

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support Delay variation measurements,
      and it is requested, an "OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported"
      error MUST be generated.

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support Dyadic mode, and it is
      requested, an "OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported" error MUST be
      generated.

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support Loopback mode, and it is
      requested, an "OAM Problem/Loopback mode unsupported" error MUST
      be generated.

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support Combined mode, and it is
      requested, an "OAM Problem/Combined mode unsupported" error MUST
      be generated.

      -

   o  If an egress LSR does not support Fault Monitoring Signals, and it
      is requested, an "OAM Problem/Fault management signaling
      unsupported" error MUST be generated.

      -

   o  If an intermediate server Server MEP supports Fault Monitoring Signals Signals,
      but is unable to create an association, when requested to do so,
      an "OAM Problem/Unable to create fault management association"
      error MUST be generated.

   Ingress LSR MAY combine multiple MPLS OAM configuration TLVs and sub-
   TLVs into single MPLS echo request.  In case an egress LSR doesn't
   support any of the requested modes modes, it MUST set the return code to
   report the first unsupported mode in the list of TLVs and sub-TLVs.
   And if any of the requested OAM configuration is not supported supported, the
   egress LSR SHOULD NOT process OAM Configuration TLVs and sub-TLVs
   listed in the MPLS echo request.

4.  IANA Considerations

4.1.  TLV and Sub-TLV Allocation

   IANA maintains the Multi-Protocol "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry, and Parameters" registry and, within that
   registry
   registry, a sub-registry subregistry for TLVs and sub-TLVs.

   IANA is requested to allocate has allocated a new MPLS OAM Functions TLV from the
   standards action Standards
   Action [RFC5226] range (0-16383) and sub-TLVs as follows from sub-
   registry
   subregistry presented in Table 1, called "Sub-TLVs for TLV [TBA1]". Type 27".

   Registration procedures for Sub-TLVs from ranges 0-16383 and
   32768-49161 are by Standards Action, and from ranges Action.  Ranges 16384-31743 and
   49162-64511 are through Specification Required (Experimental RFC
   Needed).

   +------+----------+---------------------------------+---------------+
   | Type | Sub-type | Value Field                     | Reference     |
   +------+----------+---------------------------------+---------------+
   | TBA1 27   |          | MPLS OAM Functions              | This document |
   |      | 100      | BFD Configuration               | This document |
   |      | 101      | BFD Local Discriminator         | This document |
   |      | 102      | BFD Negotiation Timer           | This document |
   |      |          | Parameters                      |               |
   |      | 103      | BFD Authentication              | This document |
   |      | 104      | Traffic Class                   | This document |
   |      | 200      | Performance Measurement Monitoring          | This document |
   |      | 201      | PM Loss Measurement             | This document |
   |      | 202      | PM Delay Measurement            | This document |
   |      | 300      | Fault Management Signal         | This document |
   |      | 400      | Source MEP-ID                   | This document |
   +------+----------+---------------------------------+---------------+

                     Table 1: IANA TLV Type Allocation

4.2.  MPLS OAM Function Flags Allocation

   IANA is requested to create has created a new registry called the "MPLS OAM Function Flags" registry .
   registry.  Assignments of bit positions 0 through 31 are via
   Standards Action.  The new registry is to be populated as follows.

   +------------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
   |    Bit     | MPLS OAM Function  | Description                     |
   |  Position  |        Flag        |                                 |
   +------------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
   |     0      |         C          | Continuity Check (CC)           |
   |     1      |         V          | Connectivity Verification (CV)  |
   |     2      |         F          | Fault Management Signal (FMS)   |
   |     3      |         L          | Performance Measurement/Loss Monitoring/Loss     |
   |            |                    | (PM/Loss)                       |
   |     4      |         D          | Performance Measurement/Delay Monitoring/Delay    |
   |            |                    | (PM/Delay)                      |
   |     5      |         T          | Throughput Measurement          |
   |    6-30    |                    | Unassigned (Must be zero)       |
   |     31     |                    | Reserved                        |
   +------------+--------------------+---------------------------------+

                     Table 2: MPLS OAM Function Flags

4.3.  OAM Configuration Errors

   IANA maintains a registry "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, Parameters", and within that
   registry a sub-registry subregistry "Return Codes".

   IANA is requested to assign has assigned new Return Codes from the Standards Action range
   (0-191) as follows:

   +---------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+

   +----------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
   | Error Value    | Description                          | Reference |
   | Sub-codes      |                                      |           |
   +---------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
   +----------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
   | TBA3 21             | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version  | This document      |
   |                | Version                                      | document  |
   | TBA4 22             | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD          | This document      |
   |                | Encapsulation format                 | document  |
   | TBA5 23             | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD          | This document      |
   |                | Authentication Type                  | document  |
   | TBA6 24             | OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD          | This document      |
   |                | Authentication Key ID                | document  |
   | TBA7 25             | OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp    | This document      |
   |                | Format                               | document  |
   | TBA8 26             | OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode   | This document      |
   |                | Mode                                      | document  |
   | TBA9 27             | OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode    | This      |
   |                |                                      | document  |
   | TBA10 28             | OAM Problem/Delay variation          | This document      |
   |                | unsupported                          | document  |
   | TBA11 29             | OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported  | This document      |
   |                | unsupported                                      | document  |
   | TBA12 30             | OAM Problem/Loopback mode            | This document      |
   |                | unsupported                          | document  |
   | TBA13 31             | OAM Problem/Combined mode            | This document      |
   |                | unsupported                          | document  |
   | TBA14 32             | OAM Problem/Fault management         | This document      |
   |                | signaling unsupported                | document  |
   | TBA15 33             | OAM Problem/Unable to create fault   | This document      |
   |                | fault management association               | document  |
   | 34             | OAM Problem/PM Configuration Error   | This      |
   |                |                                      | document  |
   +---------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
   +----------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+

                   Table 3: IANA Return Codes Allocation

5.  Security Considerations

   The signaling of OAM related OAM-related parameters and the automatic
   establishment of OAM entities introduces additional security
   considerations to those discussed in [RFC4379].  In particular, a
   network element could be overloaded if an attacker were to request
   high frequency
   high-frequency liveliness monitoring of a large number of LSPs,
   targeting a single network element.  Implementations must be made
   cognizant of available OAM resources and MAY refuse new OAM
   configurations that would overload a node.  Additionally, policies to
   manage OAM resources may be used to provide some fairness in OAM
   resource distribution among monitored LSPs.

   Security of OAM protocols configured with extensions to LSP Ping
   described in this document are discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884],
   [RFC6374], [RFC6427], and [RFC6428].

   In order that the configuration of OAM functionality can be achieved
   securely through the techniques described in this document, security
   mechanisms must already be in place and operational for LSP Ping.
   Thus
   Thus, the exchange of security parameters (such as keys) for use in
   securing OAM is outside the scope of this document and is assumed to
   use an off-line mechanism or an established secure key-exchange key exchange
   protocol.

   Additional discussion of security for MPLS protocols can be found in
   [RFC5920].

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, David Allan and Adrian
   Farrel for their thorough reviews and insightful comments.

7.  References

7.1.

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
              Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
              Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
              September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC5884]  Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
              June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.

   [RFC6370]  Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6370, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6370>.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.

   [RFC6427]  Swallow, G., Ed., Fulignoli, A., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed.,
              Boutros, S., and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
              RFC 6427, DOI 10.17487/RFC6427, November 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6427>.

   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Ed., Swallow Ed., G., and J. Drake Ed.,
              "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check,
              and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport
              Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.

7.2.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
              2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.

   [RFC5860]  Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
              "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and
              Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6371]  Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based
              Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371,
              September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.

   [RFC6375]  Frost, D., Ed. and S. Bryant, Ed., "A Packet Loss and
              Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport
              Networks", RFC 6375, DOI 10.17487/RFC6375, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6375>.

   [RFC6669]  Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS-
              Based Transport Networks", RFC 6669, DOI 10.17487/RFC6669,
              July 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6669>.

   [RFC7419]  Akiya, N., Binderberger, M., and G. Mirsky, "Common
              Interval Support in Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
              RFC 7419, DOI 10.17487/RFC7419, December 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7419>.

   [RFC7487]  Bellagamba, E., Takacs, A., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L.,
              Skoldstrom, P., and D. Ward, "Configuration of Proactive
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
              Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using RSVP-
              TE", RFC 7487, DOI 10.17487/RFC7487, March 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7487>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, David Allan, and Adrian
   Farrel for their thorough reviews and insightful comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Elisa Bellagamba

   Email: elisa.bellagamba@gmail.com

   Gregory Mirsky
   Ericsson

   Email: Gregory.Mirsky@ericsson.com

   Loa Andersson
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com

   Pontus Skoldstrom
   Acreo AB
   Electrum 236
   Kista  164 40
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 8 6327731
   Email: pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se

   Dave Ward
   Cisco

   Email: dward@cisco.com

   John Drake
   Juniper

   Email: jdrake@juniper.net